Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[DeeDee249]

Thanks, DeeDee. No, not confusing the two, just wondering whether there's a specific/concrete reason many posters feel that DP might have molested his daughters - a statement, a behavior noted, that sort of thing.

I don't think there is anything concrete. People have commented on family dynamics, stuff like that, as well as Nedra's odd comment. There are also some who feel that because Patsy's sisters became obese it indicated that it was to make themselves unattractive sexually. Not sure whether I agree with that. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
However, I do feel there could have been molestation in the family's past.

 

[celticthyme]

After reading the books, including Kolar's, I still think John Ramsey is my prime suspect. The very disturbing fact however, is that Burke or Patsy could have molested or killed her as well. The cover up and staging were done, along with the RN, to distract, deter and obfuscate the sexual abuse and killing. The more I read of the interviews by various LE agents, the more disturbed I become at how uninvolved and detached Patsy was to her children. The fact that she could not be bothered to concentrate on keeping them clean, or potty training them, showing them how to take care of themselves in the bathroom or even flush the toilet is mind boggling to me. I can not imagine what that woman did all day with her time. She had helpers for everything and still her children were just little dress up dolls to her.

 

[DeDee]

And why did JR have photos of the daughter that died in his "bathroom"??? Odd? Or convenient?

New Year Greetings, ShadyLady.

It is a bit odd to me. By convenient, do you imply he was turned on by a picture of his deceased daughter?

Perhaps Patsy framed the photograph for him, as a loving tribute, and placed it in its location. John never moved it.

Was the photograph actually on the bathroom counter or placed in his dressing room area?

 

[gramcracker]

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/07211998lindawilcoxon-pb.htm

PETER BOYLES: Things that you haven't said so far, stories you haven't told, tell me about them.

LINDA WILCOX: One thing I thought was really odd, when I first worked there. Their oldest daughter, Beth, had died before I started working there. I've had a lot of death in my family, lots of family members have died, most of them prematurely. So, in the back of my photo albums, I tend to have like a collage of whoever it was, like my father, for example.

Well, he had this frame with the different holes for the different sized pictures, like a collage frame. He had this collage frame with pictures of Beth in them. From when she was a little kid, when she was a cheerleader, like that, which in and of itself is not odd at all especially with someone who has died. Except that he kept it in his bathroom. It wasn't even hung up at first. It stayed between, (some talking here that I can't understand - except she says, no let me go on, this is significant). He had one of those big sunken tubs and a separate shower and it sat between the tub and the wall. And then when the house flooded, which I'll tell you about later, it was right before the tour, like a week before the tour, the house flooded over Thanksgiving break which was a problem with a window and a faucet - it ran the whole time and flooded the house. Fortunately, it skipped that picture. But, at that time, it went on the wall, a few feet up and over behind the door but it stayed in his bathroom. It just, that always struck me as being kind of weird. Who keeps a picture of their dead kid in the bathroom?

Lawrence Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town/kindle location 8330:

[Per housekeeper Linda Wilcox] After Beth died, John didn't have a lot of pictures of Melinda and John Andrew around - just photos of Beth, even in his bathroom. He'd written a poem to her called "Daddy's Little Girl" that he kept on his dresser where he put his watch and loose change every night. Right where he could see it every day. Twice a day, really.

[snipped]

So John Ramsey had already lost one child. I cannot imagine anyone who has gone through that pain to intentionally inflict it on himself a second time. I cannot imagine it. Just cannot. His subconscious knew that pain. It is the worst pain ever. His subconscious would have stopped him. Whoever struck that blow, it wasn't John Ramsey.

 

[dazeerae]

Keeping photographs in the bathroom of anyone, living or dead, is unusual because of the humidity in the bathroom. I would think that most people wouldn't consider keeping precious family pictures in a room that could very easily damage the pictures. That's really the only thing I find odd about it....it's just not commonly done. I do find it odd, if true, that he only had pictures of Beth & not John Andrew or Melinda. If John wouldn't do it, I would think Patsy would hang up pictures of the other children. He has fathered 5 children, and the grown kids were close enough to visit on Christmas Day, so why not hang photos of them?

 

[krimekat]

brother did it

he also "killed" her

parents covered it up IMHO

 

[borndem]

Recently viewed an old interview with Barbara Walters and the R’s. One of the questions pertained to why they were trying to leave for Atlanta so soon after the discovery of JB’s body. JR’s claim is that the police were “making” them leave the house and since Atlanta was their “real” home, they wanted to just be back in their home in Georgia near family and friends. (Actually, he told the LE that he had a business meeting.) But regarding the answer he gave Walters, JR does not acknowledge for a minute, that moving to a location many states away right after the discovery of one’s deceased child, might seem strange to others. They have an explanation for it, so they can claim it’s not “odd.” JR does not grasp that others would see this action as extraordinary.

There are a few (many?) other “oddities,” in the way they explained things, but first a little background story. From a heartbreaking scene in Marilyn Van Derbur Atler’s memoir there's a story about her mother approaching her bedroom door, when her father was molesting her. For a moment Marilyn believes she will be rescued from abuse. But then her mother turns away. Her mother looked the other way for 13 years. Juxtapose that scene against what was happening to JB with the statement of PR to investigator TD:

PR describes in an interview with TD about teaching JB that no one was supposed to touch JB where her bathing suit touched her except for her mother and Dr. B when her mother was there. She spells it out further: “Not BR, not JR, not grampa”. Yet that message didn’t obviously get across to JB who asked anyone in the vicinity to help her wipe. She’d been touched there and thought it was ok. If she asked for anyone to help her wipe, I believe she did so innocently, as PR had undoubtedly scolded her about her poor wiping and associated it with her vaginal distress. PR goes into detail about her teaching to JB, a clue of negating the family secret. Also, I was mystified why she includes so many family males in this description of not allowing them to touch her where her bathing suit touches her. Wouldn’t most people talk about people outside the family? Is PR covering her butt here, I taught her not to allow the family to molest her, I’m not at fault?

Also, look at how she handles the questioning from investigator H during the interview regarding sexual abuse. Know not everyone will agree here, but her answers are short and very guarded. The questioning is stopped for a bit, and then PR asks for proof of this abuse. PR doesn’t give up a thing about it. If someone told me that my daughter had been abused at some time prior to her death, and I didn’t know, I would show a much more outraged response, not just ask for proof. Why would PR be guarded? Perhaps because, imo, she is guarding the family secret. And, as Marilyn discusses in her memoir, mothers can and do sometimes just look the other way. Jmho.

bbm

Good post, questfortrue!

Just a short note about Van Derbur: She was crowned Miss America in 1958, and she was born & raised in Denver, Co. I can't imagine that PR didn't know who she was... They may have even met each other.

Here is a good article about what she went through -- nothing graphic, just sad and maddening -- and what she did to get over it & help others.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20115294,00.html

Surely PR knew about Van Derbur and her life. I'd love to know if she knew or knew of her.

 

[borndem]

Hello Sleuthers!

New here,
.
.
.
[respectfully snipped by borndem]
.
.

:seeya:Welcome :seeya:

to

Websleuths

:drumroll:Elfinator:drumroll:

We're glad you've joined our little gang!

 

[borndem]

After reading the books, including Kolar's, I still think John Ramsey is my prime suspect. The very disturbing fact however, is that Burke or Patsy could have molested or killed her as well. The cover up and staging were done, along with the RN, to distract, deter and obfuscate the sexual abuse and killing. The more I read of the interviews by various LE agents, the more disturbed I become at how uninvolved and detached Patsy was to her children. The fact that she could not be bothered to concentrate on keeping them clean, or potty training them, showing them how to take care of themselves in the bathroom or even flush the toilet is mind boggling to me. I can not imagine what that woman did all day with her time. She had helpers for everything and still her children were just little dress up dolls to her.

bbm

Good post, celticthyme. You pointed out (my bold) what has been on my mind during this whole thing -- her detachment from her childen. Her being inconvenienced, IMO, by having to raise her children, even though others washed their clothes, fed them, played with them, and were nannies to them. Was she less detached with JB because she was a happy, smiling, outgoing, and -- most important of all to PR, IMO, pretty little girl who might one day wear a Miss America crown?

Was it JR's distance, always being away at the office both at work & at home, coupled with PR's apparent busy-ness with whatever other things, that made BR so detached as well? Kolar devoted an entire chapter, named "Enigma," to BR. Many people, when they spoke about BR, noted how detached & unemotional he was. He was an only child for a little while, and, being one myself, he learned to play independently when friends/cousins were not near. And then here comes this baby girl (how uninteresting to him, IMO); he didn't have to share things until she came along. "Oh, what a pretty little girl!" "Isn't she so sweet & pretty," etc, etc. And then came the pageants, and the dresses, and the smiles, and the practicing walking & dancing & and batting her eyes, and the outfits, and the routines, the poses, photo shoots, and the dancing lessons, and, and, and. What about me??

No wonder BR stayed in his own world. I'm not giving him a pass (I'm a BDI, btw), by any stretch, but if he is the one who initially hurt her with the head blow, I can see it, in his child's eye. And then all the follow-up. A big deal -- and now that she's gone, she still gets all the attention. How frustrating and unfair, he may have thought. But at least she is gone now.

JMHO.

 

[DeDee]

DeeDee, your knowledge of this case is amazing. My head bows to your dedication to solving this case. Thank you.

Yes, the pull-ups were there, but Patsy no longer put them on JB. If you read LHP's interviews, she said that Patsy decided it was no big deal just to launder the sheets each morning. She said that when she arrived in the mornings, Patsy had already stripped JB's bed and the sheets were already in the wash.
Patsy hated the idea of JB wearing pull ups and would have rather just changed her bed every day.

In the interviews, Patsy said she likely placed a few pull-ups in the suitcase for their trip meaning the upcoming cruise. From the conversation it is clear that Patsy is punishing her daughter by forcing her to sleep on wet bedding and in wet clothing instead of using a pull-up because pull-ups keep the moisture away.

PR: If I just didn’t take her to the potty and make her go to the potty before bedtime, she very likely would wet the bed.
TT: Ok. You have any idea about, has this been going on for how long? Any time that she broken and didn’t have any bed wetting problems and then started back up or anything like that.
PR: No, no, she just, I mean I’ve had her in pull-ups until very recently. I kind of thought it might be better, I mean pull-ups and those pamper things are so absorbent, that you can’t you know, the child can’t feel if they’re wet or not. So I thought well it might just be better if she felt wet than being…
Patsy Ramsey, 1997 interview

TOM HANEY: In the video that the police took walking through, which was taken some time later, there are -- there are packages of Pull-ups.
PATSY RAMSEY: They would be in there, yeah.
TOM HANEY: All right. They are partially hanging out in the video?
PATSY RAMSEY: Yup.
TOM HANEY: Would those be the Pull-ups that you would normally put on JonBenet?
PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
TOM HANEY: Do you recall the last time you put those on her?
PATSY RAMSEY: It hadn't been for quite some time, but I remember buying them to take a few with us on the cruise, thinking that maybe a combination it would be like on the cruise, and I didn't want her to spoil the mattress. So I bought a new package, and probably had taken some out and put them in the suitcase I was packing. But she hadn't really worn them, you know, very much recently.
TOM HANEY: Do you recall prior when the last time you put Pull-ups on her?
PATSY RAMSEY: No.
Patsy Ramsey, 1998 interview

I agree both parents loved their little girl. What happened that night happened in an instant- one horrible, irreversible moment. A second and she was gone. I believe the head bash was so severe that she collapsed instantly, probably became comatose at once. She may have appeared dead at that point as shock and coma would have lowered her body temperature and her breathing may have become so shallow as to seem to be non-existent. So here we have a child who seems to have been killed instantly (though this was not the case) and how do we "explain" THAT? We know also that something penetrated her vagina with enough force to make her bleed, and she bled enough that it dripped onto her thighs and required wiping off. The abuse was intentional. The head bash was intentional. Her death was not. It's how they all fit together that holds the key to this murder.

BBM
The first statement directly conflicts with the following opinions unless BDI:

• I agree both parents loved their little girl.
  
• I believe the head bash was so severe that she collapsed instantly, probably became comatose at once.
  
• The abuse was intentional.
  
• The head bash was intentional.

And these statements,

The abuse was intentional. The head bash was intentional.

Conflict with this:

Her death was not.

So, she was not meant to die when the intentional severe head bash cracked her tiny skull over 8" and punched a hole in the bone?

I think the reason for the head wound is simple- she screamed and she was bashed to shut her up- FAST.

JonBenet felt pain, danger or both if she screamed. Why not whisper calmly to her? Why not cover her mouth with a hand to stifle the scream? Why hit her with such force that she slips into an immediate coma?

I believe the head bash was so severe that she collapsed instantly, probably became comatose at once.

Were there any physical indications that she suffered bruising as she collapsed?

 

[DeDee]

The final sexual abuse of JonBenet was intentional.

vlpate,

< Respectfully snipped by me >

That is Patsy has a personality disorder, she has been assaulting JonBenet regularly e.g. digitally. This would explain a lot of stuff at a stroke, particularly the wine-cellar crime-scene, and link Patsy's finger to cellulose from the paintbrush handle?

.

Could the paintbrush have been inserted in order to avoid her DNA from being detected in her daughter's vagina?

Nuisanceposter,
Yes I've always thought it significant that both Burke and JonBenet wore the pull-ups long after they should have. Thanks for the quotes and timeline.

There is no question about JonBenet soiling herself, she left a pair of soiled jeans and underwear lying on her bathroom floor <snipped >

I have the impression that Patsy was not a very loving mother, not nurturing, prone to periods of neglect e.g. farming the children out to others. IMO the project approach is indicative of the lack of nurturing.

Patsy may have been strict and disciplinarian in her project approach and this likely brought on the bed-wetting, alternatively she may have been
emotionally neglectful with the children < snipped >

.

Patsy was out of control with her project, meaning JonBenet, of course.

I will not post pictures of JonBenet's hair bleached blonde but, clearly, dying your 6yo child's natural hair color so that she may have an advantage to win glamorous competitions is not using proper parenting skills.

I will not post images of JonBenet in the black and white Vegas showgirl costume. Clearly, dressing one's 6yof child, who was really closer in age to five than she was to seven, in such outlandish and startling attire is abusive behavior.


What damage do these maternal acts cause to the normal psyche of a young child's mind? Did JB think she was unacceptable or unappealing as a brunette and could only obtain trophies by being sexy?

Some believe BDI and P and R tried to protect their remaining child - as if. They would've protected the first one by dialling 911. Anyone who wasn't on the phone to 911 THE SECOND they found their injured baby convulsing on a floor, is totally psychopathic.

The fact that they even stopped for a second and PLOTTED while JB was dying on their floor, pretty much confirms to me that they are also the only ones in that house capable of causing the crime in the first place.

B was a child too, and a small one. They would have had no idea if he killed his sister, or how, or care why, they would have been on 911 and figuring it out afterwards once they'd called their fancy lawyers.

<respectfully snipped >

ITA, but then

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

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

< respectfully snipped >

The acute injuries were intentional. They bled.
So was the head injury. We know that by the force required.
So was the strangulation.
It all occurred in a fairly rapid succession.

< Respectfully snipped by me >

JonBenet showed no signs whatsoever of a struggle.

Correct. Does this mean her skull was cracked at the same place she was garroted?

 

[otg]

(snipped)

The acute injuries were intentional. They bled.
So was the head injury. We know that by the force required.
So was the strangulation.
It all occurred in a fairly rapid succession.

(I'll address only the portion posted in response to my previous post):

The acute injuries were intentional. They bled.

The injuries (speaking here only about the sexual injuries) were not intentional, and bleeding is not an indication of it. The act that caused the injuries was intentional -- the injuries were the result of the act.

So was the head injury. We know that by the force required.

The amount of force required does not necessarily prove intent. I do agree with you that the head blow was delivered intentionally, but I don't think it was with the intent of causing death (but that's JMO).

So was the strangulation.

I disagree completely with that one. I believe the strangulation is what was accidental.

It all occurred in a fairly rapid succession.

I absolutely agree there. It was all a series of subsequent resulting actions.

 

[DeDee]

(snipped)

(I'll address only the portion posted in response to my previous post):
The injuries (speaking here only about the sexual injuries) were not intentional, and bleeding is not an indication of it. The act that caused the injuries was intentional -- the injuries were the result of the act.

The amount of force required does not necessarily prove intent. I do agree with you that the head blow was delivered intentionally, but I don't think it was with the intent of causing death (but that's JMO).

I disagree completely with that one. I believe the strangulation is what was accidental.

I absolutely agree there. It was all a series of subsequent resulting actions.

The act that caused the injuries was intentional -- the injuries were the result of the act.

I hope I have corrected my statement to your satisfaction:

The acute injuries were caused intentionally. They bled.

The bleeding does not necessarily indicate intentional trauma. The interior round abrasion was believed to be caused by an object firmer than a digit. Another on the exterior could have been a point of restraining the child.

So, we agree the sexual abuse injuries were caused intentionally. Can we also agree an adult caused the acute sexual injuries?

The amount of force required does not necessarily prove intent.

We will definitely need to disagree on this point unless you can explain why the tremendous force used was not intended to kill. What reason would anyone have to strike her head so hard it cracks her skull 8" unless it was meant to kill?

The head injury was not caused by a mild thump. The blunt force trauma closed head injury was a COD.

You believe the strangulation was an accident even though the cord around her neck was in a slip knot. It seems that now I recall reading your excellent hypothesis a while back whereby BR was totally involved in the head bash and accidental strangulation.

I can understand how the cord could become an accidental killing tool. I just don't think it was an accident in this case.

Since BR's knife was reported to be in the area near the body in the basement and that a fiber from the cord was on it, do you suspect BR found its hiding place on the second floor?

 

[otg]

I hope I have corrected my statement to your satisfaction:

The acute injuries were caused intentionally. They bled.

DD, I apologize if my remarks seemed in any way hostile. I was simply trying to have a dialog with you so we could both understand one another&#8217;s viewpoints. I&#8217;m not trying to get you to say something a certain way, or to say something if you don&#8217;t agree with it. In this instance, there are posters (and you may be one of them -- which is fine, if that&#8217;s how you feel) who believe the vaginal injuries were inflicted intentionally for the purpose of hiding the chronic injuries. Hence, the injuries would be intentional. OTOH, if the act that caused the injuries was done for its own reasons (some sort of molestation), the injuries were unintentional but were the result of what was done. Maybe it&#8217;s my OCD kicking in, but it does seem to me to make a considerable difference.

So for the same reason, I&#8217;m not simply trying to parse words or pick apart what you say in the following -- I&#8217;m just trying to understand your meaning so we both understand one another.

The bleeding does not necessarily indicate intentional trauma.

Good. We agree on this one. :great:

The interior round abrasion was believed to be caused by an object firmer than a digit.

Well, it is believed by some (myself included). Others can&#8217;t get over the coroner&#8217;s use of the words &#8220;consistent with digital penetration&#8221;. Taking a strict adherence to the words, some believe the coroner determined that only a finger could have been used to cause it. I don&#8217;t believe that&#8217;s what the coroner meant, and I'm glad you don't either.

Another on the exterior could have been a point of restraining the child.

I&#8217;m not sure if you mean here the apparent bruise -- what the coroner describes as &#8220;a very faint area of violet discoloration&#8221; on &#8220;the right labia majora&#8221;. If so, I&#8217;m not sure how that might be a point of restraint. My interpretation of that is that it probably lines up with where the object that was inserted (probably the paintbrush, IMO) caused a bruise. I think this because of its size (approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch), but its orientation with the other vaginal injuries is not mentioned in the AR.

So, we agree the sexual abuse injuries were caused intentionally. Can we also agree an adult caused the acute sexual injuries?

:hand: Nope. (Sorry, we&#8217;ll have to part ways on that one.)

We will definitely need to disagree on this point unless you can explain why the tremendous force used was not intended to kill. What reason would anyone have to strike her head so hard it cracks her skull 8" unless it was meant to kill?

If the head blow was intended to kill, why strangle her as well? The head blow would have probably killed her without the strangulation. Why then the sexual molestation, if murder was the intent?

I think the head blow was a reaction to her scream -- an overreaction to shut her up. It was delivered without thinking about exactly how hard to swing or what the result would be. And yes, there may be better ways to try and get her to stop screaming; but other ways might not have been as quick or as certain. How much time did the person have to think out the consequences of what was done (while the scream was continuing)?

While the resulting damage was extreme, I don&#8217;t think it took as much force as others seem to think. A child&#8217;s skull is not nearly as thick or as brittle as an adult&#8217;s. I believe the same weapon that caused the comminuted, depressed fracture was shaped such that it exerted pressure on the sides of the depression causing the skull to split and fracture almost like a wedge had been used. It would have required much more force to cause the same injuries in an adult.

The head injury was not caused by a mild thump. The blunt force trauma closed head injury was a COD.

Yes, I agree; and I too believe it would have killed her -- even without the strangulation. The strangulation hastened her death and confused doctors about the resulting cerebral reactions to the head wound. Each of the insults worked interdependently with one another to throw off the expected results from either one separately. I think that is one of the reasons Dr. Rorke-Adams got it wrong about the length of time between the two. That's also (IMO) why other doctors and so-called "experts" don't agree with one another on that length of time, or in some cases, even the order of injuries.

You believe the strangulation was an accident even though the cord around her neck was in a slip knot. It seems that now I recall reading your excellent hypothesis a while back whereby BR was totally involved in the head bash and accidental strangulation.

I can understand how the cord could become an accidental killing tool. I just don't think it was an accident in this case.

That&#8217;s fine if we disagree. We can still have a good dialog and fine tune our theories. I&#8217;ve changed things in mine over the years when I felt I was wrong about something because of something a poster might have written or made me think about. I don&#8217;t expect everyone (or anyone, for that matter) to agree with me, but I&#8217;ll gladly share my thoughts. If you ask me a question, I&#8217;ll answer you as soon as I can get to it.

Since BR's knife was reported to be in the area near the body in the basement and that a fiber from the cord was on it, do you suspect BR found its hiding place on the second floor?

Yes (but I&#8217;m not sure about the fiber on it). I don&#8217;t doubt at all that while LHP was hiding the knife, BR may have been peeking around a corner watching where it went while her back was turned. (If it was me -- I would have:giggle:.) So maybe he didn&#8217;t find it. Maybe he just recovered it.

 

[UKGuy]

The final sexual abuse of JonBenet was intentional.




Could the paintbrush have been inserted in order to avoid her DNA from being detected in her daughter's vagina?




Patsy was out of control with her project, meaning JonBenet, of course.

I will not post pictures of JonBenet's hair bleached blonde but, clearly, dying your 6yo child's natural hair color so that she may have an advantage to win glamorous competitions is not using proper parenting skills.

I will not post images of JonBenet in the black and white Vegas showgirl costume. Clearly, dressing one's 6yof child, who was really closer in age to five than she was to seven, in such outlandish and startling attire is abusive behavior.


What damage do these maternal acts cause to the normal psyche of a young child's mind? Did JB think she was unacceptable or unappealing as a brunette and could only obtain trophies by being sexy?




ITA, but then



The acute injuries were intentional. They bled.
So was the head injury. We know that by the force required.
So was the strangulation.
It all occurred in a fairly rapid succession.



Correct. Does this mean her skull was cracked at the same place she was garroted?

DeDee,
Above BBM. I think not. JonBenet could have been whacked on the head as she lay on her bed in her room. Its even possible that she was ligature asphyxiated upstairs?

This would all have been part of an intended prior staging, abandoned for one in the basement.

Unless it can be demonstrated otherwise I reckon the primary crime-scene was upstairs and the staged secondary crime-scene was situated downstairs, this includes items such as the suitcase, the photographs and the contents of the wine-cellar.

In my BDI theory I assume BR sexually assaults JonBenet, JR whacks her on the head and PR ties the ligature to the painbrush handle. The latter two actions represent attempts at staging, a means to visually display why JonBenet is dead?

BR and JonBenet may have been physically fighting that night, BR may have been attempting to restrain JonBenet from leaving his/her room, possibly holding JonBenet in an arm lock so compressing her vagus nerve leading unconciousness?

This might explain BR's indifference or nonchalance after JonBenet's death, i.e. he never really killed her, someone else did, someone who whacked her on the head with a hammer is what BR allegedly said, was it to a psychologist?

.

.

 

[DeDee]

DeDee,
Above BBM. I think not. JonBenet could have been whacked on the head as she lay on her bed in her room. Its even possible that she was ligature asphyxiated upstairs?

This would all have been part of an intended prior staging, abandoned for one in the basement.

Unless it can be demonstrated otherwise I reckon the primary crime-scene was upstairs and the staged secondary crime-scene was situated downstairs, this includes items such as the suitcase, the photographs and the contents of the wine-cellar.

In my BDI theory I assume BR sexually assaults JonBenet, JR whacks her on the head and PR ties the ligature to the painbrush handle. The latter two actions represent attempts at staging, a means to visually display why JonBenet is dead?

BR and JonBenet may have been physically fighting that night, BR may have been attempting to restrain JonBenet from leaving his/her room, possibly holding JonBenet in an arm lock so compressing her vagus nerve leading unconciousness?

This might explain BR's indifference or nonchalance after JonBenet's death, i.e. he never really killed her, someone else did, someone who whacked her on the head with a hammer is what BR allegedly said, was it to a psychologist?

.

.

UKGuy,

Its even possible that she was ligature asphyxiated upstairs?

It is highly possible if it is true that the cord fibers were vacuumed from JonBenet's bed.

the staged secondary crime-scene was situated downstairs, this includes items such as the suitcase

Why would JR take, or allow Patsy to place, JAR's suitcase filled with stained bedding and a child's book to the basement window area, thereby, incriminating his own son?

BR sexually assaults JonBenet, JR whacks her on the head and PR ties the ligature to the painbrush handle. The latter two actions represent attempts at staging

In your BDI theory, BR molests his sister upstairs, apparently while she has a cord tied in a knot around her throat. Then, her father cracks her skull with a fatal blow, followed by her mother staging the garrote in the basement. Somebody pulled the cord too tightly. Why does JR violently hit her on the head if it is only for staging? How do you account for the lint/dust on the soles of JonBenet's feet if she was carried downstairs?

I am a Patsy premeditated it ALL; however, for years I was swayed by my intense desire for it not to be any family member. Ironically, reading Doc G's entire JDI blog helped me to clear JR of the killing. I am interested in sound BDI theories even though I have a difficult time believing the two siblings were sexually active on Christmas night when they had so many new toys to play with that evening.

Patsy knew JR adored the company of pretty women. She was not about to let him remarry, upon her death, hence, allowing another woman to raise "America's Princess", as PR referred to her daughter posthumously. Wouldn't JonBenet have been almost sixteen years old when her mother died?

 

[DeDee]

DD, I apologize if my remarks seemed in any way hostile. I was simply trying to have a dialog with you so we could both understand one another&#8217;s viewpoints. I&#8217;m not trying to get you to say something a certain way, or to say something if you don&#8217;t agree with it. In this instance, there are posters (and you may be one of them -- which is fine, if that&#8217;s how you feel) who believe the vaginal injuries were inflicted intentionally for the purpose of hiding the chronic injuries. Hence, the injuries would be intentional. OTOH, if the act that caused the injuries was done for its own reasons (some sort of molestation), the injuries were unintentional but were the result of what was done. Maybe it&#8217;s my OCD kicking in, but it does seem to me to make a considerable difference.

So for the same reason, I&#8217;m not simply trying to parse words or pick apart what you say in the following -- I&#8217;m just trying to understand your meaning so we both understand one another.


Good. We agree on this one. :great:


Well, it is believed by some (myself included). Others can&#8217;t get over the coroner&#8217;s use of the words &#8220;consistent with digital penetration&#8221;. Taking a strict adherence to the words, some believe the coroner determined that only a finger could have been used to cause it. I don&#8217;t believe that&#8217;s what the coroner meant, and I'm glad you don't either.


I&#8217;m not sure if you mean here the apparent bruise -- what the coroner describes as &#8220;a very faint area of violet discoloration&#8221; on &#8220;the right labia majora&#8221;. If so, I&#8217;m not sure how that might be a point of restraint. My interpretation of that is that it probably lines up with where the object that was inserted (probably the paintbrush, IMO) caused a bruise. I think this because of its size (approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch), but its orientation with the other vaginal injuries is not mentioned in the AR.


:hand: Nope. (Sorry, we&#8217;ll have to part ways on that one.)



If the head blow was intended to kill, why strangle her as well? The head blow would have probably killed her without the strangulation. Why then the sexual molestation, if murder was the intent?

I think the head blow was a reaction to her scream -- an overreaction to shut her up. It was delivered without thinking about exactly how hard to swing or what the result would be. And yes, there may be better ways to try and get her to stop screaming; but other ways might not have been as quick or as certain. How much time did the person have to think out the consequences of what was done (while the scream was continuing)?

While the resulting damage was extreme, I don&#8217;t think it took as much force as others seem to think. A child&#8217;s skull is not nearly as thick or as brittle as an adult&#8217;s. I believe the same weapon that caused the comminuted, depressed fracture was shaped such that it exerted pressure on the sides of the depression causing the skull to split and fracture almost like a wedge had been used. It would have required much more force to cause the same injuries in an adult.


Yes, I agree; and I too believe it would have killed her -- even without the strangulation. The strangulation hastened her death and confused doctors about the resulting cerebral reactions to the head wound. Each of the insults worked interdependently with one another to throw off the expected results from either one separately. I think that is one of the reasons Dr. Rorke-Adams got it wrong about the length of time between the two. That's also (IMO) why other doctors and so-called "experts" don't agree with one another on that length of time, or in some cases, even the order of injuries.


That&#8217;s fine if we disagree. We can still have a good dialog and fine tune our theories. I&#8217;ve changed things in mine over the years when I felt I was wrong about something because of something a poster might have written or made me think about. I don&#8217;t expect everyone (or anyone, for that matter) to agree with me, but I&#8217;ll gladly share my thoughts. If you ask me a question, I&#8217;ll answer you as soon as I can get to it.


Yes (but I&#8217;m not sure about the fiber on it). I don&#8217;t doubt at all that while LHP was hiding the knife, BR may have been peeking around a corner watching where it went while her back was turned. (If it was me -- I would have:giggle:.) So maybe he didn&#8217;t find it. Maybe he just recovered it.

I apologize if my remarks seemed in any way hostile.

No offense was taken, otg. It is my desire not to pester or anger anyone.


Doesn't this fiber evidence indicate that the cord was initially in JBR's bedroom on her unmade bed:

"fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF P 168; PSMF P 168.)

if the act that caused the injuries was done for its own reasons (some sort of molestation), the injuries were unintentional but were the result of what was done.

A touch that forms a bruise or abrasion is usually painful enough for a gasp or a scream so the abuser had to know s/he was hurting her. However, the positive scream test performed by Smit only pertained to the scream being audible from the basement to the Stanton home.

Yes (but I&#8217;m not sure about the fiber on it). I don&#8217;t doubt at all that while LHP was hiding the knife

The following statement from LHP may go toward BDI theory.

Housekeeper who hid tool wonders how it reappeared, doubts intruder theory
By Charlie Brennan
August 2, 1999

Hoffmann-Pugh said she didn't tell JonBenet's parents where she stowed Burke's knife.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/...802rams1.shtml

1998 interview with Tom Haney:

8 TOM HANEY: So this would have not

9 been your normal routine, though, to put the

10 same clothes on?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, I do whatever

12 I want. I told you that. I mean if I had a

13 pair, you know, of black shorts on, you can wear

14 them two, three days, before I send them to the

15 dry cleaners. I might have changed the top or

16 something but --

17 TOM HANEY: Okay. Okay.

18 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't like to do

19 laundry so I --

Patsy detested doing the family laundry. Why were JonBenet's bed linens usually already off the bed, washed and in the dryer by the time of LHP's arrival?

If Patsy willingly wore clothing for several days in a row, it is doubtful that she bathed each day. She did not recall when JonBenet had last bathed so cleanliness was apparently not important to her.

PS ~ After reading the autopsy report once again, I agree, it is highly probable a douche was performed. Where do you opine this event occurred? Was the wet spot outside the cellar door proven to be urine? Or could the carpet be wet from the douching formula?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,



It is highly possible if it is true that the cord fibers were vacuumed from JonBenet's bed.



Why would JR take, or allow Patsy to place, JAR's suitcase filled with stained bedding and a child's book to the basement window area, thereby, incriminating his own son?



In your BDI theory, BR molests his sister upstairs, apparently while she has a cord tied in a knot around her throat. Then, her father cracks her skull with a fatal blow, followed by her mother staging the garrote in the basement. Somebody pulled the cord too tightly. Why does JR violently hit her on the head if it is only for staging? How do you account for the lint/dust on the soles of JonBenet's feet if she was carried downstairs?

I am a Patsy premeditated it ALL; however, for years I was swayed by my intense desire for it not to be any family member. Ironically, reading Doc G's entire JDI blog helped me to clear JR of the killing. I am interested in sound BDI theories even though I have a difficult time believing the two siblings were sexually active on Christmas night when they had so many new toys to play with that evening.

Patsy knew JR adored the company of pretty women. She was not about to let him remarry, upon her death, hence, allowing another woman to raise "America's Princess", as PR referred to her daughter posthumously. Wouldn't JonBenet have been almost sixteen years old when her mother died?

DeDee,

Why would JR take, or allow Patsy to place, JAR's suitcase filled with stained bedding and a child's book to the basement window area, thereby, incriminating his own son?

Becuase its the least of two forensic evils, i.e. upstairs must be forensically cleansed. Remember JR states he moved the suitcase down to the basement!

In your BDI theory, BR molests his sister upstairs, apparently while she has a cord tied in a knot around her throat. Then, her father cracks her skull with a fatal blow, followed by her mother staging the garrote in the basement. Somebody pulled the cord too tightly. Why does JR violently hit her on the head if it is only for staging? How do you account for the lint/dust on the soles of JonBenet's feet if she was carried downstairs?

That is not what I wrote, e.g. JonBenet and BR may have been fighting, JonBenet has abrasions and contusions on her body and face. This fighting might have happened after or during JonBenet's acute molestation, BR might have placed JonBenet in an arm-lock resulting in unconciousness due to prolonged pressure on her vagus nerve.

Check the autopsy photos: JonBenet has a non-circumferential mark lying beneath the circumferential ligature which may have been caused by some form of manual constriction?

This is what the ligature *advertiser censored* paintbrush handle is intended to mask as a form of staging!

The head injury was also intended as a form of staging, i.e a bogus Cause Of Death, it was meant to represent an obvious visible COD. It failed for whatever reason and the R's then decided to move on to the wine-cellar scenario, or initially some basement scenario, eventually plumbing for the wine-cellar.

JonBenet was deliberately killed, it was 1st degree murder, since no medical assistance was called!

JonBenet snacked pineapple down in the breakfast bar she could have been bare foot at this point?

Lint is just as likely to originate in her bed as residue from the sheets?

This case is not PDI since all three R's are involved and play various roles. Patsy's unconvincing lies when questioned particularly over the size-12's suggests she never knew they had been removed from the house, I'll bet JR did and he failed to notify her prior to her interview on the subject. All this after the size-12's had been headline news!


.

 

[DeDee]

DeDee,

Becuase its the least of two forensic evils, i.e. upstairs must be forensically cleansed. Remember JR states he moved the suitcase down to the basement!



That is not what I wrote, e.g. JonBenet and BR may have been fighting, JonBenet has abrasions and contusions on her body and face. This fighting might have happened after or during JonBenet's acute molestation, BR might have placed JonBenet in an arm-lock resulting in unconciousness due to prolonged pressure on her vagus nerve.

Check the autopsy photos: JonBenet has a non-circumferential mark lying beneath the circumferential ligature which may have been caused by some form of manual constriction?

This is what the ligature *advertiser censored* paintbrush handle is intended to mask as a form of staging!

The head injury was also intended as a form of staging, i.e a bogus Cause Of Death, it was meant to represent an obvious visible COD. It failed for whatever reason and the R's then decided to move on to the wine-cellar scenario, or initially some basement scenario, eventually plumbing for the wine-cellar.

JonBenet was deliberately killed, it was 1st degree murder, since no medical assistance was called!

JonBenet snacked pineapple down in the breakfast bar she could have been bare foot at this point?

Lint is just as likely to originate in her bed as residue from the sheets?

This case is not PDI since all three R's are involved and play various roles. Patsy's unconvincing lies when questioned particularly over the size-12's suggests she never knew they had been removed from the house, I'll bet JR did and he failed to notify her prior to her interview on the subject. All this after the size-12's had been headline news!


.

Yes, UKGuy, I recall JR's statements about the suitcase as being that he placed it in the basement; however, not in the same position that it was found on December 26. I simply cannot pick and choose which of the R statements to believe and which to ignore.


Your previous statement:

In my BDI theory I assume BR sexually assaults JonBenet, JR whacks her on the head and PR ties the ligature to the painbrush handle.

My previous reply:

In your BDI theory, BR molests his sister upstairs, apparently while she has a cord tied in a knot around her throat.

Your response:

That is not what I wrote

Please know there was certainly no intention to misquote your statement. I used the word apparently because it was not clear to me who you feel placed the cord around her neck.

might have happened after or during JonBenet's acute molestation

Was the acute molestation by BR, according to your theory, performed using the paintbrush? Just looking for an explanation for the birefringent material.

The size 12s mystery must be something Patsy is mighty proud of conceiving.

The purchases of the size 12s, the tape and cord have been linked to Patsy. How does that eliminate her as premeditating her daughter's death?

The head injury was also intended as a form of staging, i.e a bogus Cause Of Death, it was meant to represent an obvious visible COD. It failed

The resultant blow to her head likely showed whomever was there that this child was rapidly dying. I just do not see the parents standing around going:

Oh, dear. BR has sent JoniB into a coma. Let's fake a COD by crushing her little skull. Oh, dear. She is still not dead. Then, let's place this little cord about her throat and strangle her. And add a little broken paintbrush handle to the end so everyone will think it is an exotic garrote. Since no reasonable parents would ever do this to their child, everyone will think it was a perverted intruder or else be so confused they will not know who did what to our precious daughter.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Guys, I am not well versed in this case and I have a very basic question. I really hope I do not in turn spawn a tangential dispute, but I THINK the fact that this thread exists means I already kind of know my answer.

On another non-crime forum I am on, people were casually discussing this case and were very surprised when I mentioned JonBenet had shown signs of sexual abuse. So surprised they didn't believe me. This made me question what little I thought I knew about the case. So my question: aren't the signs of sexual abuse (or penetration of some sort) well documented? Is this still an item of contention in any way?