Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[andreww]

Excellent points.

The acute and prior sexual abuse is often used to implicate John Ramsey as the abuser. The garrotte and "sex game gone awry" state a sexual nature to JonBenet's death which wasn't intentional e.g the perpetrator didn't mean to kill JonBenet. If Patsy wrote the ransom note, she either killed JohnBenet or was covering up for someone/others.

But imagine if John did it -- he at some point got Patsy involved. How do you break it to her "erm, our daughter's dead...". Did he lie and make something up? Did she know he was molesting her and so covered up for that as she had been knowing of his deed and thus approved it.

Who knows.

Maybe John did it and pinned it on Burke. Who Knows is right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AB1]

This is PR's reaction when told JBR had been subject to prior abuse.

Excerpt from Patsy Ramsey interview with Boulder Police 23rs June 1998
(full transcript on ACandyRose)
25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
0581
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
16 been violated like that?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
23 did not.
24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
0582
1 see where it says that and who reported that.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
7 photos, but--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
9 that?
10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
11 it's pretty significant?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
20 be fair to my client.
21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
22 reliable medical information that we have at
23 this point, that is a fact.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
0583
1 me here?
2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
6 that she was assaulted?
7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked.
12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
16 you?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --
19 TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Did you know about
21 this?
22 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: I tried to stay
23 out of the making of the record and inserting
24 myself into the tape-recording of this
25 interview. The newspapers have talked about
0584
1 this. Whether or not--
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they talk
3 about a lot of things that are not true.
4 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: And there has
5 been a debate among the people who talked about
6 the findings in the autopsy report as to whether
7 there was a prior vaginal intrusion or not. So
8 when you ask, either Tom or me or Trip or
9 Jennifer, did we know that, there has been a
10 debate about that. Even in the newspaper.
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I do not know
12 of anything and I am very distressed about this.
13 TOM HANEY: Who could have done
14 such a thing?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I do not know. I
16 don't have any idea.
17 TOM HANEY: What is your best
18 guess?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: I couldn't begin to
20 guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea. I
21 am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe
22 this.
23 TOM HANEY: Would that knowledge
24 change your answer to any question that you have
25 been asked?
0585
1 PATSY RAMSEY: No, sir. I have
2 answered every question you or anyone else has
3 asked me to the best of my ability.
4 TOM HANEY: Would that answer or
5 would that statement, that information, would
6 that lead you in any particular direction?
7 Would you think about a particular person being
8 involved or doing something, with JonBenet?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't -- I
10 don't -- I just am shocked is all I can say. I
11 don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I
12 just want to see where it says that.
13 TOM HANEY: And prior to today, had
14 you heard or read or seen anything about--
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I had heard that
16 the night she was killed that she may have
17 had -- have been sexually assaulted. But not
18 prior to that. Absolutely.
19 TOM HANEY: Have you ever suffered
20 any physical abuse?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Absolutely not.
22 TOM HANEY: In childhood, you know,
23 dating, your adult life?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: (NO AUDIBLE
25 RESPONSE).
0586
1 TOM HANEY: How about sexual abuse?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: (NO AUDIBLE
3 RESPONSE).
4 TOM HANEY: How about anybody in
5 your family ever suffered any physical abuse?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my
7 knowledge.
8 TOM HANEY: Your sisters?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my
10 knowledge.
11 TOM HANEY: Sexual abuse, have they
12 ever confided in you that--
13 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No. What's
14 this got to do with JonBenet?
15 TOM HANEY: What it has to do with
16 first of all, is, whether or not you have ever
17 really discussed things like this with people or
18 somebody has confided in you?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

So PR wanted evidence, to know if her legal team knew, and went on to discuss other matters.
She said she was distressed, shocked, but where were the tears, horror? No questions about the kind of abuse. Not troubled that her daughter did not tell her.

I know there is conjecture out there re chronic v acute abuse, and Henry Lee himself has confused me on this issue as he appears uncertain.

However, I still find this the most damning moment in all PR's statements. She remained cool. It implies to me that whatever the truth was re abuse, she already knew it.

 

[TeaTime]

So maybe she thought it was the first and only time that night and at a loss for words to find that it was going on longer than she knew. Or it could be that she knows that LE can lie in interviews and wants to see proof before her head explodes. OR maybe she really wants to ask "how did you figure out that there was prior abuse?" Thought she had that covered. Oops. Mask slip.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
0583
1 me here?
2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
6 that she was assaulted?
7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked.
12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
16 you?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --
*snip*

What did Patsy know?

 

[UKGuy]

What did Patsy know?

icedtea4me,
Probably something about JonBenet's internal injury? Quite likely an attempt at deflection, this is normally Patsy's first port of call?

.

 

[BoldBear]

Kind of the best of both worlds when you say you haven't seen documents and can't be asked about them (for legal reasons) and then you want to know the source and read them for yourself. Seems like she let her guard down. There really seems to be two Patsys here. You get to see the journalism major who wants to know the sources and the uninformed, frail housewife. Being able to use either persona is not a bad thing (unless you suspect her of covering-up a murder). The problem is if you can't control yourself and become a pit bull. Then it's a little hard to go back to playing the wounded dove.

 

[UKGuy]

Kind of the best of both worlds when you say you haven't seen documents and can't be asked about them (for legal reasons) and then you want to know the source and read them for yourself. Seems like she let her guard down. There really seems to be two Patsys here. You get to see the journalism major who wants to know the sources and the uninformed, frail housewife. Being able to use either persona is not a bad thing (unless you suspect her of covering-up a murder). The problem is if you can't control yourself and become a pit bull. Then it's a little hard to go back to playing the wounded dove.

BoldBear,
Yup, Patsy is playing games with the interviewers, her problem is, its deadly serious.

Like I knew ... was hardly going to be All about Burke and JonBenet ..., that is too revealing.

Yet if the GJ can arrive at the True Bills they delivered they must have had corroboration that the person therein mentioned was the prime suspect?

Like medical records, instances of complaints by other families?

It could not simply be words out of the mouth of either Patsy or John, since that would be legal capitulation.

I'm thinking back to Priscilla White and her talk with Patsy, maybe she and FW told the GJ stuff we know nothing about?

.

 

[Miz Adventure]

BoldBear,


I'm thinking back to Priscilla White and her talk with Patsy, maybe she and FW told the GJ stuff we know nothing about?

.

I am certain they do. That is why the Ramseys cut them off.

 

[UKGuy]

I am certain they do. That is why the Ramseys cut them off.

Miz Adventure,
You could be right. The indictment is so specific, right down to the parents neglecting JonBenet and leaving her at risk, engendering the child abuse accusation.

Here is the ones relating to John:

COUNT IV

On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey 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, a child under the age of sixteen.

COUNT VII

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado,

John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

You have to wonder what does this mean: placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health ?

Like the R's version of events has JonBenet safe in bed yet the GJ are saying oh no guys, you exposed JonBenet to mortal risk, how so, who told them?

There is obviously much more to be revealed. I'll bet insiders have some of the gossip on the case?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Miz Adventure,
You could be right. The indictment is so specific, right down to the parents neglecting JonBenet and leaving her at risk, engendering the child abuse accusation.

Here is the ones relating to John:




You have to wonder what does this mean: placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health ?

Like the R's version of events has JonBenet safe in bed yet the GJ are saying oh no guys, you exposed JonBenet to mortal risk, how so, who told them?

There is obviously much more to be revealed. I'll bet insiders have some of the gossip on the case?

.

The only counts which have been revealed against John and against Patsy are IV and VII. That would mean there would have to be at least five other counts (I, II, III, V, and VI).

 

[kanzz]

BoldBear,
Yup, Patsy is playing games with the interviewers, her problem is, its deadly serious.

Like I knew ... was hardly going to be All about Burke and JonBenet ..., that is too revealing.

Yet if the GJ can arrive at the True Bills they delivered they must have had corroboration that the person therein mentioned was the prime suspect?

Like medical records, instances of complaints by other families?

It could not simply be words out of the mouth of either Patsy or John, since that would be legal capitulation.

I'm thinking back to Priscilla White and her talk with Patsy, maybe she and FW told the GJ stuff we know nothing about?

.

BBM
No doubt. My hunch has always been that the Whites were not willing to keep the Ramsey's dirty little secret about how disturbed Burke was. That they probably asked the wrong question about Burke while they were in Atlanta (in addition to the tiff about the Ramseys lawyering up, not talking to BPD, and going on CNN the following day).
The Whites had too much integrity to speak about some things publicly. They held things close to the vest until they saw everything going haywire with the DA's office. Now they keep quiet and go about living their own lives. They did what they could and deserve much respect and admiration.
I should try to find their address and send them a Christmas card.

 

[UKGuy]

The only counts which have been revealed against John and against Patsy are IV and VII. That would mean there would have to be at least five other counts (I, II, III, V, and VI).

icedtea4me,
Sure, is that not weird, like we can get to see the IV and VII charges, which are serious enough, so what's so troubling about the ones redacted?

I'll bet they relate to the person so cannot be published?

I'm assuming there would be none leveled directly at BR?

.

 

[kanzz]

The only counts which have been revealed against John and against Patsy are IV and VII. That would mean there would have to be at least five other counts (I, II, III, V, and VI).

Right. And both of the indictments were seeking to charge on identical charges. The only thing that was different on those documents was the names.

I read this earlier - speculation about what the other counts might have been. I've read similar articles in the past, but I'll have to dig for those links (if I still have them).

JonBenet Grand Jury Indictment Might Re-Ignite Case
“It appears that the District Attorney, presumably acting at the discretion of the grand jury, prepared a series of possible charges regarding John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey based on the fact that the child had died and that there was evidence that a sexual assault of the child had occurred,”
What were the other counts considered? Perhaps they were as follows:

1. First Degree Murder – After Deliberation (F1)
2. First Degree Murder – Felony Murder (during commission of sexual assault on a child or other crime) (F1)
3. Sexual Assault on a Child

III.(a) Sexual Assault on a Child – Pattern of Conduct

1. Child Abuse Resulting in Death (F1) (child abuse against victim under 12 caused by person in position of trust), a.k.a. First Degree Murder. 18-3-102(1)(f) and 18-6-401(7)(c)

IV.(a) Child Abuse Resulting in Death (F2)
(permitted child to be placed in situation that led to her death.)

1. Child Abuse (permitting child to be placed in a situation where she is injured and/or sexually assaulted)
2. Accessory to Crime of Sexual Assault on a Child
3. Accessory to Crime of First Degree Murder and Child Abuse Resulting in Death (F4)

*True bills returned by grand jury in bold
If I am correct, the true bill on Count VII may reveal the grand jury was convinced that one of the Ramsey parents committed counts I and IV, but was not convinced which Ramsey did what. Perhaps a third person who the Ramseys knew, and permitted into the house, was considered.

 

[Tortoise]

icedtea4me,
Sure, is that not weird, like we can get to see the IV and VII charges, which are serious enough, so what's so troubling about the ones redacted?

I'll bet they relate to the person so cannot be published?

I'm assuming there would be none leveled directly at BR?

.

They weren't signed as true bills.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM
No doubt. My hunch has always been that the Whites were not willing to keep the Ramsey's dirty little secret about how disturbed Burke was. That they probably asked the wrong question about Burke while they were in Atlanta (in addition to the tiff about the Ramseys lawyering up, not talking to BPD, and going on CNN the following day).
The Whites had too much integrity to speak about some things publicly. They held things close to the vest until they saw everything going haywire with the DA's office. Now they keep quiet and go about living their own lives. They did what they could and deserve much respect and admiration.
I should try to find their address and send them a Christmas card.

kanzz,
Yes I reckon you are spot on. They probably thought the parents would see some jail time, so cannot understand how the R's media circus continues with JR popping up to tell it like it was, well how thinks it goes.

Stuff was definitely revealed at the GJ that exceeds any RDI scenario published here on websleuths or the likes of CBS.

Eventually the dam will break and some members of the GJ will break cover and start dropping hints until we get a general outline.

JR must know this, there is not much either JR or LW can do about it, especially in the era of the internet.

.

 

[UKGuy]

They weren't signed as true bills.

Tortoise,
Sure, but we can speculate how they might have arrived at where they got to, since those charges are so specific?

Its not like Hunter made them up to deflect away from the R's.



.

 

[Ambitioned]

She said she was distressed, shocked, but where were the tears, horror? No questions about the kind of abuse. Not troubled that her daughter did not tell her.

I know there is conjecture out there re chronic v acute abuse, and Henry Lee himself has confused me on this issue as he appears uncertain.

However, I still find this the most damning moment in all PR's statements. She remained cool. It implies to me that whatever the truth was re abuse, she already knew it.

I have a relative who is LE. He's been PDI from day one. A lot of it has to do with the interview above you just posted. It's ghastly to me but he believes she was the one inserting objects into JB previously and didn't think she'd get "caught." Same with the pineapple. She didn't expect it to be spotted by Dr. Meyer. I know that's all speculation. Even though I'm BDI little things like that always stay in the back of my mind.

 

[Ambitioned]

You have to wonder what does this mean: placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health ?

.

I always wonder if they mean in general or that night. I'm leaning towards in general. As in, allowing her to reside with BR. ****, even the damn dog was safer when it went to the Barnhills.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Miz Adventure,
You could be right. The indictment is so specific, right down to the parents neglecting JonBenet and leaving her at risk, engendering the child abuse accusation.

Here is the ones relating to John:




You have to wonder what does this mean: placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health ?

Like the R's version of events has JonBenet safe in bed yet the GJ are saying oh no guys, you exposed JonBenet to mortal risk, how so, who told them?

There is obviously much more to be revealed. I'll bet insiders have some of the gossip on the case?

.

BBM: Maybe JR and PR dropped the kids off at home while they visited the Stines, which can be seen as a form of endangerment. If this was the case, it'd be interesting to know whether or not the jury was privy to knowledge of abusive history between the two R siblings.

 

[AB1]

Miz Adventure,
You could be right. The indictment is so specific, right down to the parents neglecting JonBenet and leaving her at risk, engendering the child abuse accusation.

Here is the ones relating to John:




You have to wonder what does this mean: placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health ?

Like the R's version of events has JonBenet safe in bed yet the GJ are saying oh no guys, you exposed JonBenet to mortal risk, how so, who told them?

There is obviously much more to be revealed. I'll bet insiders have some of the gossip on the case?

.

A lay interpretation would be:
JR allowed JBR to be in a situation that could reasonably be foreseen as likely to cause serious harm to JBR.
A person’s conduct results in the murder of JBR.
JR intentionally aided and abetted the murderer to cover up their crime.
For JR, likewise read PR.

I do not claim working knowledge of the American criminal justice system or interpretations of common law. However, I do understand legal process in England, Wales and N.I. in relation to points to prove by police in criminal offences and elements required for charges to be laid by the Crown Prosecution Service. In England, the indictments as presented would be charges determined by the common law doctrine of joint (criminal) enterprise.

In English law, a party under the age of 10 cannot be charged with a offence as they do not have the capacity for criminal responsibility i.e. they can have intent, but they cannot judge right and wrong. Under joint enterprise, if an adult (accessory) incites a minor or person without capacity to commit a crime, then the adult can be charged as the Principal to the crime. The involved minor does not need to be identified, charged or convicted.
So one fact does seem clear to me. If BR was believed to have committed the murder in combination with either or both parents, then under common law the parent/s could have been indicted for murder, but they weren't. So BR might be the person and Kolar is right, BDI all. PR and JR either have prior knowledge of BR behaviours or leave the children unattended etc, and after BDI does all (the person) JR and PR cover up for BR.

However, if I had seen these charges in an English court, I would not have assumed the involvement of a third person. Rather, I would surmise that it was impossible to determine who from PR and JR was the Principal and who the Accessory to the murder, therefore lesser charges were laid down against both parties.
However, in the UK the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 now means that all parties involved in the offence of causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child under the age of 16 or of a vulnerable adult can be charged as Principals if it cannot be determined that they played a lesser role. It is proving to be effective, resulting in fewer of those cases involving child abuse and deaths were the involved parties fail to give accounts of what had happened - “no comment/don’t know/can’t remember/nothing happened”. Sound familiar?

I have read interpretations of the Indictments, and they do not seem far removed from my understanding of what they could mean in English law. The principles are the same. However, I am willing to be corrected and informed by anyone with U.S. C.J. knowledge.

Like everyone else, I am curious as to the other indictments that were presented and presumably did not achieve GJ concurrence to be passed as True Bills. (We no longer have this system, but it is based on Ye Olde England Courts&#8230 Clearly, the missing indictments were not against BR, as he is a minor.

If anyone would find it helpful, I am happy to provide a summarised version of the (many pages of) guidance police and CPS use in England when considering Joint Enterprise charges. I promise not to cherry-pick parts that support any particular R theory/prejudice. As already noted, my interpretation of the indictments goes against my current BDI thinking on the case!

Likewise, I would be very thankful if anyone can post or provide a link to joint enterprise/child endangerment legislation in force in Colorado in 1996. Oh, and anything on the US Family Court system.

If it was BDI and Hunter knew this, there must have been a sealed hearing.
In England those involving minors take place in a family court.