Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[UKGuy]

(snipped)

I’ll be a little more precise on the subject/terminology (since OM4U is concerned about my possibly being an archery target). As you astutely point out, mw mm, even “the detectives who were active on the case refer to JB’s death as Murder.”

Murder (according to the definition at Wikipedia) “is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).”

The one thing that makes this form of homicide (the act of killing a human being) rise to the degree of murder is “malice aforethought” (except in certain cases where it is done during the commission of another serious crime -- this is where the rule of felony murder comes into play). So we should understand exactly what “malice aforethought” means. But this post would be even more excruciatingly long and boring if I went into all the discussion and really impressive Latin words and phrases (if you care to look into them yourself: mens rea; actus reus; actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, or "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty") that go into legal definitions of malice aforethought. And even then, we wouldn’t have a complete picture because of the variances between different legal jurisdictions. But very basically, malice aforethought refers to premeditation and intent.

However, the word murder is oftentimes used loosely even by legal authorities -- perhaps because of other less-legal definitions, one of which is based on the apparent viciousness, cruelty, or barbarity of the result (which is certainly present in JonBenet's case). Perhaps they have used it because murder is the ultimate crime they would like to prove, and therefore are investigating. Short of that, I think they would settle for a conviction on second-degree murder, manslaughter, or even negligent homicide if that were the best they could get. Murder and homicide are often (though incorrectly) used interchangeably. That is why I try to avoid using the word murder since I believe the circumstances of JonBenet’s death do not constitute murder.

Let me give three examples of different circumstances that each lead to the same final result: a dead person with a horribly mutilated body.

Situation-1
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. John has words with Fred. John hates Fred. Fred hates John. John wants Fred dead. John waits for Fred to pass by the shredder on his way to the lunchroom and then lunges at him pushing him over the guardrail and into it. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

Situation-2
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. One day, John and Fred get into an argument by the plastic shredder. Fred shoves John. John then shoves back at Fred. Soon they are shouting at one another and a crowd forms around them. Finally, John yells, “I’m gonna kill you,” and grabs Fred by the shoulders pushing him over the guardrail and into the plastic shredder. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

Situation-3
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. One day, John and Fred are joking around. They know they’d be in trouble if the boss found out, because “horseplay” is not allowed around the dangerous machinery they have at the factory. But they start pushing at one another, laughing all the while. One push by John happens right as Fred is standing by the guardrail in front of the shredder. Fred loses his balance and falls over the guardrail and into the plastic shredder. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

In each of the above examples, the end result is the same: Fred is dead and dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin. But is each incident a case of murder?

In JonBenet’s death, she appeared to have been brutally and viciously attacked and murdered. But after arriving at what I believe actually happened, I can’t use the word murder to describe her death. I agree with Dr. Henry Lee in his assessment that it looked like a domestic accident. But that's JMO.

otg,
Accident might not be the most appropriate description. Unintended might be more apt, since it looks to me as if someone sexually assaulted JonBenet then physically assaulted her i.e. all those marks and abrasions on her body, either inflicted as JonBenet is restrained or as she attempts to move away, culminating in the head blow, which can be either intentional, i.e. part of the initial assault, or from JonBenet falling over and whacking her head?

Now what takes place next, although we do not know the full details or who was involved is murder.

Someone denies JonBenet medical assistance then she is asphyxiated, as per the Autopsy Report, this along with her head injury contributes to her death.

There is nothing accidental about that, also you could make a case for the staging demonstrating forethought, premeditation etc, since the killer is attempting to hide prior injuries?

Since there were two injuries that contributed towards JonBenet's death, i.e. Head Injury and Asphyxiation, then if these were caused by two different people, then each would be charged with Murder, possibly with different degrees.



.

 

[UKGuy]

I could be wrong- but I thought if someone died while you were committing a felony- then it would be murder even if you didn't intend to kill them. If that is the case, wouldn't killing someone while you were committing felony child abuse be murder?
IDK- I guess a technicality.

deca,
I reckon so. Its alike two people attempting to rape someone, in say a downtown red light district. One person whacks the victim on the head, then they both violate their victim, then before leaving one decides to choke the victim using a scarf.

IMO both would be charged with murder, but in different degrees?


.

 

[dodie20]

(snipped)

I’ll be a little more precise on the subject/terminology (since OM4U is concerned about my possibly being an archery target). As you astutely point out, mw mm, even “the detectives who were active on the case refer to JB’s death as Murder.”

Murder (according to the definition at Wikipedia) “is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).”

The one thing that makes this form of homicide (the act of killing a human being) rise to the degree of murder is “malice aforethought” (except in certain cases where it is done during the commission of another serious crime -- this is where the rule of felony murder comes into play). So we should understand exactly what “malice aforethought” means. But this post would be even more excruciatingly long and boring if I went into all the discussion and really impressive Latin words and phrases (if you care to look into them yourself: mens rea; actus reus; actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, or "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty") that go into legal definitions of malice aforethought. And even then, we wouldn’t have a complete picture because of the variances between different legal jurisdictions. But very basically, malice aforethought refers to premeditation and intent.

However, the word murder is oftentimes used loosely even by legal authorities -- perhaps because of other less-legal definitions, one of which is based on the apparent viciousness, cruelty, or barbarity of the result (which is certainly present in JonBenet's case). Perhaps they have used it because murder is the ultimate crime they would like to prove, and therefore are investigating. Short of that, I think they would settle for a conviction on second-degree murder, manslaughter, or even negligent homicide if that were the best they could get. Murder and homicide are often (though incorrectly) used interchangeably. That is why I try to avoid using the word murder since I believe the circumstances of JonBenet’s death do not constitute murder.

Let me give three examples of different circumstances that each lead to the same final result: a dead person with a horribly mutilated body.

Situation-1
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. John has words with Fred. John hates Fred. Fred hates John. John wants Fred dead. John waits for Fred to pass by the shredder on his way to the lunchroom and then lunges at him pushing him over the guardrail and into it. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

Situation-2
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. One day, John and Fred get into an argument by the plastic shredder. Fred shoves John. John then shoves back at Fred. Soon they are shouting at one another and a crowd forms around them. Finally, John yells, “I’m gonna kill you,” and grabs Fred by the shoulders pushing him over the guardrail and into the plastic shredder. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

Situation-3
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. One day, John and Fred are joking around. They know they’d be in trouble if the boss found out, because “horseplay” is not allowed around the dangerous machinery they have at the factory. But they start pushing at one another, laughing all the while. One push by John happens right as Fred is standing by the guardrail in front of the shredder. Fred loses his balance and falls over the guardrail and into the plastic shredder. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

In each of the above examples, the end result is the same: Fred is dead and dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin. But is each incident a case of murder?

In JonBenet’s death, she appeared to have been brutally and viciously attacked and murdered. But after arriving at what I believe actually happened, I can’t use the word murder to describe her death. I agree with Dr. Henry Lee in his assessment that it looked like a domestic accident. But that's JMO.

I used to think this was probably a domestic accident that led to a cover-up, but I don't think so anymore. IMO, this was cold blooded murder, mainly because, (and most experts agree), the head bash came 1st, (maybe because of an accident or uncontrollable second of rage), and the strangulation, (which is what actually killed JB), came last. IMO, there's no way to see this thought out and systematic strangulation as an accident. IMO, somebody wanted to make sure JonBenet was dead and gone, and that's exactly what he/she did. I've never seen much that points to premeditation, (except building the garotte most certainly took some premeditation), but I haven't ruled it out either. moo

 

[Magdalyn]

I could be wrong- but I thought if someone died while you were committing a felony- then it would be murder even if you didn't intend to kill them. If that is the case, wouldn't killing someone while you were committing felony child abuse be murder?
IDK- I guess a technicality.

In many states aggravated child abuse that results in death is equivalent to murder as far as sentencing goes.

http://www.denver-colorado-criminal...encing-crs-18-6-401-colorado-revised-statutes

From the link, one of the felony abuse statutes states:

Acting In A Position Of Trust – causing the death of a child

(c) When a person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child, such person commits the crime of murder in the first degree as described in section 18-3-102 (1) (f).

 

[otg]

I could agree with you and Dr. Lee both, if it wasnt' for the reports of a period of time lapsing between the head bash and the strangulation. Enough of a time lapse that there was bleeding under the skull, and elsewhere, even though it was somewhat minimal to what it might have been. But I think I understand that a slower heartbeat due to the depth of unconsciousness that might have been in might have accounted for respiration and heartbeat slowing down?

...and I agree -- if there was actually that long of a lapse in time between the two. But the "reports" were just opinions -- opinions not shared by all who reviewed the evidence (nor me). I had a hard time with this when news first came out from Kolar's book. But after looking into what Dr. Rorke (-Adams) would have to work with, I felt less sure probably than others who took her opinion for granted. (I'll discuss this more at length some time in the future, because it really gets complicated, and I just don't have the time to delve into it now. And have I mentioned that it's even more complicated for me because I'm not a medical type person? I have to look up all the words.)

No matter who was the one who applied the ligature to the point of strangulation, that indicated to me there was intent to end JB's life. No matter who was the one who, upon discovering JB in a near lifeless state, even if the ligature was already applied loosely around her neck, did not immediately call 911 or involve someone who would have, but went ahead and pulled that ligature tight enough to finalize her breathing, that said "intent"to me. But, that's JMO.

...and if the bbm phrases are the exact circumstances that led up to her death, I would agree with you about intent. But I don't think they are.

Sad and despicable thing is a beautiful young girl died needlessly, and no one has been brought accountable for it after 16 years. :furious:

...and I absolutely agree with that.

 

[otg]

I could be wrong- but I thought if someone died while you were committing a felony- then it would be murder even if you didn't intend to kill them. If that is the case, wouldn't killing someone while you were committing felony child abuse be murder?
IDK- I guess a technicality.

You're not wrong on that point, deca. That's why I felt it necessary to add the last parenthetic phase bolded below:

The one thing that makes this form of homicide (the act of killing a human being) rise to the degree of murder is “malice aforethought” (except in certain cases where it is done during the commission of another serious crime -- this is where the rule of felony murder comes into play).

I'm glad you caught that. It's the only way this case could ever be prosecuted at this point in time -- per James Kolar (and our very own cynic).

 

[otg]

otg,
Accident might not be the most appropriate description. Unintended might be more apt, since it looks to me as if someone sexually assaulted JonBenet then physically assaulted her i.e. all those marks and abrasions on her body, either inflicted as JonBenet is restrained or as she attempts to move away, culminating in the head blow, which can be either intentional, i.e. part of the initial assault, or from JonBenet falling over and whacking her head?

You're right, of course, UKG. "Accident" is probably not the best word. "Domestic accident", if I'm not mistaken, were the words chosen by Dr. Lee (and English was not his first language). I think the strangulation was an unintended consequence of a dangerous situation which was made deadly by an act of fear/rage (the head blow).

Now what takes place next, although we do not know the full details or who was involved is murder.
Someone denies JonBenet medical assistance then she is asphyxiated, as per the Autopsy Report, this along with her head injury contributes to her death.

...and if your assumptions about the order of events is correct, you would be right again.

There is nothing accidental about that, also you could make a case for the staging demonstrating forethought, premeditation etc, since the killer is attempting to hide prior injuries?

Hiding prior injuries after the fact would be afterthought, hindsight etc., since the killer is attempting to hide prior injuries after the fact.

Since there were two injuries that contributed towards JonBenet's death, i.e. Head Injury and Asphyxiation, then if these were caused by two different people, then each would be charged with Murder, possibly with different degrees.
.

:waitasec: I think you would be correct there, UKG, were that the case.

I'm not trying to be cryptic. I've explained before what I think happened. I just don't want to repeat it at every opportunity. People would (if they haven't already) get tired of seeing me here.

 

[midwest mama]

otg, You just must not realize how much we respect your opinion.
The more we talk about our theories and opinions, the more we keep the fire fueled.

JB deserves justice, and you are a top shelf warrior! When a person with a good mind get tired of learning, or attempting to, then they become close-minded. :notgood:

Having conviction of thought is one thing, but being unwilling to consider another's thoughts is just plain rude. Come back soon!

 

[Negative green]

I joined this forum because I enjoy reading everyone's writings here, whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions. I myself believe PR was the one who perpetrated the abuse, and it was sexual abuse that she only pretended was corporal cleansing. I wonder if Burke may have also been sexually abused in some way. If he had problems with bed wetting and fecal smearing, perhaps it was a cry for help. His strange separation from all of family, absent sister, distant father and small mother are hard to fit into this picture. I believe however Burke showed no emotion because he had been conditioned to block emotion? I do not know if any of this makes sense and I know all of you know more than I about this case.

 

[OpenMind4U]

WELCOME Negative green!!!!! Every opinion is welcome here for healthy discussion...

 

[DeeDee249]

I joined this forum because I enjoy reading everyone's writings here, whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions. I myself believe PR was the one who perpetrated the abuse, and it was sexual abuse that she only pretended was corporal cleansing. I wonder if Burke may have also been sexually abused in some way. If he had problems with bed wetting and fecal smearing, perhaps it was a cry for help. His strange separation from all of family, absent sister, distant father and small mother are hard to fit into this picture. I believe however Burke showed no emotion because he had been conditioned to block emotion? I do not know if any of this makes sense and I know all of you know more than I about this case.

Welcome to the forum. I also would like to know what is behind BR's distant behavior. We don't know exactly what went on in that family, but something was, that's for sure. I doubt BR will ever come forward. He was a witness that night and knows a lot more than he is willing to say. Some of his behavior was odd to be sure. What was behind it? Asperger's or some related disorder? Or was it because of what he lived through? We won't know unless he tells.

 

[dodie20]

I joined this forum because I enjoy reading everyone's writings here, whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions. I myself believe PR was the one who perpetrated the abuse, and it was sexual abuse that she only pretended was corporal cleansing. I wonder if Burke may have also been sexually abused in some way. If he had problems with bed wetting and fecal smearing, perhaps it was a cry for help. His strange separation from all of family, absent sister, distant father and small mother are hard to fit into this picture. I believe however Burke showed no emotion because he had been conditioned to block emotion? I do not know if any of this makes sense and I know all of you know more than I about this case.

I was pretty convinced that PR was responsible for the abuse and thought the same thing you do. But, once the grand jury decision was made public, I've been reconsidering JR. I think the jury saw some evidence that we don't know about, so I feel like they got this right, and JR was involved in the abuse somehow. Maybe PR came up with the 'cleaning punishment', to cover the sexual abuse? To have an alternative explanation for the injuries? One thing though, that kind of cleaning is NOT normal and something devious was going on. moo

 

[Negative green]

I think JR is definitely involved, his strange statements and behavior at the house and subsequently go to that conclusion..He may have been indicted by the GJ because of the failure to seek help for his daughter. Also the bludgeoning and garroting for sure was vicious. If BR was involved I don't think the parents would allow their 9 yr old to go off to his friend's home for fear he would spill the beans. Wonder what people around him said, he still went to school, etc...did not anyone talk to him?

 

[dodie20]

I think JR is definitely involved, his strange statements and behavior at the house and subsequently go to that conclusion..He may have been indicted by the GJ because of the failure to seek help for his daughter. Also the bludgeoning and garroting for sure was vicious. If BR was involved I don't think the parents would allow their 9 yr old to go off to his friend's home for fear he would spill the beans. Wonder what people around him said, he still went to school, etc...did not anyone talk to him?

a few things have leaked out about him discussing this case, but it's hard to make much sense of it. IMO, from what I've read, it points to a knowledge of the crime, but not necessarily as a participant, and his reaction to the crime and loss of his sister seemed unusual, not normal, and troubling. moo

 

[midwest mama]

This is something I read recently in "Presumed Guilty" by Steven Singular: BBM

"I told Hunter that I had recently been contacted by a woman who had seen a picture of JonBenet, months before the murder, in her parents' bedroom in the summer residence in Charlevoix, Michigan, during a tour of Charlevoix's finer homes. The photograph, the woman said, showed JonBenet with a provocative expression on her face, wearing nothing but make-up and a feather boa snaking around her torso. The woman was so taken aback by the image that she had gone home, called one of her relatives in Denver, and given a detailed account of what she had just seen."

I'd like to respond to an earlier recent post that questions the possibility of Burke witnessing some of the acts of the crime. I think it very possible that Burke did "come upon" aspects of the crime as they were happening, or at least witness the head bash. I doubt he would have given the interviewer the account of what he thought happened to JB, which included a hammering action, if he did not.

In another section of Singular's book, he is recounting his attendance at a party in Boulder in 1997, which was in celebration of the "sixties" - people were dressed accordingly, lots of marijane, booze and reporters covering the JB case. He wrote this: "The tabbies guffawed about the drugs John and Patsy had given nine-year-old Burke right after the murder, to keep his memories of JonBenet's last evening on earth a blur." Could this have been true?

 

[DeeDee249]

This is something I read recently in "Presumed Guilty" by Steven Singular: BBM

"I told Hunter that I had recently been contacted by a woman who had seen a picture of JonBenet, months before the murder, in her parents' bedroom in the summer residence in Charlevoix, Michigan, during a tour of Charlevoix's finer homes. The photograph, the woman said, showed JonBenet with a provocative expression on her face, wearing nothing but make-up and a feather boa snaking around her torso. The woman was so taken aback by the image that she had gone home, called one of her relatives in Denver, and given a detailed account of what she had just seen."

I'd like to respond to an earlier recent post that questions the possibility of Burke witnessing some of the acts of the crime. I think it very possible that Burke did "come upon" aspects of the crime as they were happening, or at least witness the head bash. I doubt he would have given the interviewer the account of what he thought happened to JB, which included a hammering action, if he did not.

In another section of Singular's book, he is recounting his attendance at a party in Boulder in 1997, which was in celebration of the "sixties" - people were dressed accordingly, lots of marijane, booze and reporters covering the JB case. He wrote this: "The tabbies guffawed about the drugs John and Patsy had given nine-year-old Burke right after the murder, to keep his memories of JonBenet's last evening on earth a blur." Could this have been true?

You betcha! I have always said there was a big reason why the Rs asked for (and got) an "island of privacy" for BR's medical records. They HAD something to hide, that is certain. Dr Boef, too. He refused access to both kids' medical records. I can absolutely believe he may have prescribed medications for BR after the crime. After all, we can SEE Patsy on CNN looking heavily drugged. Who treated her and prescribed those meds- no other than Dr Boef! Now we might ask why her kids' pediatrician had to treat her instead of her own doctor. He was a personal friend- that much we know. And I guess he did a "favor" for her.

 

[Charterhouse]

Welcome Negative Green. I am in the same place you are. I love to read everyone's writings.

Now don't kill me on this everyone but is this a true statement.

Those that believe a RDI (any one of them) JBR was killed in the end to cover up the finding that she was abused and the R's wanted everyone to believe an intruder must have done it.

 

[UKGuy]

I joined this forum because I enjoy reading everyone's writings here, whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions. I myself believe PR was the one who perpetrated the abuse, and it was sexual abuse that she only pretended was corporal cleansing. I wonder if Burke may have also been sexually abused in some way. If he had problems with bed wetting and fecal smearing, perhaps it was a cry for help. His strange separation from all of family, absent sister, distant father and small mother are hard to fit into this picture. I believe however Burke showed no emotion because he had been conditioned to block emotion? I do not know if any of this makes sense and I know all of you know more than I about this case.

Negative green,
What you write makes sense, particularly if those are BR's pants that were found on JonBenet's bedroom floor. Kolar says they were too large for JonBenet to wear?

I have long thought the R's were a dysfunctional family, on many levels. PDI is possible and probably has the most going for it in terms of forensic evidence. Also JR appeared to throw Patsy under the bus when he stated it had to be an inside job, fetched the writing pads, and hired separate lawyers for each family member.

.

 

[SunnieRN]

Sorry, been out of state and my Dad's internet is ssllloooowwww to say the least. Dial up if you can believe it. People on this and other threads asked me about JR's statements. I stand corrected about Johns statements. Unfortunately I see it was Barbara Walters interview and she made the statements, with JR answering. The answer is interesting, may be out of place and BW never stated in the original interview that the R's were guilty.

Excerpted from BW interview:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NU2-p7eOrg"]Ramseys admit to killing JonBenet - YouTube[/ame]


Believe me, that this is put together by a RDI viewer, but interesting.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Sorry, been out of state and my Dad's internet is ssllloooowwww to say the least. Dial up if you can believe it. People on this and other threads asked me about JR's statements. I stand corrected about Johns statements. Unfortunately I see it was Barbara Walters interview and she made the statements, with JR answering. The answer is interesting, may be out of place and BW never stated in the original interview that the R's were guilty.

Excerpted from BW interview:

Ramseys admit to killing JonBenet - YouTube


Believe me, that this is put together by a RDI viewer, but interesting.

Dear SunnieRN,

I keep saying this thousand times: the only way to get JUSTICE for JonBenet is to use the TRUE facts.

Here are the links to 3-parts Ramsey's interview with Barbara Walters. I don't need to read/see and rely on 'artificial made for sensation evidences'. I would recommend to do the same for anyone on this forum. We MUST follow the TRUE FACTS and stay honest in every steps of discovery, no matter where it leads us.

Part I
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Video/playerIndex?id=2324572
Part II
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Video/playerIndex?id=2325105
Part III
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Video/playerIndex?id=2325363

jmo