Abuse and JonBenet

[BOESP]

KING: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?
J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.

As a grieving father, I would prefer to know every gory detail that my daughter suffered through as her head was bashed in and she was strangled to death. I would want to dream of those images every night and day for ever.

Fang, you and Voynich seem to have similar attitudes toward this case. Every statement seems to purposely be "over the top." How do such statements help this discussion? Such comments alienate many of us but then again maybe that's the point????

 

[BBB167893]

So, just run by me how they were going to find out this information if the investigators denied it to them? Read the tabloids perhaps?

As to whether they wanted to know about the sexual abuse, perhaps it was just a case of their daughter was murdered by being head bashed and strangled. Wasn't this enough pain to bear? Did they perhaps want to dwell on her being tortured sexually as well??

As a grieving father, I would prefer to know every gory detail that my daughter suffered through as her head was bashed in and she was strangled to death. I would want to dream of those images every night and day for ever.

You two paint an interesting picture. But you missed the mark. We're not referring to the vaginal injuries suffered that night. We're talking about vaginal injuries suffered BEFORE that night, at which point I, as a grieving father, WOULD want to know about it, because it's a damn good lead! Common sense dictates that whomever was abusing her likely killed her.

 

[BBB167893]

"I just can't make sense of anyone in the family putting her body on the plane in a suitcase." Alleluia

Now think about this a minute. Patsy allowing a stinky corpse to reside in her pristine home. Hell, freezes, over

Good thing it didn't stay there long, then. HINT HINT...

 

[BBB167893]

The only thing wrong with that angle is that at the time, within minutes of her death, with an impromptu coverup being implemented under great shock and duress, there would not have been smell, decomposition, or probably even the thought of that yet. Maybe nearer to morning that became apparent, but probably not within the first hour or so.

The amateurish scene that morning looked very much like someone had a hard time coming up with a coherent plan. That seemed to continue after the spectators were called to the home, even with the threat of their daughter being killed if they did that.

What's that old saying about great minds?

 

[madeleine]

Maybe this is the right place for it,

ST brings this issue re PRIOR abuse up quite often.Now what I don't get is....he is the one who said that in his mind JR was cleared pretty soon and he also implies that PR did it all by herself.But if we're dealing with prior abuse here.....did ST instantly thought of PR when the docs (so he claims) told him about prior abuse?:waitasec: He never considered that JR might have been responsible?Why?Was he THAT biased against PR?
I mean ,when I first heard of possible prior abuse I instantly thought of JR and the other males who had access to JB.I really would like to understand why ST never had suspicions re JR.Was the prior abuse issue just a bluff?

 

[madeleine]

I mean,if this prior abuse stuff is true............how the heck (as a lead detective) can you be so SURE that it was PR(punishment,whatever) and NOT JR OR someone ELSE?

 

[madeleine]

There are so many DIRTY LIES surrounding this case,it makes me sick.............and even Beckner admits that they sometimes use such tactics in order to make suspects talk.....maybe in this case they went TOO far....

 

[OneLove]

You two paint an interesting picture. But you missed the mark. We're not referring to the vaginal injuries suffered that night. We're talking about vaginal injuries suffered BEFORE that night, at which point I, as a grieving father, WOULD want to know about it, because it's a damn good lead! Common sense dictates that whomever was abusing her likely killed her.

Add to that the knowledge that IF she was "chronically" abused, then the perpetrator had "chronic" access to her.

Wouldn't you want to know WHO among your friends and family would have betrayed you so egregiously?

Not these parents, though. Curious thing, that.

 

[madeleine]

Add to that the knowledge that IF she was "chronically" abused, then the perpetrator had "chronic" access to her.

Wouldn't you want to know WHO among your friends and family would have betrayed you so egregiously?

Not these parents, though. Curious thing, that.

I was asking the same thing right here on this forum a while back.Now I think,maybe these parents and their lawyers were well aware of the leaks and LE's tactics and knew what to take for serious and what not.

 

[OneLove]

Add to that the knowledge that IF she was "chronically" abused, then the perpetrator had "chronic" access to her.

Wouldn't you want to know WHO among your friends and family would have betrayed you so egregiously?

Not these parents, though. Curious thing, that.

Bumping to add that, obviously, they would naturally NOT be curious, or want anyone else curious, IF they KNEW the person doing the abusing was a person they felt protective toward in spite of sexual abuse and even their daughter's murder.

I can't imagine that fits any of their employees or friends. I could believe it maybe applying to a grandfather were it not for the actual murder. If sexual abuse were a generational issue in that family, they might have been inclined to cover it up. But MURDER? :snooty:

So that leaves a pretty small field of suspects. MOO

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe this is the right place for it,

ST brings this issue re PRIOR abuse up quite often. Now what I don't get is....he is the one who said that in his mind JR was cleared pretty soon and he also implies that PR did it all by herself.But if we're dealing with prior abuse here.....did ST instantly thought of PR when the docs (so he claims) told him about prior abuse?:waitasec: He never considered that JR might have been responsible?Why?Was he THAT biased against PR?
I mean ,when I first heard of possible prior abuse I instantly thought of JR and the other males who had access to JB.I really would like to understand why ST never had suspicions re JR. I mean,if this prior abuse stuff is true............how the heck (as a lead detective) can you be so SURE that it was PR(punishment,whatever) and NOT JR OR someone ELSE?

Darn good questions! I can't figure it, either.

Was the prior abuse issue just a bluff?

I doubt it.

There are so many DIRTY LIES surrounding this case,it makes me sick.............

Agreed, but probably in a different way than you're thinking.

and even Beckner admits that they sometimes use such tactics in order to make suspects talk.....maybe in this case they went TOO far....

I sincerely doubt it. If that were the case, I STRONGLY doubt that eight different specialists, independent of each other, would come to the same conclusion.

 

[BBB167893]

Add to that the knowledge that IF she was "chronically" abused, then the perpetrator had "chronic" access to her.

Wouldn't you want to know WHO among your friends and family would have betrayed you so egregiously?

Not these parents, though. Curious thing, that.

Yeah, OneLove, that was my point.

 

[madeleine]

I STRONGLY doubt that eight different specialists, independent of each other, would come to the same conclusion.

I know that's why I don't understand why they didn't investigate THIS further.I always said that if this were true (prior sexual abuse) then this case becomes so much simpler.Prior sexual abuse+murder....no coincidence.

 

[madeleine]

What I am afraid of is that prior sexual abuse didn't fit ST's bed wetting theory and maybe that's why IF true he didn't spend too much time with it.

 

[madeleine]

Re RDI it makes more sense to me that PR wrote the note in order to cover for JR (JR being the abuser) than covering for herself and JR keeping his mouth shut and getting over his wife's moment of rage which killed his precious beloved daughter.

 

[madeleine]

This is one of the issues that doesn't fit the accident+cover-up/PDI theory in my mind.Of course,I never saw a report,this has been brought up by the same detectives I so don't trust anymore.But if it's true it changes many things.For starters,why was ST fixated on PR and just PR.Something isn't right.

 

[BBB167893]

I know that's why I don't understand why they didn't investigate THIS further.I always said that if this were true (prior sexual abuse) then this case becomes so much simpler.Prior sexual abuse+murder....no coincidence.

Couldn't have said either one better myself!

What I am afraid of is that prior sexual abuse didn't fit ST's bed wetting theory and maybe that's why IF true he didn't spend too much time with it

I'm hard-pressed to disagree.

Re RDI it makes more sense to me that PR wrote the note in order to cover for JR (JR being the abuser) than covering for herself and JR keeping his mouth shut and getting over his wife's moment of rage which killed his precious beloved daughter.

:clap:

This is one of the issues that doesn't fit the accident+cover-up/PDI theory in my mind.

At least not as ST outlines it.

But if it's true it changes many things.For starters,why was ST fixated on PR and just PR.Something isn't right.

I agree.

 

[madeleine]

Maybe they(LE) thought or were told that sexual abuse is hard to prove.So they knew that RDI and that it had something to do with prior abuse but decided to target PR because it was.....easier?We put her under pressure and eventually she will spill the beans and we'll get the REAL killer?Still doesn't make it right,dunno.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe they(LE) thought or were told that sexual abuse is hard to prove.So they knew that RDI and that it had something to do with prior abuse but decided to target PR because it was.....easier?We put her under pressure and eventually she will spill the beans and we'll get the REAL killer?Still doesn't make it right,dunno.

You may be on to something!

 

[MurriFlower]

You two paint an interesting picture. But you missed the mark. We're not referring to the vaginal injuries suffered that night. We're talking about vaginal injuries suffered BEFORE that night, at which point I, as a grieving father, WOULD want to know about it, because it's a damn good lead! Common sense dictates that whomever was abusing her likely killed her.

Hmm, I must be lost, because I remember the conversation beginning thus:

Originally Posted by joeskidbeck View Post
I just read something that I find curious. It was in Patsy and John's 2000 interview with Larry King: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...27/lkl.00.html


KING: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?
P. RAMSEY: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.

What?????? Did she not consider that paintbrush handle sexual abuse? This woman was so focused on the whole world believing that JB was never molested that she can't even keep up with what the interviewer is asking. He was not asking whether she was abused before that night. He was asking did the pedophile/killer abuse her. I don't know that I believe JB was molested before that night, but that pb handle is molestation in anybody's book.
What????????? You cannot read??????? If you had bothered to read more than two lines, (which served your purpose) you would know that at the time this interview occurred, the R's had not even been given a copy of the Autopsy Report. How would they have any idea about the paintbrush handle?? Lets put it into context shall we? :

"KING: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?
P. RAMSEY: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.
J. RAMSEY: We don't know.
KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?
J. RAMSEY: No, no.
P. RAMSEY: No.
J. RAMSEY: We've -- the police have not talked to us at all. We don't know what's been done.
KING: Well, they have questioned you, right?
J. RAMSEY: They have questioned us extensively.
KING: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?
J. RAMSEY: No.
P. RAMSEY: No.
KING: You don't know how your daughter died?
P. RAMSEY: Well, we do.
J. RAMSEY: We do.
P. RAMSEY: From what we...
J. RAMSEY: She was strangled.
KING: That's the cause of death, strangulation?
J. RAMSEY: That's the cause of death.
KING: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?
J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.

This is in reference to the injuries that occurred at the time of the murder. The discussion then went on to a criticism of JR not wanting to know about the sexual stuff. This isn't anything to do with what Fang or I want, or if their lawyers knew about the autopsy report, it's to do with BPD communicating with the parents of a victim. Instead they treated them like the prime suspects and gave them no respect at all.