Cyril Wecht's theory of the murder

[2 percent]

Sexual contact: It is possible sexual contact was perpetrated by 2 or even 3 (If the corporal cleansing idea is accepted – douching or rough cleansing mean PR could be involved with this.) It seems less probable IMHO, but acknowledge the possibility.

Kolar does an outstanding job of describing SBP and connecting the dots to BR. Too, given the presence of a dictionary with the word “incest” highlighted, methinks circumstantially someone in a position to know felt one of the R’s were responsible for the sexual contact that night. It’s to be noted that the sexual evidence was “distanced” by the R’s – both in a police interview and in their press conference beginning of May ’97. In that tightly controlled press gathering JR states emphatically that he did not kill JB. But regards sexual abuse: “I can tell you those were the most (BBM) hurtful innuendoes to us as a family. They are totally false.” His statement about not killing his daughter is straightforward. His statement about sexual abuse – more emphatic and he includes his entire family. What could be worse than being accused of killing your daughter? Sexual abuse. Make of it what you want.

One last story for consideration, but first a discussion. Some of you may know of the syndrome of giving one’s wife a nice present after being caught doing something bad – an affair, etc. Kobe Bryant’s $6 million diamond ring for his wife after his Colorado bad boy behavior comes to mind. (moo) Well, in the fall of ’95 the R’s took a trip to Texas. JB was 5 years old. When they returned the photographer of JB who also knew the family said JB’s “look” of childhood innocence was gone. ( It’s my belief photographers are trained to notice expressions.) What caused my antenna to go up was that PR came back with a humongous diamond ring and was shining people on about why she got the ring. PR said she saw others down in Texas with big rings and she wanted one. The photographer who heard this story thought it rang very false. OK, make of this what you want, totally circumstantial. Or call it too speculative. JB’s innocent look gone and PR sports a big diamond ring.

These are just details discovered on the web, in ST’s book and in Wecht’s book. Not sure it contributes anything to our discussion here, but I am a believer in the preponderance of circumstantial evidence explaining a crime. Interpreting who it points to the best is the perplexing part.

Just so I'm understanding you, are you saying you think John began abusing JBR, Patsy found out and in payment for not freaking/leaving/etc she got paid with a huge diamond?
I want to be clear, I'm not disputing what you're saying. Merely asking for clarification in my own mind.

While I do agree wives and girlfriends often get paid off when a husband or boyfriend misbehaves, a mother turning a blind eye to a very young daughter being molested is a little far for me. At least for now. Which is a little weird considering I think Patsy pretty much turned a blind eye to the murder of her child. :banghead: hahaha

I guess my biggest stumbling block is Patsy having to look her daughter in the eye every day and I just can't see her being able to keep turning the blind eye. Wouldn't she be afraid JBR would tell someone? She was around a lot of adults a lot of the time.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But that's not fact, it's speculation based on personal experience.



Her hymen was eroded.
There's no innocent explanation for that.

It would be as much speculation that someone in her family was abusing her.

I wonder if that was true or that maybe she was not born with one fully intact? It happens. Some girls are born with none some normal and done too much.

I have to wonder is it has been assumed when maybe she had a partial one to begin with.

 

[2 percent]

2 percent,
And if as a parent you are unaware of any prior molestation, who was it that cleaned up JonBenet, changed her underwear, dressed her in longjohns, then wrapped her in a blanket?

Yes. A parent, if not both, had to know.

The R's could have opted for an intruder led molestation and asphyxiation, leaving JonBenet in her bed, bloodied and bruised form her encounter, but they never so why not?

I imagine because they didn't think it was credible that JBR would be molested and assaulted in her bedroom with no one either hearing or witnessing the attack. Leaving her in the bedroom would point almost exclusively at a member of the family as the murderer and molester.

 

[2 percent]

It would be as much speculation that someone in her family was abusing her.

We're not really talking about "who" right now, though.
We're talking about the reality of the abuse. By saying that you knew children with UTIs and no abuse you made a definite statement based on personal experience which heavily implied you believe a UTI can present as abuse.

I wonder if that was true or that maybe she was not born with one fully intact? It happens. Some girls are born with none some normal and done too much.

Only about 20% of women are born without or only part of their hymen. The evidence doesn't support this theory. And personally I wouldn't seriously consider it anyway unless the evidence supported no other theory but that one.

In this case specifically, there was blood present and both recent and previous swelling at one particular point of the hymen, the part that was eroded. The rest of the hymen was intact.

I have to wonder is it has been assumed when maybe she had a partial one to begin with.

I'm not really a believer in exhausting all possibilities because the more obscure leaps we are asked to take are mainly misleading when the most obvious and logical explanation is right in front of you. A mostly intact hymen with one part obviously damaged means only one thing to me. Molestation.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes. A parent, if not both, had to know.



I imagine because they didn't think it was credible that JBR would be molested and assaulted in her bedroom with no one either hearing or witnessing the attack. Leaving her in the bedroom would point almost exclusively at a member of the family as the murderer and molester.

2 percent,
So whats so different about the wine-cellar?


IMO its the abuse that is being staged away or covered up, her death is self evident, but not her molestation, at least not immediately.

And if the parents knew about it, then when did they first know, the night of her death?


.

 

[2 percent]

2 percent,
So whats so different about the wine-cellar?

To me? Nothing. I think an intruder would have definitely taken her out of the house. The family wouldn't necessarily think of disposing of the body first. In my experience, families don't usually go for dumping the body when the murder is in the house. Especially kids.

 

[bettybaby00]

We're not really talking about "who" right now, though.
We're talking about the reality of the abuse. By saying that you knew children with UTIs and no abuse you made a definite statement based on personal experience which heavily implied you believe a UTI can present as abuse.



Only about 20% of women are born without or only part of their hymen. The evidence doesn't support this theory. And personally I wouldn't seriously consider it anyway unless the evidence supported no other theory but that one.

In this case specifically, there was blood present and both recent and previous swelling at one particular point of the hymen, the part that was eroded. The rest of the hymen was intact.



I'm not really a believer in exhausting all possibilities because the more obscure leaps we are asked to take are mainly misleading when the most obvious and logical explanation is right in front of you. A mostly intact hymen with one part obviously damaged means only one thing to me. Molestation.

Although I'm no expert, its hard to perceive the facts of the autopsy report as anything other than JB had been sexual abused in some manner prior to her death. Kolar describes the medical examiner's findings.

dr. Meyer (medical examiner) along with the chief of Denver children's hospital child protection team dr. Sirontak, observed that "JB's hymen was shriveled and retracted. a sign that she had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death. " (61)

Dr. Meyer's concerns led him to "consult with various other experts, including physicians and forensic pathologists from St. Louis, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania to name a few." They all came to the opinion, "that JB had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertion of the foreign object that created the injury at the time of her death."(64)

Moreover, IIRC, there is mention in the book that states her vaginal canal was much larger than normal. (Possibly someone else can point to this info directly)

 

[UKGuy]

To me? Nothing. I think an intruder would have definitely taken her out of the house. The family wouldn't necessarily think of disposing of the body first. In my experience, families don't usually go for dumping the body when the murder is in the house. Especially kids.

2 percent,
Yes I think an intruder might have wanted JonBenet alive, there is not much point in abducting a dead body.

.

 

[questfortrue]

Just so I'm understanding you, are you saying you think John began abusing JBR, Patsy found out and in payment for not freaking/leaving/etc she got paid with a huge diamond?
I want to be clear, I'm not disputing what you're saying. Merely asking for clarification in my own mind.

While I do agree wives and girlfriends often get paid off when a husband or boyfriend misbehaves, a mother turning a blind eye to a very young daughter being molested is a little far for me. At least for now. Which is a little weird considering I think Patsy pretty much turned a blind eye to the murder of her child. :banghead: hahaha

I guess my biggest stumbling block is Patsy having to look her daughter in the eye every day and I just can't see her being able to keep turning the blind eye. Wouldn't she be afraid JBR would tell someone? She was around a lot of adults a lot of the time.

Difficult to think about and even harder to discuss here. Your word choice is a little strong, but yes I consider if this information from one of their friends wasn’t a clue that something changed in JB after this trip. It is a far leap to think that PR would have been mollified by a present of this magnitude, but maybe, especially if JR swore nothing like this would happen again.

I’m not saying PR and JR didn’t love their children – in their own way. And the Texas vacation situation may have only happened once (or twice if the story relayed by Diane Hallis is true) if it happened at all. We were just discussing the elements of circumstantial evidence. Easy to review the lies. Harder to review this topic.

We already can interpret that PR had sexualized JB. She was dressed sexy for pageants in order to capture the eye of the judges. JB said herself, for Halloween, she wanted to be “a sexy witch.” JB was taught to behave with alluring moves on stage, including one incident when she purportedly suggestively moved a saxophone between her legs while dressed as an elf. Or there is the scene where she whirls around and takes off her skirt. Somebody, namely PR, helped coach her in these moves, teaching a 6-year-old to be sexy. So I don’t exonerate all of what PR was doing with JB. And it makes me wonder about PR’s values.

Friends of the R’s wanted to intervene about JB. PR also felt that JB was becoming too “flirty” as she put it. The detectives did ask PR is she had ever been (sexually) abused, likely to try to find what made her tick and especially how she thought of abuse. Her response was a very quiet, “No”.

Hodges thought JR was a situational molester, based on his forensic psychiatric profiling. IDK. Experts can be wrong. BTW, I also don’t give BR a pass here, since Kolar explains why he may indeed have had SBP. But there’s not been much public evidence turned up about BR and the SBP, or at least none which I know of, except for the housekeeper finding BR and JB under the blanket together once. Someone (one of their friends) must have a keen suspicion about this topic.

All of this JMHO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

We're not really talking about "who" right now, though.
We're talking about the reality of the abuse. By saying that you knew children with UTIs and no abuse you made a definite statement based on personal experience which heavily implied you believe a UTI can present as abuse.



Only about 20% of women are born without or only part of their hymen. The evidence doesn't support this theory. And personally I wouldn't seriously consider it anyway unless the evidence supported no other theory but that one.

In this case specifically, there was blood present and both recent and previous swelling at one particular point of the hymen, the part that was eroded. The rest of the hymen was intact.



I'm not really a believer in exhausting all possibilities because the more obscure leaps we are asked to take are mainly misleading when the most obvious and logical explanation is right in front of you. A mostly intact hymen with one part obviously damaged means only one thing to me. Molestation.

To me if there is a possibility if another answer than you can not have a definitive theory. If there is the possibility than it is something I need to consider. I still see things that people take as fact here because someone else deduced it.

I don't care much about likely, I care about can I absolutely rule something out and if I can't then it still remains a factor.

I may work this different from most people here but for me I need to rule out all other possibilities to consider the family as perpetrators.

I just don't see it yet.

 

[madeleine]

Because there was one that showed up in a photo that was on a roll of a few Christmas photos that were shot a
by JR and turned over to LE at a later time. There was a discrepancy between JR's and PR's statements as to who owned the scarf that was shown laying on one of the kitchen/hall counters.

If memory serves me the scarf was red and black?

red and black?didn't know...hmm....

 

[madeleine]

It would be as much speculation that someone in her family was abusing her.

I wonder if that was true or that maybe she was not born with one fully intact? It happens. Some girls are born with none some normal and done too much.

I have to wonder is it has been assumed when maybe she had a partial one to begin with.

fact is she bled from her vagina the night she was killed and someone took time to wipe her body off and redress her>>remove evidence of sexual assault

 

[SapphireSteel]

To me if there is a possibility if another answer than you can not have a definitive theory. If there is the possibility than it is something I need to consider. I still see things that people take as fact here because someone else deduced it.

I don't care much about likely, I care about can I absolutely rule something out and if I can't then it still remains a factor.

I may work this different from most people here but for me I need to rule out all other possibilities to consider the family as perpetrators.

I just don't see it yet.

Yes I work somewhat differently to that, being more your "if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck" type of girl.

Like the McCanns after them, something that cannot be apportioned to anyone else is the way they behaved after the "crime".

Odd behaviour stands out. Smiling and laughing at memorials stands out, as does doing weird and maudlin stuff with the body per PR.

Running a "charity" and making millions of dollars off your dead child is also extremely unusual behaviour, and makes people wonder as to exactly how much genuine grief exists.

Courting the media, threatening to sue Law Enforcement, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, "forgetting" important information - these things also raise questions that cannot so easily be answered if the parent is as innocent as they say they are.

:moo:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Odd behavior to me doesn't mean guilt. Because people act differently or have different parenting choices does not make them guilty of murdering their children.
I think of the days before Jessie Lunsford was found and people were pointing the finger at her family. If she had not been found people would most likely be after them.

Yet a crazy psychotic neighbor took her in the night abused her and buried that poor baby alive.

I have a lot of different searches going on now and I am gathering info.

I think there are a lot of crazy people out there. There are a lot of deviates in plain sight I just can not rule that whole group out at this point.

 

[2 percent]

To me if there is a possibility if another answer than you can not have a definitive theory. If there is the possibility than it is something I need to consider. I still see things that people take as fact here because someone else deduced it.

As an aside, I have rarely found anything definitive in life and almost nothing definitive in criminal cases. That's why DNA is never 100%, why eyewitness accounts vary and why many very bad people are not convicted of crimes they almost certainly committed.

I think the very thought of expecting perfection or absolutes halts justice in its tracks.

I don't care much about likely, I care about can I absolutely rule something out and if I can't then it still remains a factor.

Yet according to your own words you appear to have ruled out molestation in the face of clear evidence JBR's vagina was damaged, some at the time of her death, some at an earlier time.

I may work this different from most people here but for me I need to rule out all other possibilities to consider the family as perpetrators.

I just don't see it yet.

I don't think the approach matters as long as it is in a measured way.
To me it makes sense to first consider the opinions and conclusions of the experts. Personally if I don't think the expert conclusions and opinions are credible, then I move on to another explanation.

I'm assuming you have found the experts conclusions and opinions in this case are wrong. Having decided they are wrong about the abuse you then searched for another explanation for the partial hymen in a child.
Okay. But I'd like to know why you dispute the conclusion of the experts if you could please explain.

 

[2 percent]

Odd behavior to me doesn't mean guilt. Because people act differently or have different parenting choices does not make them guilty of murdering their children.
I think of the days before Jessie Lunsford was found and people were pointing the finger at her family. If she had not been found people would most likely be after them.

Not just the Lunsford case. Unless there is clear evidence of a stranger involved the family is always scoured when a child is murdered.
Again, children lead a small life compared to adults with very few circles and most of those circles intersect and the same people tend to keep popping up in those circles. I've been involved in two cases like this, one an adult and one a child. With the adult we were only questioned once but the child we were questioned over and over because three circles of her life intersected with us. Pretty much a child's life is their house, neighborhood, school, daycare and family/friends.

Have to say this again...I was so happy that Marc Klaas told Mark Lunsford to cooperate with the police immediately and quickly so they could move on from Lunsford as a suspect. I think it was one of the reasons the murderer was found so quickly. because Lunsford took Klaas's advice and cooperated.

Makes me wonder about the Ramseys....

I think there are a lot of crazy people out there. There are a lot of deviates in plain sight I just can not rule that whole group out at this point.

Again, I have to ask what evidence do you think points to how and why one of those crazy or deviant people got in the house?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

As an aside, I have rarely found anything definitive in life and almost nothing definitive in criminal cases. That's why DNA is never 100%, why eyewitness accounts vary and why many very bad people are not convicted of crimes they almost certainly committed.

I think the very thought of expecting perfection or absolutes halts justice in its tracks.



Yet according to your own words you appear to have ruled out molestation in the face of clear evidence JBR's vagina was damaged, some at the time of her death, some at an earlier time.



I don't think the approach matters as long as it is in a measured way.
To me it makes sense to first consider the opinions and conclusions of the experts. Personally if I don't think the expert conclusions and opinions are credible, then I move on to another explanation.

I'm assuming you have found the experts conclusions and opinions in this case are wrong. Having decided they are wrong about the abuse you then searched for another explanation for the partial hymen in a child.
Okay. But I'd like to know why you dispute the conclusion of the experts if you could please explain.

I'm not ruling out molestation. I can see other causes of the injuries that I think have been dismissed without real investigation, and I believe that if she was indeed molested it does not mean it was a person in her family. It could have been someone close to her and not someone who lived with her.

I have not said that anyone's conclusion was wrong, just that I do not agree with it. I have an issue with people making money off books about this case. Especially people in law enforcement. It bothers me.
I see a lot of judgments on the parents because they did not follow rules that others think they should. But again unless your child is missing you just do not know what it feels like.

As far as DNA, I just find it odd that people just discount it. Maybe it does not mean everything but that does not mean it does not mean something, That it does not indeed point to the killer.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157870&highlight=peggy+hettrick

This case comes to mind. A case where after Touch DNA was tested and used to clear the convicted.

"The new evidence surfaced after the Colorado Bureau of Investigation conducted new tests on DNA found on Hettrick's clothing, finding partial profiles that did not match Masters.

Masters' defense team pursued further testing with a laboratory in the Netherlands that ultimately provided a match with another man who had once been considered a suspect."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/18/masters/index.html

That was touch DNA. I remember watching the 48 hours show on this and it was touch DNA found just in her waist band. Where someone would have either pulled her pants down or up.

I just don't understand how it can be so discounted in this case. I have never seen a case before where DNA is just thrown in the trash as meaningless. It bothers me a lot.

 

[madeleine]

Because in this particular case the DNA was and is used as a defence spin.

Tricia was right on her show...if it was an intruder the most important piece of evidence he left behind was the RN,yet the R's never cared about it.I would have published it everywhere,every day,maybe someone recognizes the handwriting,it's basically all they got if they really wanna catch the killer,right?

And if there was an intruder,JR might hold the key to identifying him...the RN was addressed to HIM and the "intruder" targeted HIM....yet I never saw JR trying to figure out who it was and why...

 

[madeleine]

I personally am not against any further DNA testing in this case,especially after listening to Kolar on Tricia's show/the phone records issue...now I am pretty sure some calls were made that night and MAYBE help was called over....which means our mistery dna owner MIGHT be a person that helped in the cover-up/staging/crime scene cleaning.

Please,test more people,be my guest,I'd start with all the doctors known by the Ramseys and people who worked in the security area for JR's business.

 

[2 percent]

I'm not ruling out molestation. I can see other causes of the injuries that I think have been dismissed without real investigation, and I believe that if she was indeed molested it does not mean it was a person in her family. It could have been someone close to her and not someone who lived with her.

I have not said that anyone's conclusion was wrong, just that I do not agree with it. I have an issue with people making money off books about this case. Especially people in law enforcement. It bothers me.
I see a lot of judgments on the parents because they did not follow rules that others think they should. But again unless your child is missing you just do not know what it feels like.

As far as DNA, I just find it odd that people just discount it. Maybe it does not mean everything but that does not mean it does not mean something, That it does not indeed point to the killer.

Wait...I'm confused.

You're saying you don't rule out molestation but you're still looking for other explanations for JBR's injuries?
Why? I mean, to what end would it serve to find another cause for a hymen to be eroded? I don't see the purpose of denying the erosion of the hymen as a critical point in the murder other than taking the molestation out of the case altogether as either a motive or a cover up tactic.

And doesn't that kind of defeat the importance you are placing on DNA?
If there's no abuse and the hymen was never intact or compromised, then how can the blood found in JBR's underwear. which directly marries the abuse to the murder, be relevant to the murder? She'd just be a murdered girl with an uncommon hymen and unexplainable blood in her underwear.

Why don't you agree with the conclusion of abuse by the experts in this case? Is it only because Cyril Wecht wrote a book on the case that you don't believe him? Or do you have scientific basis for believing he is wrong in his conclusions?

I think most people are suspicious of the parents because, logically, when small children are killed they are usually killed by the people closest to them. parents and their love interests.

I don't think anyone would dispute that the Ramseys have every right to invoke all their rights to protect themselves....but then that's the problem, why are they protecting themselves to the extent of invoking all of their rights on top of using their power to limit interviews, etc.? Straight up suspicious. And so many of us instinctively know that that kind of behavior means something. I think Fleet White would agree.