Is the molester also the killer?

[Ames]

Yep. Can you imagine how insane it was there that night. And I agree with you. They got Berke out quickly so he would not be questioned. He did ask them what he could do and John semi yelled we are not talking to you. He said he heard creaking during the night.

He also said that he heard voices. HMMMMM Must have been the "intruder" and his friend.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think (as do many here, I'm sure) that BR knows a lot about what happened that night. I think he'll never forget...no matter how many years pass. It's one of the things that make reading all those interviews so aggravating - all the "I don't remembers". I think they remembered every little detail about the night their daughter died. Someone mentioned here that maybe BR would finally speak up after JR had also died. Maybe. If there was no involvement by his half-brother.

 

[lovebites]

That idea of asking the dinner guests those questions, and slipping in a few about JAR is a good one. If only. As far as leaving the clean-up to "innocent" parties- you're not innocent if you help cover up a crime like that, you're an accomplice.
I always wonder about the person who made the claim that JAR tried to get someone to kill JBR. That was one of the things that was heard, and then just sort of faded away. Was there ever any follow-up with this person? Was it ever shown to be a credible claim? Because if JBR was getting old enough to resist and tell, that's a motive in my book.
The contents of that suitcase always raised a red flag to me. The Dr.Seuss book, the semen-stained blanket. The children's book is an odd thing to put in with the college blanket. And if it was just storage, it's still odd. It sounds like a ready-made molestation kit, almost like it was kept handy for abuse, which probably began when she was younger and not really aware of what was going on. Reading the book to her may have kept her quiet and still.

Also makes you wonder if there was one or several semen stains on the blanket AND if there were several separate semen "deposits" on the blanket, were they "deposited" on different occasions? The answer to that could add muster to the notion that the blanket was being used regularly during separate and ongoing molestation sessions (if in fact JonBenet was being molested).

 

[Ames]

I think (as do many here, I'm sure) that BR knows a lot about what happened that night. I think he'll never forget...no matter how many years pass. It's one of the things that make reading all those interviews so aggravating - all the "I don't remembers". I think they remembered every little detail about the night their daughter died. Someone mentioned here that maybe BR would finally speak up after JR had also died. Maybe. If there was no involvement by his half-brother.

I am with you on that one. I also believe that Burke knows ALOT more than he is letting on. Go onto the PR Interview thread, on this board...and read the portion of the interview from Patsy, that I posted...about Burke not asking ANY QUESTIONS whatsoever about how his sister died...or anything about that night. According to Patsy, Burke just kept to himself and played video games...and never talked about JB, or asked ANY questions AT ALL about the night of her death. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! If YOU were nine years old, and your little sister was found murdered...would you just clam up, and never ask ANY questions about that night? Would you just be content playing your video games...like she never existed? Patsy is lying through her teeth. If you want me to...if you can't find the post...I will post it here.

 

[Ames]

2 THOMAS HANEY: What have you told
3 Burke about the murder?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: To date?
5 THOMAS HANEY: To date.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, just that we
7 are going to try to find out who did this to
8 JonBenet. Find out, you know, I haven't told
9 him anything about how she was murdered or the
10 details like that.
11 THOMAS HANEY: Sure, not graphic,
12 but --
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
14 THOMAS HANEY: -- what details
15 would he know or had you talked with him about?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: To be quite honest,
17 we really haven't talked with him much about it.
18 It's too hard, you know, it's hard to talk
19 about.
20 THOMAS HANEY: Has he volunteered
21 information?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
23 THOMAS HANEY: Has he had
24 questions?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.)
0292
1 THOMAS HANEY: Never "what's going
2 to happen, who did it"?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
4 THOMAS HANEY: How about we talked
5 yesterday about him being harassed or followed
6 by some of the bigger kids. Doesn't that spark
7 something in him to say something?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, you would
9 think he would, but he doesn't. He kind of, you
10 know, keeps with his little computer games and
11 just kind of doesn't want to go there.



Heck yeah, that boy knows more than we think he does.

 

[DeeDee249]

Don't flame me for this but...is anyone else here as creeped out by the (younger, not present-day) BR as I am?
Not that I am implying he was involved (though I won't rule it out) but his demeanor that day, and just the things I've read about his reaction to the death of his little sister (or lack or reaction, a better wording). He just seems like a strange kid to me. Disconnected somehow. I've seen (here) his MySpace page, and it seems he grew up to be a reasonably normal kid, at least from what little can be seen on that site. But he's keeping an awful lot inside. Every parent deals with their kid differently, but parents trying to find out who killed their child in their own home would be asking their other child relentlessly about anything they'd seen/heard that night- anything. I've read varying interviews where the R's say they thought he was sleeping through all the commotion and just left him there, then I've seen where they actually admit he was awake for the 911 call, but decided not to bring that info forward to keep him out of it.
I also don't think I'd stonewall to keep him from being interviewed by the very LE people I was expecting to solve this crime. Those actions are exactly the opposite of what innocent people would do. I can understand not wanting to have a younger child, say 2-5, pressed for information- too traumatic, probably not useful, but BR was 9. And he was into his video games, etc, I am sure he was an intelligent kid at that age, so why not try to find out if he had anything to add, even if he has seen/heard anything said to his sister at the party Christmas Day or on the 23rd. And there have been cases where even a younger child has given valuable information in crime investigations.

 

[lovebites]

Don't flame me for this but...is anyone else here as creeped out by the (younger, not present-day) BR as I am?
Not that I am implying he was involved (though I won't rule it out) but his demeanor that day, and just the things I've read about his reaction to the death of his little sister (or lack or reaction, a better wording). He just seems like a strange kid to me. Disconnected somehow. I've seen (here) his MySpace page, and it seems he grew up to be a reasonably normal kid, at least from what little can be seen on that site. But he's keeping an awful lot inside. Every parent deals with their kid differently, but parents trying to find out who killed their child in their own home would be asking their other child relentlessly about anything they'd seen/heard that night- anything. I've read varying interviews where the R's say they thought he was sleeping through all the commotion and just left him there, then I've seen where they actually admit he was awake for the 911 call, but decided not to bring that info forward to keep him out of it.
I also don't think I'd stonewall to keep him from being interviewed by the very LE people I was expecting to solve this crime. Those actions are exactly the opposite of what innocent people would do. I can understand not wanting to have a younger child, say 2-5, pressed for information- too traumatic, probably not useful, but BR was 9. And he was into his video games, etc, I am sure he was an intelligent kid at that age, so why not try to find out if he had anything to add, even if he has seen/heard anything said to his sister at the party Christmas Day or on the 23rd. And there have been cases where even a younger child has given valuable information in crime investigations.

I think it's well within the realm of possibility that the siblings got into an altercation that night (over tired, amped up from the days excitement, new Christmas toys to fight over) and perhaps JonBenet got struck on the head with something during that altercation. Maybe after realizing that her head wound was so grievous (Burke may not have alerted them to JB's condition until it was too late), or even thinking she was already dead, they went into cover-up mode to (in their minds) protect him somehow.

 

[daphnec]

I will gladly admit that I know very little about this case. I have always been very confused by the details and why the grand jury did nothing and why they shielded Burke as much as they did. My first reaction was that they were covering for him. But then I read somewhere that even if he did do it, they couldn't charge him due to a law in Colorado about not charging children under a certain age. So, does that mean we will never learn the truth if he did do it?

 

[lovebites]

I will gladly admit that I know very little about this case. I have always been very confused by the details and why the grand jury did nothing and why they shielded Burke as much as they did. My first reaction was that they were covering for him. But then I read somewhere that even if he did do it, they couldn't charge him due to a law in Colorado about not charging children under a certain age. So, does that mean we will never learn the truth if he did do it?

I always thought that if it was Burke, the Ramsey's, during the panic of it all, weren't sure what could happen to him as a result and therefore made a split decision to insure his protection by covering up. Even if they found out later that he wouldn't have been legally punished, they'd already staged the horrific crime scene and were in too deep to back out.
It would certainly explain why so many people ie. extended family and friends would be willing to keep quiet for all these years.

I guess if he did do it there's always a chance that one day he'll say so.

 

[UKGuy]

YES!!!! There is someone who has wondered about this as I have! Perhaps the suitcase was a "kit" of sorts or as you put it "a lure". Wish there was a way of pursuing that train of thought further.


And to address UKGuy's theory, as much as I respect and enjoy your posts, I do find it implausible that ALL of the Ramsey men were pedophiles and indeed only a pedophile would molest a child. I'm also not of the belief that just because a man may not be having sexual relations with his wife that he'd develop a predilection for pedophilia - he'd just have an affair. After all, pedophilia is a specific and intensely perverse illness and not simply an answer to a normal male's need to sate his sex drive.

lovebites,

Have I said all the Ramsey men were pedophiles, and its incorrect to state that only a pedophile would sexually assault a child e.g. situational sex offenders can exploit children sexually but they are not normally pedophiles, JonBenet's killer may fit into this category, as may any of the male suspects linked with JonBenet's death?

The investigators considered that JonBenet had been sexually molested in the past, Coroner Meyer also offered this opinion, and suggested just prior to her death she had engaged in sexual activity. JonBenet was discovered with a sexual assault, one that had bled, then been cleaned up, so alike the flashlight that was found perfectly clean inside and out, someone removed forensic evidence from the crime scene. All this suggests the person molesting JonBenet played a part in her death?


.

 

[UKGuy]

ok,I wasn't sure b/c there are sexual deviants who put the 2 together..a pain/pleasure thing at the same time..at least to them it is.have you not heard of bdsm,s &m,etc?I used to host a chat room,and I've seen it all,that's the only reason I know about it.




I agree with that,and I think a lot of RDI's do as well.but that doesn't mean she was killed over it.but I think the prior abuse is separate from the staged abuse inflicted upon her that night.



well,I still don't think it was hidden,it's just that the FBI states that's how a parent would leave their child...wrapped up.



I think there are some separate things going on all at once that have to be looked at separately tho.the prior and staged abuse may not have had anything to do with her death.

JMO8778,

ok,I wasn't sure b/c there are sexual deviants who put the 2 together..a pain/pleasure thing at the same time..at least to them it is.have you not heard of bdsm,s &m,etc?I used to host a chat room,and I've seen it all,that's the only reason I know about it.

Its not something I take an interest in, also JonBenet's injuries are specific rather than diffuse, which you might expect from a prolonged sadistic asault?

I agree with that,and I think a lot of RDI's do as well.but that doesn't mean she was killed over it.but I think the prior abuse is separate from the staged abuse inflicted upon her that night.

Then if you have a theory as to why she was killed, you must explain why the two sexual assaults are not connected, particularly in the context of the wine-cellar staging which we know was intended to decieve the investigators.

well,I still don't think it was hidden,it's just that the FBI states that's how a parent would leave their child...wrapped up.

The FBI were referring to the blankets. Her sexual assault was buried beneath layers of clothing, and blankets, if the intention of the wine-cellar staging was to leave the impression that a homicidal psychopath had murdered JonBenet and sexually assaulted her why did they not leave her minus her underwear and longjohns, they had no problem applying a garrote and leaving that on display. Her sexual assault was intentionally hidden from view.

To reiterate ... wrapped up. the parent may leave their child wrapped up, but in the context of a staged lust murder, there is no need to wipe her down and redress her in size-12 underwear, along with the urine-soaked longjohns.

I think there are some separate things going on all at once that have to be looked at separately tho.the prior and staged abuse may not have had anything to do with her death.

It is possible that they are not connected, which is what some accident theories suggest to explain away her acute sexual injuries, but the accident theories have other inconsistencies which when all listed e.g. her urine-soaked longjohns, begin to make the accident theory although plausible less probable.


.

 

[Camper]

What was JR doing the day BEFORE Christmas? Did he have time
and inclination to prep the MOVIE camera for HIS family
traditional Christmas MOVIE?

The missing TRADITIONAL family movie, either holds a view of
someone arriving at the home unexpectedly that would be a prime
suspect in the murder, OR OR it holds in full view a violent
confrontation by 'the' children.

OR OR it could have shown someone receiving a gift of 'THE' flashlight
found on the kitchen counter, NEW THOUGHT FOR
ME AND ""WE"" have NEVER posted that 'thought' before on this thread!!!!

WHY is the family traditional movie missing on 'Murder Day'?

.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

Please pay attention to the forensic evidence, the garrote was applied down in the basement, but she may have been wiped down upstairs. I am willing to be corrected, but how do you know that for sure?

Suerly you mean indifferently wrapped in blankets and deposited in the windowless wine-cellar, since this a homicide we are discussing not a kindergarten snooze. I know UK, you are positive that John wanted sex and was refused so he bludgeoned his daughter to death - or according to one of your other posts waited until Christmas to inflict some pain on JonBenet - but that is just not how it happened. This is an accident, albeit, a horrific one with intent to harm at the moment, but a rage accident all the same, and John was not having sex with his daughter. She was however suffering from severe vaginitis and the pain and itching must have been unbearable at times, because Patsy thought the best way to take care of it was by douching her - which was the worst way. And let me tell you another thing, if you think with the severity of these infections that JonBenet would be able to withstand someone molesting her without screaming out, think again. It would be incredibly painful. And if your answer to that one is "they don't always cry out", my reply to you would be that JonBenet would cry out every day according to Linda Hoffman Paugh when she and Patsy were in the bathroom. What do you think was going on in there? I think Patsy was douching JonBenet and it was extremely painful.


.

No, UK, I do not mean indifferently. I mean she was "lovingly" wrapped up and she was "lovingly" wiped down by one of the parents, most likely John. Because a parent kills a child, does not mean he does not love her. I know that seems hard for you to grasp, but parents will OFTEN place their child in a loving manner after they have killed them. This time it was a rage accident and again for the umteenth time, THEY DID NOT MEAN FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. And the wiping down of her and the wrapping her up is an INDICATION that it is a family member who loved her. I want to suggest you get some reading material on parents who kill. Try John Douglas' book.

 

[Solace]

lovebites,

Have I said all the Ramsey men were pedophiles, and its incorrect to state that only a pedophile would sexually assault a child e.g. situational sex offenders can exploit children sexually but they are not normally pedophiles, JonBenet's killer may fit into this category, as may any of the male suspects linked with JonBenet's death?

The investigators considered that JonBenet had been sexually molested in the past, Coroner Meyer also offered this opinion, and suggested just prior to her death she had engaged in sexual activity. JonBenet was discovered with a sexual assault, one that had bled, then been cleaned up, so alike the flashlight that was found perfectly clean inside and out, someone removed forensic evidence from the crime scene. All this suggests the person molesting JonBenet played a part in her death?


.

And there are those who suggested that she was NOT molested. Lets try to give both sides here.

 

[Albert18]

I think Burke has an ironclad alibi.

John is obviously in charge of the situation on the 26th. He makes sure Patsy isn't taken aside and questioned but he does nothing of the sort regarding Burke. Burke is left unprotected and shuttled away from the situation, which should tell everybody, Burke couldn't hurt him or Patsy with his words.

John knew what happened that night. He knows what information everybody in the house would know. He protects Patsy, not Burke.

Also John assembled one of the finest legal teams in history. If Burke had done anything he would have been protected by his age. This great legal team that knew every trick in the book wouldn't have used this basic law to protect this family?

Now some have suggested the legal team didn't want to use this legal protection because then everybody would be able to deduce it was Burke. We are talking murder here, not vandalism. If this all started with Burke, that legal team would have had this case put to bed in January of 97. You had a DA and a police chief who would have been hugging and kissing everybody in the room if this case could have been shut down. Since this didn't happen, you have to assume that was not an option because Burke wasn't involved.

 

[UKGuy]

And there are those who suggested that she was NOT molested. Lets try to give both sides here.

Solace,

Those that have studied the unreleased autopsy photographs taken of JonBenet's genitals, consider that her unnaturally enlarged hymen, along with its erosion indicate prior chronic molestation.

Then there is the acute injury to her vagina sustained at the time of her death, which represents a sexual assault.

So I reckon those that think JonBenet was not molested are simply ignoring the forensic evidence.


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

Those that have studied the unreleased autopsy photographs taken of JonBenet's genitals, consider that her unnaturally enlarged hymen, along with its erosion indicate prior chronic molestation. She may have been molested, but I am leaning towards she was not. The fact that she has ongoing infections and rashes - extremely painful ' tells me that erosion could have come from the douching and if you think you cannot bleed with douching, think again. You can.

Then there is the acute injury to her vagina sustained at the time of her death, which represents a sexual assault. No one is disputing that, that was meant to stage and throw you off, and don't look now UK, but it worked on you.

So I reckon those that think JonBenet was not molested are simply ignoring the forensic evidence.


.

Good morning Maam,

See my replies above.

 

[UKGuy]

No, UK, I do not mean indifferently. I mean she was "lovingly" wrapped up and she was "lovingly" wiped down by one of the parents, most likely John. Because a parent kills a child, does not mean he does not love her. I know that seems hard for you to grasp, but parents will OFTEN place their child in a loving manner after they have killed them. This time it was a rage accident and again for the umteenth time, THEY DID NOT MEAN FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. And the wiping down of her and the wrapping her up is an INDICATION that it is a family member who loved her. I want to suggest you get some reading material on parents who kill. Try John Douglas' book.

Solace,

I have read his book(s), and am aware of the more controversial decisions he has taken as a profiler, and do not consider his opinion to be reliable, since it can change according to the political circumstances.

Why are you banging on about "lovingly" wrapped up and she was "lovingly" wiped down ?

So what, was JonBenet lovingly asphyxiated, lovingly whacked upon her head, lovingly sexually assaulted, lovingly garroted, lovingly dumped in the wine-cellar?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Good morning Maam,

See my replies above.

Solace,

The fact that she has ongoing infections and rashes

Which may also be a consequence of regular chronic sexual molestation!

 

[Solace]

Solace,

Which may also be a consequence of regular chronic sexual molestation!

But more than likely, it is the fact that her underwear were CONSTANTLY damp and Patsy was constantly giving her douches to keep infections at bay, but in actuality, she was keeping the infections thriving.