Is the molester also the killer?

[UKGuy]

he didn't want to risk getting caught with it,or being in the same vicinity at the same time?

JMO8778,

So he left the risk with innocent 2nd parties, who considered his decision to cut and run, excellent, and so shouldered themselves with the focus and responsibility for the death of their daughter.

That does not sound right somehow?


.

 

[Camper]

Welll, IF IF IF the person I suspect got outta Dodge, leaving
innocent parties behind to create bogus explanations, the
innocent parties did a good job of it.

The innocent parties also saved themselves from having one
more relative get 'a' death penalty, or at least reach old
age in prison IF IF they did not get the death penalty in
court.

I blame alcohol and or drugs on the whole wild night.

I still wonder what information has still not seen the light
of day, that FW knows.

.

.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

So he left the risk with innocent 2nd parties, who considered his decision to cut and run, excellent, and so shouldered themselves with the focus and responsibility for the death of their daughter.

That does not sound right somehow?


.

IF it was someone related to the perp,like their grown child,they might cover for him.I admit that's a longshot,but,I'm still not sure that someone wasn't in Co. at the time.However,even if he was,that doesn't mean he's guilty.But I don't understand the comment that the killer should be forgiven.If the killer was unknown to the person who said this,I doubt he would have said it.BUT I don't think the comment would apply to anyone but another relative.I don't buy the hogwash that it's a friend of his.That's just plain nonsense. (I didn't name any names since I'm not sure I can here).

 

[DeeDee249]

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.

 

[icedtea4me]

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.

Maybe John Andrew prefers to look at the images in Dr. Seuss books, as opposed to those in Penthouse, when he spanks his monkey.


-Tea

 

[JMO8778]

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.

I wonder as well.
Yes that's odd,very odd,the contents of the suitcase.

 

[Ames]

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.

Maybe he put JB next to him, and the blanket over his lap, so she couldn't see what he was doing...while he read the book to her.

 

[UKGuy]

IF it was someone related to the perp,like their grown child,they might cover for him.I admit that's a longshot,but,I'm still not sure that someone wasn't in Co. at the time.However,even if he was,that doesn't mean he's guilty.But I don't understand the comment that the killer should be forgiven.If the killer was unknown to the person who said this,I doubt he would have said it.BUT I don't think the comment would apply to anyone but another relative.I don't buy the hogwash that it's a friend of his.That's just plain nonsense. (I didn't name any names since I'm not sure I can here).

JMO8778,

I reckon its a longshot too, particularly when it doesn't chime with the rest of the evidence.

I agree JAR was possibly referring to a family member indirectly when he suggested they should be forgiven, he most likely knows who her killer is?

I tend not to place too much emphasis on the stuff in the suitcase because wherever JonBenet was killed, including any location where she was cleaned up, or there was a prior staging, related forensic evidence was probably removed and dumped in the basement, consider the collection of pictures of JonBenet discovered in the Laundry Room, an interesting thought is was JonBenet intended to be relocated back to her bedroom re-dressed in her Barbie-Gown, since the basement seems a curious place for an intruder homicide, including her clean size-12's, the stager must have realized, questions would be asked, how come JonBenet has size-12's on down in the basement, whereas up in her bedroom, we are told by Patsy these were available in her dresser drawer?

Legally you can name anyone the investigating authorities considered a suspect, elimininated or not, since they can be reconsidered as suspects at a later date. e.g. their names are a matter of public record, as is their address.

So you can speculate regarding say a LHP whodunit, and construct a theory that suggests she was directly responsible for the death of JonBenet, this will simply be your opinion regarding your understanding of the facts.

However if you accuse a non-suspect of some criminal act relating to the death of JonBenet, or suggest an aspect of this person's public life, e.g. misuse of corporate funds, adultery, drinking heavily, smoking cannabis etc constitutes additional grounds for their inclusion as a suspect, then both you and this boards owner could be sued for libel, defamation of character, loss of earnings etc etc, in most cases a cease and desist legal letter is enough to avoid proceedings.


To avoid this situation, it can help to refer to potential suspects as 3rd parties, persons of interest to the investigation etc, preface their wrongdoings as allegations e.g. explicitly not facts, or use the traditional journalistic device of referring e.g. it has been reported that ... quoting verbatim, and listing your source.

.

 

[JMO8778]

Maybe he put JB next to him, and the blanket over his lap, so she couldn't see what he was doing...while he read the book to her.

that makes sense,could be.and it could be she was molested by more than one person?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

I reckon its a longshot too, particularly when it doesn't chime with the rest of the evidence.

I agree JAR was possibly referring to a family member indirectly when he suggested they should be forgiven, he most likely knows who her killer is?

It sure sounds like someone told him something,doesn't it?

I tend not to place too much emphasis on the stuff in the suitcase because wherever JonBenet was killed, including any location where she was cleaned up, or there was a prior staging, related forensic evidence was probably removed and dumped in the basement, consider the collection of pictures of JonBenet discovered in the Laundry Room, an interesting thought is was JonBenet intended to be relocated back to her bedroom re-dressed in her Barbie-Gown, since the basement seems a curious place for an intruder homicide, including her clean size-12's, the stager must have realized, questions would be asked, how come JonBenet has size-12's on down in the basement, whereas up in her bedroom, we are told by Patsy these were available in her dresser drawer?

good thoughts,there does seem to be evidence of another plan to stage the body in a different location,as well as I believe their first plan was to get her out of the house.I think in the end they were to afraid to go through with it out of fear of being seen or caught...their tire tracks,shoeprints,etc.,could be found outside.It's been said they would never do that...well,killing is worse than putting her outside,and considering the way she was garroted/staged,I think they would have no problem doing that in order to save their behinds.I think that's the way the RN reads."We will call you tomorrow.." They placed the note so as to say they found it morning of the 26th..so TOMORROW means the 27th..that gives them a full day to pull off whatever plans they had..it buys them some time.And then the line 'if we monitor you getting the money early' buys them some time as well,in the other direction..so they had it 'fixed' timewise for either direction.ie-once they got her body out of the house,they would then be free to call LE whenever they wanted.As well as 'getting the money early' would account for them being seen outside the house in the early morning.But, ESP. that one line...'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel',tells me that they definitely did plan to get her body out of the house at first.As far as WHY she was killed...'talking to a stray dog' 'she dies',etc,and then the R's called LE...I think that was their reasoning for those 'if you do this or that,she dies' lines...they DID contact LE,so therefore the 'killer' killed her.
I think that's why the RN was so long in the first place..they had all these things to account for,buy time for, and explain,as well as I think they(or at least JR anyway),attempted to set up Merrick and friends in it(ref. to the '2 gentlemen' and the 'use that good southern common sense of yours' line),and that's why it switches to JR's first name at the end,so it appears to be someone who knows him.
Anyway,that's just my take on it.

 

[Camper]

Love for one another could be the bond that held PR and JR
so tightly together through the worst of times.

I will never forget little JonBenet.

A grand collection of unfortunate circumstances sent this
little girls murder case to the dead file.

I am convinced that a small group of people have information
that would end the mystery of this tiny girls death.

I wonder IF JonBenet would forgive the killer?

.

 

[Camper]

It sure sounds like someone told him something,doesn't it?




good thoughts,there does seem to be evidence of another plan to stage the body in a different location,as well as I believe their first plan was to get her out of the house.I think in the end they were to afraid to go through with it out of fear of being caught...their tire tracks,shoeprints,etc.,could be found outside.It's been said they would never do that...well,killing is worse than putting her outside,and considering the way she was garroted/staged,I think they would have no problem doing that in order to save their behinds.I think that's the way the RN reads."We will call you tomorrow.." They placed the note so as to say they found it morning of the 26th..so TOMORROW means the 27th..that gives them a full day to pull off whatever plans they had..it buys them some time.And then the line 'if we monitor you getting the money early' buys them some time as well,in the other direction..so they had it 'fixed' timewise for either direction.ie-once they got her body out of the house,they would then be free to call LE whenever they wanted.As well as 'getting the money early' would account for them being seen outside the house in the early morning.But, ESP. that one line...'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel',tells me that they definitely did plan to get her body out of the house at first.As far as WHY she was killed...'talking to a stray dog' 'she dies',etc,and then the R's called LE...I think that was their reasoning for those 'if you do this or that,she dies' lines...they DID contact LE,so therefore the 'killer' killed her.

--->>>posting about the same time. The call that was to come
tomorrow, further evidenced a distancing of them selves, since
they would not be HOME tomorrow. THEY would be on 'the' plane
headed for MPLS.

.

 

[Ames]

It sure sounds like someone told him something,doesn't it?


good thoughts,there does seem to be evidence of another plan to stage the body in a different location,as well as I believe their first plan was to get her out of the house.I think in the end they were to afraid to go through with it out of fear of being seen or caught...their tire tracks,shoeprints,etc.,could be found outside.It's been said they would never do that...well,killing is worse than putting her outside,and considering the way she was garroted/staged,I think they would have no problem doing that in order to save their behinds.I think that's the way the RN reads."We will call you tomorrow.." They placed the note so as to say they found it morning of the 26th..so TOMORROW means the 27th..that gives them a full day to pull off whatever plans they had..it buys them some time.And then the line 'if we monitor you getting the money early' buys them some time as well,in the other direction..so they had it 'fixed' timewise for either direction.ie-once they got her body out of the house,they would then be free to call LE whenever they wanted.As well as 'getting the money early' would account for them being seen outside the house in the early morning.But, ESP. that one line...'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel',tells me that they definitely did plan to get her body out of the house at first.As far as WHY she was killed...'talking to a stray dog' 'she dies',etc,and then the R's called LE...I think that was their reasoning for those 'if you do this or that,she dies' lines...they DID contact LE,so therefore the 'killer' killed her.
I think that's why the RN was so long in the first place..they had all these things to account for,buy time for, and explain,as well as I think they(or at least JR anyway),attempted to set up Merrick and friends in it(ref. to the '2 gentlemen' and the 'use that good southern common sense of yours' line),and that's why it switches to JR's first name at the end,so it appears to be someone who knows him.
Anyway,that's just my take on it.

I agree that they had originally planned on taking the body somewhere outside of the house. I believe that she was placed in the basement, so that Burke wouldn't see the body.

I see what you are talking about when you said, that their reasoning for those "if you do this or that...she dies"..lines, was since they DID call over everyone for a block party....then they could say..."well, we called over all of these people, and was told not to...so therefore, the killer went through with his plans." But, in order to make THAT believable....the "killer" would have still had to have been in the house, when those phone calls were made. Unless they were thinking that maybe the investigators would believe that the "killer" escaped through that window that he supposedly crawled through, to get INSIDE of the house. I am guessing that that was their original line of thinking. (The "killer" heard those phone calls being made, he went ahead and killed JB, and then he climbed out the window and escaped in the darkness).

 

[Ames]

--->>>posting about the same time. The call that was to come
tomorrow, further evidenced a distancing of them selves, since
they would not be HOME tomorrow. THEY would be on 'the' plane
headed for MPLS.

.

Good point.....and the "killer" wouldn't have known this. Good point...

 

[JMO8778]

Good point.....and the "killer" wouldn't have known this. Good point...

It is a good point..I think that's where the 'you will need to be rested' line comes into play..I know it sounds maternal,and it is,probably a line thrown in by PR,but I think it was an excuse for not going on the MI trip....b/c they would 'need to be rested'.
As well as I think they'd planned to stay inside all day and figure out what to do next,so that no one would think anything about not seeing them once they found out JB had been 'kidnapped'.They could say they were doing what the note said..rest.

edited to add,I've been in a missing persons situation (of sorts,a relative with BPD who ran off sometimes) and I can tell you it is VERY hard to sit down or even to be still when you can't find someone.I was pacing the floor,turning everything in the house upside down again and again looking for any clues..what did he take with him,is anything missing???,etc.So IMO,I think it indicates guilt just from that alone, b/c they'd obviously never been in a real missing person situation,not thinking it unbelievable to even sit still,much less rest,when someone is missing.It's obvious they knew where she was all the time.(Not to mention JR doesn't even go outside to look around for her or for any clues,and PR SITS and also LAYS down in the sunroom..I just don't find that believable at all.
I can't believe it took them 7 hrs to find her body..I think any worried parent would have had that house ripped apart and found her within an hour or less.

 

[UKGuy]

It sure sounds like someone told him something,doesn't it?


good thoughts,there does seem to be evidence of another plan to stage the body in a different location,as well as I believe their first plan was to get her out of the house.I think in the end they were to afraid to go through with it out of fear of being seen or caught...their tire tracks,shoeprints,etc.,could be found outside.It's been said they would never do that...well,killing is worse than putting her outside,and considering the way she was garroted/staged,I think they would have no problem doing that in order to save their behinds.I think that's the way the RN reads."We will call you tomorrow.." They placed the note so as to say they found it morning of the 26th..so TOMORROW means the 27th..that gives them a full day to pull off whatever plans they had..it buys them some time.And then the line 'if we monitor you getting the money early' buys them some time as well,in the other direction..so they had it 'fixed' timewise for either direction.ie-once they got her body out of the house,they would then be free to call LE whenever they wanted.As well as 'getting the money early' would account for them being seen outside the house in the early morning.But, ESP. that one line...'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel',tells me that they definitely did plan to get her body out of the house at first.As far as WHY she was killed...'talking to a stray dog' 'she dies',etc,and then the R's called LE...I think that was their reasoning for those 'if you do this or that,she dies' lines...they DID contact LE,so therefore the 'killer' killed her.
I think that's why the RN was so long in the first place..they had all these things to account for,buy time for, and explain,as well as I think they(or at least JR anyway),attempted to set up Merrick and friends in it(ref. to the '2 gentlemen' and the 'use that good southern common sense of yours' line),and that's why it switches to JR's first name at the end,so it appears to be someone who knows him.
Anyway,that's just my take on it.

JMO8778,

It sure sounds like someone told him something,doesn't it?

For certain.

Ransom Note:
I tend not to use it, since it is part of the staging e.g. it is fake, so its evidential value is limited. But considering JonBenet's death as a sequence of events, it seems the ransom note was written prior to JonBenet being relocated to the basement.

I reckon after the dumping of her body outdoors was vetoed her killer(s) decided a bedroom assault was the most consistent scenario, so she was redressed, had her hair done up in ponytails, redressed in size-12's, and was probably intended to be wearing her barbie-gown, as part of the facade.

A lot turns on those size-12's since they can determine whether she was redressed in both the longjohns and size-12's at the same time, or the size-12's come after the longjohns are urine-soaked?

That is, from memory, there are no blood-stains on her longjohns, but there are on her size-12's. Now we know she was sexually assaulted while she was still alive, so this implies if she was wearing the size-6's then these would be blood-stained, and possibly any longjohns.

But there are no size-6's, and if she were not wearing any, for whatever reason, then the longjohns should be bloodstained, and assuming this is not the case, then JonBenet was redressed in those longjohns postmortem, with the urine-staining being a postmortem release, which is consistent with the assumptions.

again, reiterating, when were the size-12's placed on her, are they too urine-soaked or are they damp by osmosis, its currently an open question, and one not expanded upon in the autopsy report?

Its difficult to avoid the conclusion that her size-6 underwear were removed because they contained blood-stains and/or her killers semen, either of which would represent distinct evidence of a sexual assault, assuming the latter is incorrect e.g. she wore no size-6's, then the wiping down and cleanup along with the redressing in size-12's similarly hides the sexual assault, which we know predates the wine-cellar scenario indicating again that the hiding of her sexual injuries were uppermost in her killer(s) mind during the staging?

So if JonBenet was killed accidently, why her sexual injuries, and why the attempt to conceal them, since placing them in plain view and leaving it up to the investigators to conlclude that the same nasty person who garroted her obviously sexually assaulted her, would appear to be an obvious staging option?


.

 

[Solace]

JMO8778,


For certain.

Ransom Note:
I tend not to use it, since it is part of the staging e.g. it is fake, so its evidential value is limited. But considering JonBenet's death as a sequence of events, it seems the ransom note was written prior to JonBenet being relocated to the basement.

I reckon after the dumping of her body outdoors was vetoed her killer(s) decided a bedroom assault was the most consistent scenario, so she was redressed, had her hair done up in ponytails, redressed in size-12's, and was probably intended to be wearing her barbie-gown, as part of the facade.

A lot turns on those size-12's since they can determine whether she was redressed in both the longjohns and size-12's at the same time, or the size-12's come after the longjohns are urine-soaked?

That is, from memory, there are no blood-stains on her longjohns, but there are on her size-12's. Now we know she was sexually assaulted while she was still alive, so this implies if she was wearing the size-6's then these would be blood-stained, and possibly any longjohns.

But there are no size-6's, and if she were not wearing any, for whatever reason, then the longjohns should be bloodstained, and assuming this is not the case, then JonBenet was redressed in those longjohns postmortem, with the urine-staining being a postmortem release, which is consistent with the assumptions. Not necessarily, do not be so absolutely sure that because she had them on when she was sexually assaulted, then they wuold be stained. It is not necessarily so. No.1 and importantly, the blood could have trickled down after the assault and very slowly and not gotten on her longjohns. If you want to get intricate, lets go all the way. Because this is possible.

again, reiterating, when were the size-12's placed on her, are they too urine-soaked or are they damp by osmosis, its currently an open question, and one not expanded upon in the autopsy report?

Its difficult to avoid the conclusion that her size-6 underwear were removed because they contained blood-stains and/or her killers semen, either of which would represent distinct evidence of a sexual assault, assuming the latter is incorrect e.g. she wore no size-6's, then the wiping down and cleanup along with the redressing in size-12's similarly hides the sexual assault, which we know predates the wine-cellar scenario indicating again that the hiding of her sexual injuries were uppermost in her killer(s) mind during the staging? Not necessarily UK. As some of us believe, it is the staging of sexual injuries to give the appearance of an intruder to take all eyes away from the parents.

So if JonBenet was killed accidently, why her sexual injuries, and why the attempt to conceal them, since placing them in plain view and leaving it up to the investigators to conlclude that the same nasty person who garroted her obviously sexually assaulted her, would appear to be an obvious staging option? The sexual injuries could very well be there to throw everyone off and it looks like it worked. An accident is one thing but a rage accident is different and anyone throwing a child against a sink causing an 8 1/2 inch gash would most definitely be subjected to scrutiny and prison time in most places (just not Boulder) but the scrutiny would be enough and so self preservations kicks in and why not, JonBenet is near death anyway. They can tell that by feeling her head which is basically split in two. And she was also strangled by that person in a rage when they were pulling JonBenet with all their force leaving a thumb print and they did not stop to pick up a flashlight; They just continued on and threw her headon into the sink, which by the way has a rectangular edge. After all this, they realized what they had done and proceeded to shake her to wake her causing the bruising to JonBenet's brain.


.

Responses above.

 

[UKGuy]

Responses above.

Solace,

There are two distinct occassions, one when she was sexually assaulted, and after she was redressed in the size-12's.

Her sexual injuries are not all staged, she was assaulted while still alive, she was wiped down, she was wearing size-12's despite a drawer full of size-6's, the evidence indicates her sexual assault was concealed on both occassions, e.g. no size-6's, no accompanying blood or semen, and only trace blood stains on her size-12's all hiding any sexual assault.

If her death was accidental why a sexual assault and if its to be staged as a sociopathic lust murder why conceal the sexual assault, something does not add up?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,


For certain.

Ransom Note:
I tend not to use it, since it is part of the staging e.g. it is fake, so its evidential value is limited. But considering JonBenet's death as a sequence of events, it seems the ransom note was written prior to JonBenet being relocated to the basement.

I'm sure,I just thought it interesting to figure out what they'd previously planned to do.As well as it indicates guilt,beyond the shadow of a doubt.But I think it might shed some light on the case if you compare what they'd previously planned to do,with what they actually *did do,and note any comparisons,as well as try to figure out why they didn't follow through with the original plan,as it might yield some clues.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm sure,I just thought it interesting to figure out what they'd previously planned to do.As well as it indicates guilt,beyond the shadow of a doubt.But I think it might shed some light on the case if you compare what they'd previously planned to do,with what they actually *did do,and note any comparisons,as well as try to figure out why they didn't follow through with the original plan,as it might yield some clues.

JMO8778,

Yes interesting particularly the reference to the call on the day they were due to be elsewhere.


.