Is the molester also the killer?

[Solace]

There was a video...I believe that it was played on Geraldo....where JB was at some sort of School performance....and she had a toy saxophone...and she was scratching herself with it. It was thought at the time that she was masterbating (I hate that word...)....but, I seriously doubt that she would have stood in front of all of those people (the audience) and done that. I think that she was itching...and using the saxophone to scratch with. That couldn't have been good for her.....

Thanks for the post Ames. And I recall that some posters on another Board referred to it as "masterbating". And now once again, you clear it up. You see how people twist and turn things to suit their theory. That is exactly what she was doing. She was probably scratching all the time with these infections. THANK YOU AMES!!!!!!!

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

That is possible and with access to the forensic evidence we could answer that definitively.

As it stands we cannot be certain, but regardless of which sequence of events you think took place, the question still remains, why was her sexual assault hidden if its purpose was be part of the staging?

The question can be asked whether she was sexually assaulted once or twice.

So the big question for the Steve Thomas Toilet Rage fans, is if it was an accidental death, why a hidden sexual assault, perpetrated possibly not just once but twice?


.

well,as I said bf,I think it's possible she was molested that night,then JR went to bed,and PR flew into a rage attack on her sometime after that,reason may or may not have been toilet or bedwetting issues.SO,if that's what happened,JR may have tried to cover the previous(and past?) sexual abuse by cleaning her,and staging a new sexual assault.
Or,it's possible he started the attack on her and killed her.

 

[Albert18]

I think Solace has it right. The wiping clean, making sure she was fully dressed, and putting her in the blanket are all in the same vein.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

That is possible and with access to the forensic evidence we could answer that definitively.

As it stands we cannot be certain, but regardless of which sequence of events you think took place, the question still remains, why was her sexual assault hidden if its purpose was be part of the staging?

The question can be asked whether she was sexually assaulted once or twice.

So the big question for the Steve Thomas Toilet Rage fans, is if it was an accidental death, why a hidden sexual assault, perpetrated possibly not just once but twice?


.

you're saying it was hidden bc she was wiped down and redressed,right? I'm not so sure the staged sexual assault was hidden per se,I think she was simply cleaned and redressed bc the parent or parents,in the end,didn't want to leave her any other way,ie-that's why she was lovingly wrapped in a blanket as well.The garroting and being wrapped up in a blanket are 2 shockingly different contrasts,(ie-one is caring,the other is not)as is the 'hidden' sexual assault,I believe.yes,she had a staged sexual assault,but she was also redressed,just as she was with the blanket(although covered in this instance) after she was garroted.am I making any sense?

BUT...I do think this was an attempt to hide previous sexual abuse,as I think JR's shirt fibers were from a sexual assault that night which was attempted to be hidden,but wasn't quite done well enough,leaving his tell -tale fibers there,making it possible to ascertain there was a previous,real sexual assault that night,it's attempt to be hidden by wiping her with the shirt and staging a new sexual assault with the paintbrush.

 

[Solace]

you're saying it was hidden bc she was wiped down and redressed,right? I'm not so sure the staged sexual assault was hidden per se,I think she was simply cleaned and redressed bc the parent or parents,in the end,didn't want to leave her any other way,ie-that's why she was lovingly wrapped in a blanket as well.The garroting and being wrapped up in a blanket are 2 shockingly different contrasts,(ie-one is caring,the other is not)as is the 'hidden' sexual assault,I believe.yes,she had a staged sexual assault,but she was also redressed,just as she was with the blanket(although covered in this instance) after she was garroted.am I making any sense?

BUT...I do think this was an attempt to hide previous sexual abuse,as I think JR's shirt fibers were from a sexual assault that night which was attempted to be hidden,but wasn't quite done well enough,leaving his tell -tale fibers there,making it possible to ascertain there was a previous,real sexual assault that night,it's attempt to be hidden by wiping her with the shirt and staging a new sexual assault with the paintbrush.

I have to disagree here. John could have easily left the fibers while he was wiping her down after the staging of the sexual assault to save his wife from going to jail.

I don't know how they got through this. It is INSANE. I would rather go to jail then defile my child like this. I would be so grief stricken that I had killed her.

Patsy is something though. I truly believe she did it and she is just not going to jail for it. She looks tough like that also.

 

[Ames]

Thanks for the post Ames. And I recall that some posters on another Board referred to it as "masterbating". And now once again, you clear it up. You see how people twist and turn things to suit their theory. That is exactly what she was doing. She was probably scratching all the time with these infections. THANK YOU AMES!!!!!!!

I actually saw that show, with the video of her with the saxaphone, and it was obvious to me that she was itching...and using the saxaphone to scratch with. Some people just have twisted minds, and try to make something where there IS NOTHING.

 

[Solace]

I actually saw that show, with the video of her with the saxaphone, and it was obvious to me that she was itching...and using the saxaphone to scratch with. Some people just have twisted minds, and try to make something where there IS NOTHING.

Yes and in twisting things, sight of what really happened is lost. So again, if she is itching like this it is obviously bothering her and Patsy douching her daily is only making it worse. She was probably as dry as ever and frankly probably bled very easily.

 

[Ames]

I think Solace has it right. The wiping clean, making sure she was fully dressed, and putting her in the blanket are all in the same vein.

Yep, and I totally agree with Solace and you both. It was done for her out of "love"...she WAS still their child, afterall. And I think it was done to preserve what diginity she had left....out of "love"...and remorse...by the parents. She was wiped down, redressed, and wrapped as what is described as "lovinging" in a blanket. Something only someone that cared for her....(her parents) would do.

 

[Ames]

Yes and in twisting things, sight of what really happened is lost. So again, if she is itching like this it is obviously bothering her and Patsy douching her daily is only making it worse. She was probably as dry as ever and frankly probably bled very easily.

Poor kid, I am sure she was very dry, and bled very easily. It just breaks my heart.....

 

[JMO8778]

Poor kid, I am sure she was very dry, and bled very easily. It just breaks my heart.....

I bet that's why PR called Dr Beuf goof 3x in one day...I think it was within a period of a few minutes?sounds like she was panicking.but oh yes..she can't recall why she called him in the interview.

 

[Solace]

Yep, and I totally agree with Solace and you both. It was done for her out of "love"...she WAS still their child, afterall. And I think it was done to preserve what diginity she had left....out of "love"...and remorse...by the parents. She was wiped down, redressed, and wrapped as what is described as "lovinging" in a blanket. Something only someone that cared for her....(her parents) would do.

Exactly Albert. There is no child abuse going on - sexual that is. The pageants are a different story. And I can just see Patsy feeling that she and John are right in going on TV and keeping such a "high" profile after being accused of the sexual abuse - just putting the actual murder out of her mind. This was an accident that she did not mean to do and why go to jail for this, and as she said "I know in my heart I could not do this". Sounds more like "I know in my heart I DID NOT MEAN TO DO THIS".

I was thinking long about that phrase and if you have ever done something that you really did not mean to do, you can excuse yourself because you KNOW you did not mean to do it. You are actually innocent and can live with yourself. Of course this is just a tad more severe - she did kill her daughter - but I don't think she meant to do it. She was in the moment of rage and carried it through.

But I don't care how good a lawyer you get, if someone were to tell me that this was an accident and they should be forgiven, okay. HOWEVER, the fact that she grabbed her by her collar and twisted so hard as to leave a thumb print, that means at that point in time, you are just evil to throw a child around in that manner. So jail it would be for that person, imo.

But I can see Patsy being capable of doing this staging and the note; after all, she is just selfish enough to subject JonBenet to constant practicing, etc. and I don't care how much she and John say well JonBenet wanted it. Well JonBenet should not have gotten it - she should have gotten a childhood instead. Also they lie about that too - I believe her friends were about to confront Patsy with how wrong the pageants were.

 

[Albert18]

Beuf goof? You gotta love the cast of characters in this sad drama.

What are the odds that all of the people in a position of power would turn their heads when JonBenet passed by. I wonder if they are all proud of themselves.

 

[Solace]

Beuf goof? You gotta love the cast of characters in this sad drama.

What are the odds that all of the people in a position of power would turn their heads when JonBenet passed by. I wonder if they are all proud of themselves.

So what is the deal. Why do you think Alex Hunter did what he did and denied arresting them. Steve Thomas said that Hunter believed Patsy did it, but that Hunter said there was not enough evidence and he would not last a trial.

I think his mo was to settle and push under the rug. But why?

 

[Ames]

Exactly Albert. There is no child abuse going on - sexual that is. The pageants are a different story. And I can just see Patsy feeling that she and John are right in going on TV and keeping such a "high" profile after being accused of the sexual abuse - just putting the actual murder out of her mind. This was an accident that she did not mean to do and why go to jail for this, and as she said "I know in my heart I could not do this". Sounds more like "I know in my heart I DID NOT MEAN TO DO THIS".

I was thinking long about that phrase and if you have ever done something that you really did not mean to do, you can excuse yourself because you KNOW you did not mean to do it. You are actually innocent and can live with yourself. Of course this is just a tad more severe - she did kill her daughter - but I don't think she meant to do it. She was in the moment of rage and carried it through.

But I don't care how good a lawyer you get, if someone were to tell me that this was an accident and they should be forgiven, okay. HOWEVER, the fact that she grabbed her by her collar and twisted so hard as to leave a thumb print, that means at that point in time, you are just evil to throw a child around in that manner. So jail it would be for that person, imo.

But I can see Patsy being capable of doing this staging and the note; after all, she is just selfish enough to subject JonBenet to constant practicing, etc. and I don't care how much she and John say well JonBenet wanted it. Well JonBenet should not have gotten it - she should have gotten a childhood instead. Also they lie about that too - I believe her friends were about to confront Patsy with how wrong the pageants were.

For some reason, there are so many people that think that Patsy and John were such wonderful people, that they could have never harmed their daughter....or that Patsy would have never flown into a rage. Well, folks..it happens every single day...every hour of the day....probably even every minute of the day, a child is harmed, because the parent or parents flew into a rage. My aunt tried to adopt these little girls that she had in her foster care, but unfortunately they were given back to their mother. Why is it unfortunate? Because one day, the mom got pissed at the both of them, and threw them into a wall. They were just babies....their bones were sticking out of their arms and legs. (But yet....the children were forced to go back and live with her)... So YES...I can confirm....it DOES happen...and it happens ALL OF THE TIME.

 

[Toltec]

Hunter always pleaded out...never going to trial. I believe they did make some kind of deal with their powerful attornies.

In order to molest someone two or more times, you have to have intimate and constant access to her. Who was inside JonBenet's inner circle?

Besides her immediately family, the Whites, Fernies, Walkers and Stines. The boys from the neighborhood. I recall Patsy saying JonBenet had a crush on an older neighborhood boy, that she would blush when he would come visit. She also said something disturbing. She said she watched JonBenet like a hawk when the boy would be visiting.

HUH?

 

[Solace]

For some reason, there are so many people that think that Patsy and John were such wonderful people, that they could have never harmed their daughter....or that Patsy would have never flown into a rage. Well, folks..it happens every single day...every hour of the day....probably even every minute of the day, a child is harmed, because the parent or parents flew into a rage. My aunt tried to adopt these little girls that she had in her foster care, but unfortunately they were given back to their mother. Why is it unfortunate? Because one day, the mom got pissed at the both of them, and threw them into a wall. They were just babies....their bones were sticking out of their arms and legs. (But yet....the children were forced to go back and live with her)... So YES...I can confirm....it DOES happen...and it happens ALL OF THE TIME.

The Ramseys had money and that was that.

 

[UKGuy]

you're saying it was hidden bc she was wiped down and redressed,right? I'm not so sure the staged sexual assault was hidden per se,I think she was simply cleaned and redressed bc the parent or parents,in the end,didn't want to leave her any other way,ie-that's why she was lovingly wrapped in a blanket as well.The garroting and being wrapped up in a blanket are 2 shockingly different contrasts,(ie-one is caring,the other is not)as is the 'hidden' sexual assault,I believe.yes,she had a staged sexual assault,but she was also redressed,just as she was with the blanket(although covered in this instance) after she was garroted.am I making any sense?

BUT...I do think this was an attempt to hide previous sexual abuse,as I think JR's shirt fibers were from a sexual assault that night which was attempted to be hidden,but wasn't quite done well enough,leaving his tell -tale fibers there,making it possible to ascertain there was a previous,real sexual assault that night,it's attempt to be hidden by wiping her with the shirt and staging a new sexual assault with the paintbrush.

JMO8778,

you're saying it was hidden bc she was wiped down and redressed,right? I'm not so sure the staged sexual assault was hidden per se,I think she was simply cleaned and redressed bc

Well what else are you doing if you remove forensic evidence, such as blood and/or semen, then cover the cleansed area with a clean pair of size-12 underwear?

I reckon in any language you are attempting to conceal what had previously transpired.

You suggest:

I think she was simply cleaned and redressed bc

But we are not discussing a pageant presentation, this is a sexual assault upon a six-year old girl, compounded by her death, given the state her face was left in, and her urine-soaked longjohns, presentation, decorum, or cleanliness are not uppermost in the killers mind, but I would argue, hiding her sexual assault is?

that's why she was lovingly wrapped in a blanket as well.

lovingly are you serious? Whats loving about whacking her on the head causing a severe skull fracture, garroting her, and sexually assaulting her either as staging or as an act of lustful perversion, denying her any medical assistance, then dumping her body in a windowless room in the basement? I would contend she was wrapped in the blankets to minimize the transfer of forensic evidence.

(ie-one is caring,the other is not)as is the 'hidden' sexual assault,I believe.yes,she had a staged sexual assault,but she was also redressed,just as she was with the blanket(although covered in this instance) after she was garroted.am I making any sense?

sense, not quite, you are suggesting nothing was hidden, yet she was redressed like a russian doll, completely hiding her sexual assault, covered with clean underwear, urine-soaked longjohns, then a layer of blankets, and you consider all this to be an act of kindness, a tender gesture, e.g. lovingly wrapped?

BUT...I do think this was an attempt to hide previous sexual abuse,as I think JR's shirt fibers were from a sexual assault that night which was attempted to be hidden,but wasn't quite done well enough,leaving his tell -tale fibers there,making it possible to ascertain there was a previous,real sexual assault that night,it's attempt to be hidden by wiping her with the shirt and staging a new sexual assault with the paintbrush.

So you consider there were two sexual assaults one lustful and one staged?

OK, so why conceal the staged one, where is the percentage in that, if the intention of the wine-cellar staging is to create a scenario that leaves the impression that an intruder killed JonBenet, what then is the intruders rationale for taking some time out to wipe JonBenet down, then redress her in size-12's?

Something plainly does not add up, and imo it is the accident theory?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

You thinking that someone went too far, thinking they had it controlled?

Yes, I think that is a good possibility. I have to be honest here. I've been following this case for a few years. I've read a LOT, here and other sites, and most of the books written. You'd think after all that I'd have a definite theory that I felt sure of. I don't. I vacillate. There are a few things I do feel definite about, and that is the involvement of BOTH parents in some way and the fact that PR wrote that ransom note. I think there were 2 people there at the time of the assault.
I want to say something here, and hope it comes out the right way. I feel that this murder was not planned in advance. Yet, I don't think it was an accident (like pushing her against a sink, tub or faucet. I don't think the perps set out to commit murder. I think the head blow came when she screamed, probably from the paintbrush stab, a knee-jerk reaction to shut her up, and it killed her. If the intention was to kill her, she could have simply been strangled (this can be done very quickly) and leave it at that. The autopsy indicated petechiae (so she was alive), and an intact hyoid. I think the garrotte could have caused loss of consciousness, but I think it was the head blow that killed her. Other than wiping down the blood, I don't necessarily feel the sexual assault was being hidden. The paintbrush could have been used to disguise penetration by a finger, but the fact that the longjohns/panties were put back on her in and of itself doesn't indicate for me trying to hide the assault. I honestly think the killers were unaware of exactly what an autopsy would show. And I feel they thought that since there was no semen, and the thighs and vaginal area were wiped down, that there would BE no evidence of a sexual assault.
I think there is a possibility that she could still have been alive when she was placed in the wineceller, and died while alone there, as her killers scrambled frantically to plan a coverup. I've read the skull fracture could have taken about an hour to kill her.
I also think the blanket could have been used to carry her into the wineceller, not that it was placed lovingly around her. If that were the case, I think the blanket would have been just laid over her. It's also possible that her arm position could indicate that she was dragged by the arms, which could also account for the abrasions/scratches found on her heel and the back of her legs. Does it make sense to anyone else that this killing could have not been an accident but not intentional either?

 

[JMO8778]

Yes, I think that is a good possibility. I have to be honest here. I've been following this case for a few years. I've read a LOT, here and other sites, and most of the books written. You'd think after all that I'd have a definite theory that I felt sure of. I don't. I vacillate. There are a few things I do feel definite about, and that is the involvement of BOTH parents in some way and the fact that PR wrote that ransom note. I think there were 2 people there at the time of the assault.
I want to say something here, and hope it comes out the right way. I feel that this murder was not planned in advance. Yet, I don't think it was an accident (like pushing her against a sink, tub or faucet. I don't think the perps set out to commit murder. I think the head blow came when she screamed, probably from the paintbrush stab, a knee-jerk reaction to shut her up, and it killed her. If the intention was to kill her, she could have simply been strangled (this can be done very quickly) and leave it at that. The autopsy indicated petechiae (so she was alive), and an intact hyoid. I think the garrotte could have caused loss of consciousness, but I think it was the head blow that killed her. Other than wiping down the blood, I don't necessarily feel the sexual assault was being hidden. The paintbrush could have been used to disguise penetration by a finger, but the fact that the longjohns/panties were put back on her in and of itself doesn't indicate for me trying to hide the assault. I honestly think the killers were unaware of exactly what an autopsy would show. And I feel they thought that since there was no semen, and the thighs and vaginal area were wiped down, that there would BE no evidence of a sexual assault.
I think there is a possibility that she could still have been alive when she was placed in the wineceller, and died while alone there, as her killers scrambled frantically to plan a coverup. I've read the skull fracture could have taken about an hour to kill her.
I also think the blanket could have been used to carry her into the wineceller, not that it was placed lovingly around her. If that were the case, I think the blanket would have been just laid over her. It's also possible that her arm position could indicate that she was dragged by the arms, which could also account for the abrasions/scratches found on her heel and the back of her legs. Does it make sense to anyone else that this killing could have not been an accident but not intentional either?

it does;I've also wondered if she could have been dragged down the spiral staircase,since there was garland in her hair.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,



Well what else are you doing if you remove forensic evidence, such as blood and/or semen, then cover the cleansed area with a clean pair of size-12 underwear?

I reckon in any language you are attempting to conceal what had previously transpired.

I'm confused then,b/c you believe the missing paintbrush part was left inside her,yet you think the sexual assault was hidden.it seems that's not really hiding it,if it was indeed left there.

lovingly are you serious? Whats loving about whacking her on the head causing a severe skull fracture, garroting her, and sexually assaulting her either as staging or as an act of lustful perversion, denying her any medical assistance, then dumping her body in a windowless room in the basement? I would contend she was wrapped in the blankets to minimize the transfer of forensic evidence.

UK,you do know that (per the FBI,I read this in Susan Smith's case)when a mother kills her child,it is usually has something to do with water,or the child is wrapped in plastic..a 'sending them back to the womb' of sorts,in an unconcious way,I suppose.That is not to say the mother didn't plan the murder..only the the way the child was killed and /or placed afterwards ususally has something to do with water or wrapping them up(like drowning or suffocation).SO,I'm not saying the murder itself was loving..it wasn't.Only the way the body was found indicates something only a parent would do.JB could have been found staged pretty shockingly,but she wasn't.(ie-posed,hung or lying naked on the bare floor,for example).she was found wrapped in a blanket.would an intruder do that?not likely.so why would a parent?bc they didn't want to leave her any other way.it seems to indicate some regret?
The way the perp(s) felt JB needed to be staged,for all intensive purposes,wasn't conducive to water or being wrapped in plastic..but,she was wrapped in a blanket.

So you consider there were two sexual assaults one lustful and one staged?

quite possibly.

OK, so why conceal the staged one, where is the percentage in that, if the intention of the wine-cellar staging is to create a scenario that leaves the impression that an intruder killed JonBenet, what then is the intruders rationale for taking some time out to wipe JonBenet down, then redress her in size-12's?



.

I'm saying the staged one wasn't concealed,since they knew that upon undressing and examining her,and the autopsy itself, would reveal a sexual assault.it wasn't concealed,*she was only covered up.it was still there.she didn't have to be uncovered for it to still be there.
and the underwear? JB either wasn't wearing any originally,and the big size was put on her,or the previous underwear she had on was hidden and disposed of after a real sexual assault, which proceeded the staged one of course.