Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[UKGuy]

IMO ... Digital penetration would look very much the same as if BR used his penis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda7NJ,
Then there should be DNA deposits, and direct proof of involvement.


Maybe Coroner Meyer had been told to play stuff down, e.g. be a little vague, generalise about contact and penetration, but do not be specific, otherwise you might not be offered other appointments?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

The thing about the sexual assault is that it seemed to have been inflicted just before murder with the cord. That would have been about 90 minutes after the head injury. Unless there is more we don't know the sexual assault was done at the last and the autopsy report seems to verify that.

I don't see anything in the autopsy that stated the sexual assault happened just before the strangulation. And the coroner never noted a time period that he felt lapsed between the bash and the strangulation. He lists them "in association" with one another as to causing her death, meaning he cannot determine precisely that one alone was responsible.
The speculation about the 90 minuted is just that-speculation. Other forensic specialists have voiced opinions of varying time lapses, but none of them actually saw the body or witnessed the autopsy. I don't see anything in the autopsy that verifies the sexual assault was done last.

 

[DeeDee249]

IMO ... Digital penetration would look very much the same as if BR used his penis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think a penis, even a 10-year old's, is thicker. Also, the large size of BR's penis was a topic of much comment by Nedra and Patsy, who often commented that his was very large for a boy that age.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I think a penis, even a 10-year old's, is thicker. Also, the large size of BR's penis was a topic of much comment by Nedra and Patsy, who often commented that his was very large for a boy that age.

Oh ugh.

Just gross, and wildly inappropriate.

I wonder what the liklihood is PR was abused by her MOTHER and was passing the abuse on?

 

[LinasK]

Oh ugh.

Just gross, and wildly inappropriate.

I wonder what the liklihood is PR was abused by her MOTHER and was passing the abuse on?

There was talk of abuse by Patsy's FATHER... I don't have the details.

 

[Britt]

I don't see anything in the autopsy that stated the sexual assault happened just before the strangulation. And the coroner never noted a time period that he felt lapsed between the bash and the strangulation. He lists them "in association" with one another as to causing her death, meaning he cannot determine precisely that one alone was responsible.
The speculation about the 90 minuted is just that-speculation. Other forensic specialists have voiced opinions of varying time lapses, but none of them actually saw the body or witnessed the autopsy. I don't see anything in the autopsy that verifies the sexual assault was done last.

I wonder, could the medical experts tell how close to death the acute vaginal injury happened based on the appearance or description of the wound?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think a penis, even a 10-year old's, is thicker. Also, the large size of BR's penis was a topic of much comment by Nedra and Patsy, who often commented that his was very large for a boy that age.

IMO size is relative and in the eye of the beholder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Intriguing]

Thanks for the thumbs up DeeDee and others :0) I think we are thinking along the same lines. The sexual assault is the thorny issue BUT I think it might be able to be hypothesised within a framework that we can find a concensus upon. As awful as it sounds, the sexual abuse is a red herring here and, being such an emotive thing, has sent everyone running in the wrong direction. It is almost incidental to the main sequence of events. I reckon if we can thrash out a unanimously reasonable and plausible 'inciting' moment and steps leading up to JB's death, then a few possible scenarios for the sexual assault will become apparent.

If our theory carries weight, then it would naturally make sense of many of the hitherto strange and senseless aspects of the case. For example, in my hypothesis I was convinced that Burke had prepared the 'glass' of tea and the pineapple. I only discovered last night, reading other historic posts that indeed Burke's prints were found on both items.

If we could leave the sexual assault to one side temporarily and then return to it later, it might prove quite constructive :0)

 

[Intriguing]

Hey UK GUY! You asked 'I am looking for evidence that Burke has been deliberately written out of the script'. Burke was immediately removed from the house. I think that is the most obvious piece of evidence right there. What does a murderer first do? Get rid of the murder weapon. If the murder weapon had been Burke, then he has to be removed asap.

What benefit would that have? If you think in terms of hurried but succinct advice that the Ramseys had received by telephone that morning from lawyers, the doctor etc, it makes perfect sense. An underage child cannot be officially interviewed without the presence of his parents and anything he does say to a third party, without his parents present, is inadmissable as evidence. Heck, even the most exotic suppositions make sense in this scenario - I just read someone theorising (and demonising) the parents for wanting to fly out immediately, imagining that they might of even planned to leave their son behind.

If this was indeed their intent, in a legal context it would be anything BUT callous. Burke is not a legal threat if not with his parents. If Burke 'did it' then the parents weren't leaving a child in danger immediately after the other child has been killed. The Ramseys, and their lawyers, had to create distance and breathing space so they could gain control over the bizarre situation.

Many of the elements in the events of that morning appear to be consummately methodical and salient steps in crisis management co-ordinated by an extremely good lawyer.

This theory makes sense of so much previously inexplicable behaviour and also reconciles even the most fanciful conjecture that its elegance bears the hallmark of truth. It also doesn't require a precise replication of the exact sequence of events surrounding the killing - if we can agree and piece together the basic framework of the jigsaw, those pesky bits of sky and grass in the middle aren't so important. The fundamental shape of the picture is the key.

 

[txsvicki]

It takes awhile for brain swelling after an injury and there was only a small amount of the inflammatory repair/ response blood cells in the vaginal in jury. Kolar's explanations in the language the readers have quoted is finally the only thing that made sense to me and got me off idi.

 

[Intriguing]

Apologies for the repeated long posts - I'm in Australia on a different time zone and I want to get down my initial reactions asap as they tend to be the most underworked and therefore possibly more truthful. DeeDee I agree, the squawk after the pineapple would be 'overkill' (excuse the terrible pun) but with the BDI theory, elements can move around, switch places and timelines and still leave the underlying hypothesis intact.

As I wrote about the post pineapple bash, I felt it to be unconvincing. I reckon Burke did take her down to the basement and that is where the accident occurred. I am convinced that the head wound was caused by the torch and that it was an unintentionally violent reaction to JB's scream.

Again, reading back I just noticed someone suggest that maybe the staging wasn't staging. There's something in that. The terms 'chronic' and acute' in a sexual abuse context are again confusingly emotive. They are more numerical and temporal descriptions rather than emotional assessments.

Digital penetration patently seem to be the actions of a curious child. An exploratory fascination with a female sibling's 'tunnel'. To extrapolate this further, the conjectured findings of chips from the paintbrush inside JB's vagina would sit perfectly with a young boy's fascination. He wanted to see how far up it could go.

Did this action produce the scream and the subsequent head blow? Did the head blow occur just before, leaving JB apparently comatose and therefore allowing Burke to experiment further with the paintbrush? Either still fits in with the BDI theory.

Incidentally, my theory in no way makes this an excessively macabre, pathological or deviant behaviour from a nine year old boy, considering his circumstances...

 

[txsvicki]

How though, would a nine year old know where to jab and it only take one try.

 

[Intriguing]

Did it have to be a jab? Could he have simply inserted it...and it went too far causing pain and JB to scream? A nine year old boy would certainly have known where it went if he had previously been exploring with his fingers. Such a statement sounds rather sinister but if you take it out of the context of an accidental murder, and into the realms of children playing and a nine year old emerging curiosity, it seems far more innocent and reasonable.

 

[txsvicki]

It's awful to even think of., but it seems like a jab to me. A jab with a purpose to just break the rest of the hymen and cover up the previous break. The insertion didn't seem to do further damage up higher. I believe that's why it is thought to be staged.

 

[Intriguing]

I apologise as I am really not aware of all the specifics of this case so please excuse my ignorance, particularly as many have laboured so diligently, for far longer over this.

A jab designed to break the hymen - yep I can see that. To cover up the previous break - nope, that doesn't ring true. If John had been abusing her, I just cannot conceive of anyone, however cool and analytical, who would think 'oops, I've gone too far and will get found out. I best break the hymen to cover my tracks.' It's just too precise.

A young boy however, would certainly jab at it. Why? Boys put their fingers in plug sockets. They climb down wells without knowing where the bottom is. They put their heads in animal burrows without knowing what's inside. Their curiosity overcomes reason - cause and effect isn't on their radar. When playing with other children, empathy and awareness of causing pain to others is an under-developed faculty which is precisely why they cannot be prosecuted.

I vaguely remember (might be totally wrong!) that the hymen was 'shrivelled' not broken, consistent with frequently poking a finger up there. Could you imagine the fascination of a boy whose finger doesn't encounter a solid wall of bone but something that appears elastic, malleable? What's on the other side?

Incidentally, the whole chronic sexual abuse might simply have been recent, if regular, exploration which might not have hurt JB, indeed she might have been a willing and equally innocent participant. Just a thought!

 

[LinasK]

I apologise as I am really not aware of all the specifics of this case so please excuse my ignorance, particularly as many have laboured so diligently, for far longer over this.

A jab designed to break the hymen - yep I can see that. To cover up the previous break - nope, that doesn't ring true. If John had been abusing her, I just cannot conceive of anyone, however cool and analytical, who would think 'oops, I've gone too far and will get found out. I best break the hymen to cover my tracks.' It's just too precise.

A young boy however, would certainly jab at it. Why? Boys put their fingers in plug sockets. They climb down wells without knowing where the bottom is. They put their heads in animal burrows without knowing what's inside. Their curiosity overcomes reason - cause and effect isn't on their radar. When playing with other children, empathy and awareness of causing pain to others is an under-developed faculty which is precisely why they cannot be prosecuted.

I vaguely remember (might be totally wrong!) that the hymen was 'shrivelled' not broken, consistent with frequently poking a finger up there. Could you imagine the fascination of a boy whose finger doesn't encounter a solid wall of bone but something that appears elastic, malleable? What's on the other side?

Incidentally, the whole chronic sexual abuse might simply have been recent, if regular, exploration which might not have hurt JB, indeed she might have been a willing and equally innocent participant. Just a thought!

I can tell you from personal experience- it doesn't have to be a boy to have molestation occur by digital penetration!!!

 

[midwest mama]

I apologise as I am really not aware of all the specifics of this case so please excuse my ignorance, particularly as many have laboured so diligently, for far longer over this.

A jab designed to break the hymen - yep I can see that. To cover up the previous break - nope, that doesn't ring true. If John had been abusing her, I just cannot conceive of anyone, however cool and analytical, who would think 'oops, I've gone too far and will get found out. I best break the hymen to cover my tracks.' It's just too precise.

A young boy however, would certainly jab at it. Why? Boys put their fingers in plug sockets. They climb down wells without knowing where the bottom is. They put their heads in animal burrows without knowing what's inside. Their curiosity overcomes reason - cause and effect isn't on their radar. When playing with other children, empathy and awareness of causing pain to others is an under-developed faculty which is precisely why they cannot be prosecuted.

I vaguely remember (might be totally wrong!) that the hymen was 'shrivelled' not broken, consistent with frequently poking a finger up there. Could you imagine the fascination of a boy whose finger doesn't encounter a solid wall of bone but something that appears elastic, malleable? What's on the other side?

Incidentally, the whole chronic sexual abuse might simply have been recent, if regular, exploration which might not have hurt JB, indeed she might have been a willing and equally innocent participant. Just a thought!

Courageous comments, and I'm in agreement with you on every bit of this.

How tragic we have to think through these scenarios regarding children to try to come to an acceptable, satisfied resolve (even if only in our own minds) for a case that should have been prosecuted satisfactorily very early on.:anguish:

 

[txsvicki]

The way i understand it from other posts is that shriveled means it was healed and not really there anymore., just the rim. The jab would be just to injure the area which was done so close to death that the body didn't have time to start the inflammation response. I think i misunderstood and thought a child could have just part of it injured and still have other area intact. I do believe that jonbenet would not have willingly participated because there was chronic redness inside and she had suffered redness and pain on at least two verified episodes.

 

[dodie20]

I don't know about this. The more I think about it, the more BR doesn't make sense, as the guilty one. 1st of all, if a lawyer or dr actually gave the Rs such horrid advice, IMO, after the shinola hit the fan, they would have changed their advice...,too many innocent lives were being ruined, for a dr to stand idly by. For instance, stories and speculation were swirling about the santa claus. I mean, a real case was made against him, and he could have been charged with murder. What would the Rs have done? Also, the housekeeper was interviewed and had to give multiple writing samples. I bet that woman was scared to death. One of these people could have gone to prison, and for what? to protect a 9 year old's reputation? No, I think something else was going on here. It's 1 thing to protect your child, but not to the point of letting an innocent person take the fall. The Rs, if caught, would have faced their own serious trouble, for lying and setting somebody up. MOO.

 

[OpenMind4U]

I don't know about this. The more I think about it, the more BR doesn't make sense, as the guilty one. 1st of all, if a lawyer or dr actually gave the Rs such horrid advice, IMO, after the shinola hit the fan, they would have changed their advice...,too many innocent lives were being ruined, for a dr to stand idly by. For instance, stories and speculation were swirling about the santa claus. I mean, a real case was made against him, and he could have been charged with murder. What would the Rs have done? Also, the housekeeper was interviewed and had to give multiple writing samples. I bet that woman was scared to death. One of these people could have gone to prison, and for what? to protect a 9 year old's reputation? No, I think something else was going on here. It's 1 thing to protect your child, but not to the point of letting an innocent person take the fall. The Rs, if caught, would have faced their own serious trouble, for lying and setting somebody up. MOO.

Ramsey is all about Ramsey. Do you honestly think that they would care about 'others'?!!! John was very fast to POINT the finger to his best friend: FW! Ramsey wasn't affraid to leave Burke with FW on the morning, December 26...but in couple days - they feel very comfortable to name FW as one of the primary potential suspect!...And if they could do this to the close friend, why would they care about Santa Claus or housekeeper?!!! JMO