Possible Explanation for the sexual abuse findings.

[Krunch]

I haven't visited this forum in a very long time so this is my first visit to this website in years.

I just watched the series The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey on youtube and it re-ignited my interest in this case

I spent the last 90 minutes reading various JBR topics and have not seen anyone post this yet.

For a long time even before this documentary came out. I Suspected Burke because this would be the only reason why the parents would do a cover-up.

While i have always suspected burke but the autopsy found JBR had vaginal tearing and there was a blood drop in her underwear. This evidence was what made me doubt it was burke.

It wasn't until i watched the documentary today and saw the part where they proved it wasn't stun gun marks.

The show uncovered that it came from someone jabbing one of the train tracking into JBR to see if she was moving. Something a child would do.

This was when it hit me. Could it be possible that Burke. A 9 yr old boy at the time was curious about girls private parts and had a look and then put the paintbrush inside her out of pure curiosity?

this could explain the autopsy reports and the vaginal tearing

it wasn't for sexually motivated. it was out of curiosity because kids are always curious with private parts.

This came to me because i remembered when i was a child. i was playing with a friend who was the same as as me. we were both 8 and both of us were girls. we were curious what the others private parts looked like and we showed it to each other. Looking back. i am now disturbed and horrified i did something like this as a child with a friend!

it made me think. maybe it's possible that after Burke Jabbed JBR with the train tracks and saw she wasn't moving.

He used this opportunity to have a look at her private parts because he was curious what girls private parts looked like and then stuck the paintbrush in it out of curiosity? nothing sexual about it but of course to a grown person. you will view this as a sexual act.

Maybe it was during this act that Patsy came downstairs to the basement and caught burke in the act and she immediately knew she had to cover it up. This can also explain why they chose to cover it up instead of immediately calling the police and claiming this was an accident.

 

[thref23]

That is possible and a popular theory. But likely?

For what it's worth, and this is a recent realization of mine, the "curiosity" driven sexual assault is consistent with what one would suspect from a "disorganized asocial lust murderer." "The asocial individual approaches his victim in much the same way as an inquisitive child with a new toy. He involves himself in an exploratory examination of the sexually significant parts of the body in an attempt to determine how they function and appear beneath the surface...Penis penetration of the victim is not to be expected from the asocial individual...[he] more commonly inserts foreign objects into the body orifaces in a probing and curiosity-motivated, yet brutal, manner."

Those are direct quotes from a 1980 FBI bulletin.

Some other characteristics of a lust murder committed by a disorganized asocial offender (according to the same FBI bulletin):

- the murder is likely to take place in close proximity to his residence or place of employment, "where he feels most at ease"

- the murder is "premeditated in the obsessive fantasies of the perpetrator," yet he is likely to act on "spur of the moment" impulses when an opportunity presents itself; i.e. there is lots of forethought but not necessarily any advance preparation

- the victim's body is typically left at the scene of death, but not in a location open to the casual observer

- the perpetrator chooses to use "personal" weapons which provide him with "psychosexual gratification." "Most frequently, death results from strangulation, blunt force, or the use of a pointed, sharp instrument."

- the perpetrator is generally not very prepared, and may be likely to use a "weapon of convenience"

- the perpetrator may place/leave his weapon near his victim; this is a source of pride, exhibition, and sometimes sexual gratification

Of course, the FBI had claimed that lust murder is distinguished by either a "mutiliating attack" or by genital displacement, which we do not have here. The ransom note would also be atypical, if not other aspects of the crime scene.

But lust murderers typically kill those who they do not have personal relationships with. If one were to kill a close acquaintance or family member, or if one were to strike inside his own home, I imagine he would change his formula up a bit, to point away from himself, to account for motives beyond lust, etc.

 

[Dragognosis]

the murder is "premeditated in the obsessive fantasies of the perpetrator,"

Correct.

Sex is as much a part if this crime as the damage to the vagina is proportional to the damage done to the neck and head.

Iow, not very much.

This was not a lust crime, it was a revenge crime.

 

[DeathbyBoobie]

If you believe the bed wetting theory, some say that the repeated vaginal injury is from Patsy wiping JonBenet too hard as a sort of punishment.

 

[Swirlz]

John's fibers were found located in JonBenet's crotch.

 

[UKGuy]

John's fibers were found located in JonBenet's crotch.

Swirlz,
These alleged fibers link JR to JonBenet in the wine-cellar. If the case is PDI why is JR engaged with JonBenet's genital region?

Did JR wipe JonBenet down and redress her in the size-12's or merely pull them down? Consider Coroner Meyer's remarks about JonBenet being wipeddown.

1996-12-27: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, Excerpt

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

Patsy's fibers are embedded into the knotting on the ligature and on the underside of the duct-tape found on JonBenet's mouth.

So we can link both parents to what appears to be a staged crime-scene, so who was being assisted here?

.

 

[Swirlz]

So we can link both parents to what appears to be a staged crime-scene, so who was being assisted here?

John and Patsy were assisting each other.

 

[UKGuy]

John and Patsy were assisting each other.

Swirlz,
They sure were, is that because one of them whacked JonBenet, or is it to stage Burke out of the crime-scene, Patsy never seemed too concerned about leaving her fibers all over JonBenet?

Early on in the case when Lou Smit was interviewing John we have:

June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane

20 JOHN RAMSEY: Well Patsy had gotten a bunch
21 of gifts at FAO Schwartz up in New York in early
22 December, some of which were for them were for
23 Burke's birthday, which was in January. She didn't
24 know they were in the closet exactly,

Get that JR says he knew but Patsy never !

Same interview as above Lou Smit tries to assist:

13 LOU SMIT: You notice how the packages seem
14 to be partially opened. Can you explain this?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I can't.
16 LOU SMIT: So Patsy had gone there and
17 just kind looked to see what was (INAUDBILE)?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: It's possible. (INAUDIBLE) I mean,
19 you can figure out what's in them. The cigar box
20 was sitting on a paint can, or something like
21 that. And I believe it shouldn't have.

Note the smoke and mirrors with the cigar box.

check the dates:
June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth

2 TOM HANEY: Would any of these packages be
3 opened?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably. Well, see, these
5 came up, I was at FAO Schwartz in New York when
6 JonBenet and I were up there for a trip, and I had them
7 sent back to Boulder and they wrapped them, free gift
8 wrapping.
9 So like right here it looks like I kind of
10 peeled a little back to see what was in it because I
11 couldn't remember what was in them.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: If the wrapping has been undone
13 partially, that was --
14 PATSY RAMSEY: I probably would have done
15 that to peek to see what was in there.
16 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.

So Patsy contradicts John, so why is there a difference in the version of events, i.e. was John defending Patsy but Patsy knows less than John, so not only does she mess up on the Partially Wrapped Gifts, she falls down on the size-12's, i.e. they were put in JonBenet's underwear drawer, but BPD found none there or anywhere else in the house?

Is this indirect evidence the case is JDI?

.

 

[Dragognosis]

John had nothing to do with any of it.

 

[UKGuy]

John had nothing to do with any of it.

Dragognosis,
Yeah , but you were not present so you cannot make such pronouncements.

.

 

[Dragognosis]

Yes I can. And I did.

 

[ShHolmz]

Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters

How to become a Verified Insider on websleuths.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes I can. And I did.

Dragognosis,

You need to email Tricia to get on the Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters.

LOL !

 

[Dragognosis]

"Yeah , but you were not present so you cannot make such pronouncements."

That is childish

No member of a jury is ever at a crime scene where and when the crime is committed. Yet they are tasked with judging the evidence and bringing a verdict.

No member of the Ramsey Grand Jury was in the house Christmas 1996 yet they indicted the Ramseys.

 

[Dragognosis]

According to the evidence such as; John voluntarily handing over the note pad to John disappearing from Arndt's view in the morning and returning visibly nervous and distant to the report he said he found the body in the morning I have determined that John was not involved. Add to that the lack of motive and lack of past suspicious behavior. Imo.

 

[ShHolmz]

the murder is "premeditated in the obsessive fantasies of the perpetrator,"

Correct.

Sex is as much a part if this crime as the damage to the vagina is proportional to the damage done to the neck and head.

Iow, not very much.

This was not a lust crime, it was a revenge crime.

You piqued my curiosity. Whom do you feel was seeking revenge?

 

[Dragognosis]

Seeing as how I think Patsy did the whole thing I would say Patsy sought revenge. That is the child Patsy for whatever emotional trauma she suffered in her childhood.

We all accumulate "slights", injustices, wrongs, insults, traumas through our lives. The instinct to strike back is repressed. The "energy" accumulates until it is released in some way.

A destructive act taken against an easy target may look completely senseless because of tranference. The original situation is lost in the mist of time.

"Getting even" is a major force in human nature. As is transference.

 

[Dragognosis]

The rn singles out John. Patsy may have held a grudge against him as he acted in a "male" way typical of his time with Patsy while the childhood split-off persona felt the acts as transgression and or abuse. Having had enough "she" or "they" took over and the easy target lost out.

Then again the "John" may be a generalization for all those in authority who inflicted the "trauma" in the past and may not refer to Ramsey at all.

People kill for the most ridiculous reasons in the most horrific ways because of the reversion to infantile morality in adult bodies having adult capabilities.