RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[Linda7NJ]

Horrible, I know. It affects me the same way. But this is, I speculate, the reason at the core of the R cover-up. Its horribleness. Some on our forums have worked with victims of sexual abuse and will attest how difficult it is for a family to deal with. If it’s a wealthy family with prestige in the community, the family would have so much to lose. During a child’s life, it becomes about protecting their status quo, and the protection of the familial dysfunction is absolutely critical. Consider what it might be like for a loving mother if a beloved sibling were responsible (or if it involved the husband and breadwinner). Sometimes, equally as tragic, if a mother has her own past issues which are unresolved, she might even direct some blame towards the child. IIRC, PR discussed her concerns with PA (pilot’s wife) about JB being “too friendly.” “Too flirty.”

If this head strike did occur in the context of a sexual assault, then what had been left unaddressed while the child was alive, absolutely can’t be acknowledged after her death. The Rs would see it as the ruin of them all, for it to be part of the record of their child’s death. And, as Linda7nj points out, they likely already had guilt over not protecting her.

I view Kolar’s attempt to factually describe SBP and to at least consider that it could have played a role in JB’s death, as a brave measure. Here’s how he describes the effort that must be undertaken on behalf of a child: “As criminal investigators, it is our chosen duty to go willingly into the breach in defense of the weak and the powerless: to stand tall in the face of adversity, and to seek the truth no matter where the course may lead.”

mho

I know a whole lot of mothers that looked the other way when it came to incest, their child being a victim by husband, father, boyfriend or sibling....with FAR FAR less to loose.

IMO

 

[bettybaby00]

Horrible, I know. It affects me the same way. But this is, I speculate, the reason at the core of the R cover-up. Its horribleness. Some on our forums have worked with victims of sexual abuse and will attest how difficult it is for a family to deal with. If it’s a wealthy family with prestige in the community, the family would have so much to lose. During a child’s life, it becomes about protecting their status quo, and the protection of the familial dysfunction is absolutely critical. Consider what it might be like for a loving mother if a beloved sibling were responsible (or if it involved the husband and breadwinner). Sometimes, equally as tragic, if a mother has her own past issues which are unresolved, she might even direct some blame towards the child. IIRC, PR discussed her concerns with PA (pilot’s wife) about JB being “too friendly.” “Too flirty.”

If this head strike did occur in the context of a sexual assault, then what had been left unaddressed while the child was alive, absolutely can’t be acknowledged after her death. The Rs would see it as the ruin of them all, for it to be part of the record of their child’s death. And, as Linda7nj points out, they likely already had guilt over not protecting her.

I view Kolar’s attempt to factually describe SBP and to at least consider that it could have played a role in JB’s death, as a brave measure. Here’s how he describes the effort that must be undertaken on behalf of a child: “As criminal investigators, it is our chosen duty to go willingly into the breach in defense of the weak and the powerless: to stand tall in the face of adversity, and to seek the truth no matter where the course may lead.”

mho

BBM

Brave indeed. He goes on to say in part:

I have heard it expressed that the presumption of innocence does not attach until a defendant sits before the court at trial. Everything that goes before that event is an element of the investigative process, and I believe there are still active steps to be taken to achieve resolution and closure in this case. One has to be committed, however, to pursuing the truth, examining every lead of merit that presents itself, and be willing to explore the darker side of human behavior.

Unfortunately, the commitment he describes was severely lacking in this case (with a few notable exceptions). And the people who failed JRB included those in the DAs office, as well as her family.

In fact, when considering MLs complete dismissal of Kolar, and his attempts to further investigate the crime, the timeline of events is significant.

In Jan. 2006 Kolar makes his presentation to ML and others on her staff in the hopes of getting her to look at what he believed were/are viable leads--in particular BRs medical records. Instead...

She told me that she was unwilling to pursue that lead because she "didn’t want to harm her relationship with the Ramsey family."​

This mindset boarders on misconduct when one considers that she was fully aware of the signed True Bills, and how their very existence had been suppressed via AHs carefully worded announcement regarding the GJs findings.

:gaah:

 

[2 percent]

Horrible, I know. It affects me the same way. But this is, I speculate, the reason at the core of the R cover-up. Its horribleness. Some on our forums have worked with victims of sexual abuse and will attest how difficult it is for a family to deal with. If it’s a wealthy family with prestige in the community, the family would have so much to lose. During a child’s life, it becomes about protecting their status quo, and the protection of the familial dysfunction is absolutely critical. Consider what it might be like for a loving mother if a beloved sibling were responsible (or if it involved the husband and breadwinner). Sometimes, equally as tragic, if a mother has her own past issues which are unresolved, she might even direct some blame towards the child. IIRC, PR discussed her concerns with PA (pilot’s wife) about JB being “too friendly.” “Too flirty.”

If this head strike did occur in the context of a sexual assault, then what had been left unaddressed while the child was alive, absolutely can’t be acknowledged after her death. The Rs would see it as the ruin of them all, for it to be part of the record of their child’s death. And, as Linda7nj points out, they likely already had guilt over not protecting her.

I view Kolar’s attempt to factually describe SBP and to at least consider that it could have played a role in JB’s death, as a brave measure. Here’s how he describes the effort that must be undertaken on behalf of a child: “As criminal investigators, it is our chosen duty to go willingly into the breach in defense of the weak and the powerless: to stand tall in the face of adversity, and to seek the truth no matter where the course may lead.”

mho

Other than getting a sick feeling when I first saw that, my first reaction was "why do they care?"
Their (the Ramseys) position is that an intruder did all of this. No matter how convoluted prior abuse figures into their theory, they still stick to it. So why do they care about burying the prior abuse? I understand social standing but if they aren't involved in any way with the sexual abuse, why do you care if it's shouted from the rooftops. For goodness sakes, if they're truly not involved the sexual assault evidence is the best identifier of the murderer.
The Smarts certainly didn't publicize the sexual assault of Elizabeth, but they didn't hide it either. They didn't enter into a deal with the DA during the trial to leave out the abuse although, if I recall, the kidnapping was what got him LWOP.

 

[bettybaby00]

Other than getting a sick feeling when I first saw that, my first reaction was "why do they care?"
Their (the Ramseys) position is that an intruder did all of this. No matter how convoluted prior abuse figures into their theory, they still stick to it. So why do they care about burying the prior abuse? I understand social standing but if they aren't involved in any way with the sexual abuse, why do you care if it's shouted from the rooftops. For goodness sakes, if they're truly not involved the sexual assault evidence is the best identifier of the murderer.
The Smarts certainly didn't publicize the sexual assault of Elizabeth, but they didn't hide it either. They didn't enter into a deal with the DA during the trial to leave out the abuse although, if I recall, the kidnapping was what got him LWOP.

They cared IMO b/c it's pretty damning evidence of family involvement. Yes, an outsider could have been abusing her prior to the murder, and yes, this same outside abuser could have been her killer, but how likely would that have been? I'm not arguing the unlikelihood based on statistics, but rather the problem posed by who could have that been if the Rs had tried to tie the two together. Ongoing abuse requires access, and the Rs pointed their finger at nearly everyone they knew. If the killer/abuser was someone they knew but on the periphery, it's unlikely they would have had that kind of access to JonBenet. The question then becomes who was close enough to be the perpetrator of both crimes? It would have had to have been someone they knew fairly well, and it would then have to have been someone they never named. Who could that be?

Much easier if the whole subject was denied by LE, especially if you consider the future implications. Imagine if the Rs were indicted and brought to trial. The evidence of prior abuse would likely never have been allowed in. How much more effective the Rs defense would be without prior abuse? How much more convincing would the DAs case be with it? Motive goes a long way to strengthen any case. In this one, it provides motive for the cover up and for the murder itself.

You can't say the RDT didn't earn their money.

 

[2 percent]

They cared IMO b/c it's pretty damning evidence of family involvement. Yes, an outsider could have been abusing her prior to the murder, and yes, this same outside abuser could have been her killer, but how likely would that have been? I'm not arguing the unlikelihood based on statistics, but rather the problem posed by who could have that been if the Rs had tried to tie the two together. Ongoing abuse requires access, and the Rs pointed their finger at nearly everyone they knew. If the killer/abuser was someone they knew but on the periphery, it's unlikely they would have had that kind of access to JonBenet. The question then becomes who was close enough to be the perpetrator of both crimes? It would have had to have been someone they knew fairly well, and it would then have to have been someone they never named. Who could that be?

Much easier if the whole subject was denied by LE, especially if you consider the future implications. Imagine if the Rs were indicted and brought to trial. The evidence of prior abuse would likely never have been allowed in. How much more effective the Rs defense would be without prior abuse? How much more convincing would the DAs case be with it? Motive goes a long way to strengthen any case. In this one, it provides motive for the cover up and for the murder itself.

You can't say the RDT didn't earn their money.

I agree. I think they wanted to bury it because it pointed straight at the family.

I was looking at it from IDI pov. Assuming the Ramseys are not involved in the murder it's hard to fathom why it would be important to edit out the prior abuse. Unless the abuse had nothing to do with the murder, that the abuse was a separate act.

 

[otg]

Thanks questfortrue. BBM, Again, who is able to bargain with police over handing over evidence and interviews? It's absurd when you really think about it. Why were the R's so worried about what evidence the BPD had specifically against them? Why did they have to have those evidence pictures of themselves? They were a little too worried to me. All mho.

And in addition to the evidence against them, they wanted "all exculpatory evidence concerning the Ramseys" as well! No reason for that but in building a defense.

 

[otg]

Other than getting a sick feeling when I first saw that, my first reaction was "why do they care?"
Their (the Ramseys) position is that an intruder did all of this. No matter how convoluted prior abuse figures into their theory, they still stick to it. So why do they care about burying the prior abuse? I understand social standing but if they aren't involved in any way with the sexual abuse, why do you care if it's shouted from the rooftops. For goodness sakes, if they're truly not involved the sexual assault evidence is the best identifier of the murderer.
The Smarts certainly didn't publicize the sexual assault of Elizabeth, but they didn't hide it either. They didn't enter into a deal with the DA during the trial to leave out the abuse although, if I recall, the kidnapping was what got him LWOP.

I agree with what bettybaby points out as the most likely reason for denying prior molestation: perceived likelihood. But I’ll go a little further and divide the two types of abuse from one another and answer each separately because both have been trivialized and/or dismissed by the Ramseys.

1. If (as the Ramseys contend) an intruder broke into their home, stun-gunned, sexually assaulted, tortured, bludgeoned, strangled and murdered their daughter, why would they want to minimize (or even at times, deny) the sexual aspect of it?
2. Why would they want to diminish or deny the possibility that she may have also been molested prior to the night of her death?

The answer to the second question is simple: Prior abuse by the same “intruder” is less likely because it means someone was breaking into their home before Christmas night (perhaps even on a regular basis) without their noticing anything wrong and without JonBenet telling them. And if the killer wasn't the one responsible for the prior abuse, who was? So the existence of anything that suggests prior abuse has to be repudiated. That’s why we see Ramsey supporters on the forums try desperately to refute the obvious. Their denial to even acknowledge the consensus of the experts who were actually shown the evidence from Dr. Meyer’s autopsy is necessary to deflect suspicion from anyone in the immediate family.

The reason for playing down the final molestation is a little less obvious. It might be called the backup plan... or “Plan-B”. The Ramseys used this same device in several situations. The first time (I know of) was just after John laid JonBenet’s lifeless body on the floor in front of Det. Arndt and said, “It has to be an inside job.” Then, right after that, he said (reportedly several times) something to the effect of, “I don’t think he meant to kill her.” That second statement was Plan-B. IOW, “If you don’t believe it was someone else (an ‘inside job’)... just in case you figure out that it was one of us, whoever did it didn’t mean to do it.” Another time they used this Plan-B was when John stated publicly that whoever killed her deserved “forgiveness”. IOW, “If one of us is ever found to be guilty, please be as forgiving of us as we would be of someone else.” One more example of a Plan-B is their contention that the killer was someone who had an intimate knowledge of the family and had a grudge against John. But just in case you don’t buy that... “There’s a killer on the loose, so hold your babies close!”

 

[bettybaby00]

And in addition to the evidence against them, they wanted "all exculpatory evidence concerning the Ramseys" as well! No reason for that but in building a defense.

And yet this "team" was purportedly hired to find JonBenet's killer, that's the story we were all fed. According to the Rs, they were necessary b/c the police weren't doing their job. Funny how in many instances the police were blocked from doing their job effectively due to maneuvering which pointed directly back to the the Rs.

 

[Anti-K]

A simpler, and I daresay, more reasonable explanation for the Ramsey’s denial is that they weren’t aware of any prior abuse, and simply did not accept that it occurred.

I don’t know what is meant when people say that the Ramseys “played down” the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death. However, I can understand why they may not wish to address it.

[modsnip]

About the gloves: if the Ramseys used gloves, than they must have somehow disposed of them. This shows some forensic concern; right? Just like, supposedly, wiping the flashlight and batteries. I can understand this sort of thinking, but it is contradicted by the – well, by several things, but I choose just this one – paintbrush, broken and one piece tied to the garrote and a second piece in the paint tote (look at me!). Someone anal enough to wipe the flashlight batteries isn’t going to leave that brush end in the paint tote, and probably wouldn’t use the paintbrush to being with! [modsnip].
...

AK

 

[ukrberserker23]

The thing that drives me nuts about this case is how did a couple of amateurs manage to leave behind so much confusing, and contradictory evidence? It isn't like they were professionals or something. I still think a cult is involved, but haven't found any proof of their membership.

 

[2 percent]

The thing that drives me nuts about this case is how did a couple of amateurs manage to leave behind so much confusing, and contradictory evidence? It isn't like they were professionals or something. I still think a cult is involved, but haven't found any proof of their membership.

There was a lot that was screwed up in this case. Whoever did it, the actions taken/not taken have worked in their favor.

I think sometimes the murders in the home by a family member are the most confusing because some things, like fingerprints, don't have a date stamped on them. So you can have a victim stabbed in the living room and have the fingerprints of every person that touched it on the handle of that knife. Yes, some may overlap and suggest who handled it last but it won't be conclusive. In that scenario the blood evidence would be the noose. Or the family turning on each other.

I don't think the Ramseys had to do much to confuse the issue but its also my firm opinion that luck played greatly into their hands. I don't think the murder was planned ahead (which doesn't mean it wasn't premeditated) for Christmas, but the holiday certainly slowed down the investigation. Being able to control interviews and evidence collection, contradict themselves, etc. helped them greatly too. None of this could have been known beforehand, thus luck was on their side.

 

[THE BUNK]

And yet this "team" was purportedly hired to find JonBenet's killer, that's the story we were all fed. According to the Rs, they were necessary b/c the police weren't doing their job. Funny how in many instances the police were blocked from doing their job effectively due to maneuvering which pointed directly back to the the Rs.

And interestingly, these guys neverfound any angle on this alleged intruder.
So many people blame the BPD for not looking into other possibilities, yet these defense investigators were not able to do any better.

 

[Frigga]

A simpler, and I daresay, more reasonable explanation for the Ramsey’s denial is that they weren’t aware of any prior abuse, and simply did not accept that it occurred.

I don’t know what is meant when people say that the Ramseys “played down” the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death. However, I can understand why they may not wish to address it.

[modsnip]

About the gloves: if the Ramseys used gloves, than they must have somehow disposed of them. This shows some forensic concern; right? Just like, supposedly, wiping the flashlight and batteries. I can understand this sort of thinking, but it is contradicted by the – well, by several things, but I choose just this one – paintbrush, broken and one piece tied to the garrote and a second piece in the paint tote (look at me!). Someone anal enough to wipe the flashlight batteries isn’t going to leave that brush end in the paint tote, and probably wouldn’t use the paintbrush to being with! [modsnip].
...

AK

Are you kidding me? Reasonable? In whose world would it be reasonable to downplay the fact that their child had been sexually assaulted before or during her brutal murder?

She WAS sexually assaulted- do you at least agree to that?

Because, if this is a case of an intruder- this aspect of the crime ties closely to the MO of the perp- there is a sadistic sexual murderer on the loose, after all... to this very day I might add.

 

[Frigga]

And interestingly, these guys neverfound any angle on this alleged intruder.
So many people blame the BPD for not looking into other possibilities, yet these defense investigators were not able to do any better.

Right. Not to mention the fact that they are not restricted in ways that LEO are. Ridiculous. This family had the motive and means to locate the perp but that would have been highly counter productive.

 

[THE BUNK]

Right. Not to mention the fact that they are not restricted in ways that LEO are. Ridiculous. This family had the motive and means to locate the perp but that would have been highly counter productive.

Exactly. They have unlimited access to the Ramsey's! They can ask them any question they want. They can even ask them the uncomfortable and direct questions. They should not be hampered with any doubts as to whether the Ramsey's were innocent. Yet they produced nothing.

Perhaps they found it just as hard to investigate an intruder case when so much points to their clients committing the crime.

 

[lawstudent]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't Patsy make a comment like she was a "little bit" molested? I can totally understand how if someone told me there was evidence of sexual abuse and I had no reason to think that it had been occurring, I would be like "what exactly is the evidence?" And if it was minor trauma and there were medical conditions, it could be reasonable to think the police were mistaken. She could say that she knows there was some chronic minor trauma noticed but she believes it is explained by medical issues and does not believe there was any prior assaults. As to the acute trauma, given the circumstances, it would be hard to be suspicious that it happened, although I would certainly understand that she wouldn't want to discuss it. But to make that "little bit" comment is quite weird. Either she thinks it happened previously or not. And if the intruder did it, I don't know why it would be minimized - to spare talking about it, maybe, but it's a weird way to put it.

ETA: I also don't think professionals usually leave behind contradictory evidence. Too much work and they want to leave little behind. I'm not even sure who the "professionals" could be. Some sort of gov officer? Organized crime? Serial killer? Those people usually just do it quickly and cleanly and not in such a strange way. Leaving behind confusing evidence is usually just accidental or luck. Hard to strategically plan.

 

[2 percent]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't Patsy make a comment like she was a "little bit" molested? I can totally understand how if someone told me there was evidence of sexual abuse and I had no reason to think that it had been occurring, I would be like "what exactly is the evidence?" And if it was minor trauma and there were medical conditions, it could be reasonable to think the police were mistaken. She could say that she knows there was some chronic minor trauma noticed but she believes it is explained by medical issues and does not believe there was any prior assaults. As to the acute trauma, given the circumstances, it would be hard to be suspicious that it happened, although I would certainly understand that she wouldn't want to discuss it. But to make that "little bit" comment is quite weird. Either she thinks it happened previously or not. And if the intruder did it, I don't know why it would be minimized - to spare talking about it, maybe, but it's a weird way to put it.

ETA: I also don't think professionals usually leave behind contradictory evidence. Too much work and they want to leave little behind. I'm not even sure who the "professionals" could be. Some sort of gov officer? Organized crime? Serial killer? Those people usually just do it quickly and cleanly and not in such a strange way. Leaving behind confusing evidence is usually just accidental or luck. Hard to strategically plan.

You're right. It's weird wording.
I don't like to jump on people for their wording when they are not used to the spotlight. It's possible she didn't mean exactly that, but it's hard to believe because they always seemed so coached when they opened their mouths. Again, my opinion...
when you hear things like that my mind goes immediately to someone trying to minimize what's happening. "A little too much to drink" for drunken behavior..."a little indiscretion" for obvious activities.
Why would Patsy minimize it? Why not rage that JB was violated prior to and during her death? Once again, it points to her belief or knowledge the sexual assault came from within the family.

 

[bettybaby00]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't Patsy make a comment like she was a "little bit" molested? I can totally understand how if someone told me there was evidence of sexual abuse and I had no reason to think that it had been occurring, I would be like "what exactly is the evidence?" And if it was minor trauma and there were medical conditions, it could be reasonable to think the police were mistaken. She could say that she knows there was some chronic minor trauma noticed but she believes it is explained by medical issues and does not believe there was any prior assaults. As to the acute trauma, given the circumstances, it would be hard to be suspicious that it happened, although I would certainly understand that she wouldn't want to discuss it. But to make that "little bit" comment is quite weird. Either she thinks it happened previously or not. And if the intruder did it, I don't know why it would be minimized - to spare talking about it, maybe, but it's a weird way to put it.

IIRC it was her mother who made that statement about Patsy. Either way, your point is valid IMO

 

[questfortrue]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but didn't Patsy make a comment like she was a "little bit" molested? I can totally understand how if someone told me there was evidence of sexual abuse and I had no reason to think that it had been occurring, I would be like "what exactly is the evidence?" And if it was minor trauma and there were medical conditions, it could be reasonable to think the police were mistaken. She could say that she knows there was some chronic minor trauma noticed but she believes it is explained by medical issues and does not believe there was any prior assaults. As to the acute trauma, given the circumstances, it would be hard to be suspicious that it happened, although I would certainly understand that she wouldn't want to discuss it. But to make that "little bit" comment is quite weird. Either she thinks it happened previously or not. And if the intruder did it, I don't know why it would be minimized - to spare talking about it, maybe, but it's a weird way to put it.

ETA: I also don't think professionals usually leave behind contradictory evidence. Too much work and they want to leave little behind. I'm not even sure who the "professionals" could be. Some sort of gov officer? Organized crime? Serial killer? Those people usually just do it quickly and cleanly and not in such a strange way. Leaving behind confusing evidence is usually just accidental or luck. Hard to strategically plan.

It was Nedra Paugh, PR’s mother, who made a statement to Geraldo. When Nedra mentioned the crime, it was in a string of half-completed thoughts and seeming nonsequiturs: “I didn’t know that she had been mole…molested to some extent and hit on the head. I didn’t know that. And somehow I hoped that she had died very quickly, and I think that she did. I…I really do believe that whoever has done this strangled her, because I’m sure that she put up a tremendous fight. Although she had tape on her mouth, she couldn’t scream. But I knew she had fought. PMPT

More telling, imo, are the interviews with JR and PR regarding her molestation.
PR’s reaction and statement to her interviewer pertaining to the evidence of chronic molestation. Keep in mind he had to prod her: I want to see the evidence. Not, what a grieving mother might say, such as, in my words: How could I have missed this. Her doctor missed this. My heartache over her death is enough, this evidence I can’t comprehend. PR showed no outrage, just show me the evidence.

JR said he could not read the autopsy or think about her molestation. He was not going to talk about it. Similarly, he downplayed her bedwetting as having any connection to anything.

When asked whether JR might be responsible for JB’s molestation while PR was receiving medical treatment, she responds, that it was impossible because her mother slept in the other twin bed in JB’s room. Note, that she doesn’t give JR a moral pass, just that access was too difficult. Strange.

Lastly, the family closed off access to medical records. LE tried to get permission to review records in which JB was receiving counsel from a psychologist. Those records were blocked.
MHO

 

[DeeDee249]

Of course, the autopsy proved that JB never struggled nor fought. The tape on her mouth showed no evidence of movement or struggle. The ligature furrow was completely circumferential, with no movement up or down, and there was no skin or blood under her fingernails (despite the misinformation STILL out there on the Web). The facts are that JB was rendered unconscious by the head blow and thankfully was unaware of being strangled.