Team JonBenet

  • #101
UKGuy said:
I cannot see the wearing the same outfit two days running as confirming anything.

Consider the circumstances as they were prior to the 911 call, and those after JonBenet's body was discovered?

If Patsy knew about the fiber linkage then why even go there with the same outfit?

Why not shower as John did ?

Patsy did not know how events were to transpire post 911 call.

How was Patsy ever to know she would get the opportunity to hug JonBenet's corpse?

Wearing the same outfit two days running is odd, but does not make you guilty of murder.

Maybe as Arndt says there is much we do not know, and if we learn some more, maybe all these curiosities will fall into place?


.
My point is that PDIs seem to believe that she didn't change her clothes or shower. The only "proof" we have that patsy didn't shower is Patsy's own word that she didn't. The only "proof" that we have that she wore the same clothes all night is the fact that was was wearing the same outfit when last seen on 25th and first seen on 26th.

Who is to say that she didn't change out of her festive outfit when she got home ... then murder Jonbenet whilst dressed in her nightdress ... perform the staging ... throw the nightdress in the washer and tumbledryer then put it back in the drawer ... shower ... get dressed back into her festive outfit in time to phone police and tell them that she hadn't had a shower because it was broken? She did have 8 hours to do this after all.

People are suspicious of a freshly showered suspect - but it could be a double bluff. A suspect who says they didn't shower and who is suspected of not changing - but who has no forensics on their person.

As you say - she had no way of knowing whether she'd get an opportunity to throw herself on the body.

As I said - we only have Patsy's word that she didn't shower.
 
  • #102
dottierainbow said:
Jayelles,
It's so refreshing to see someone neutral for a change. What a great post.
Amy
Ditto to that. This is exactly what I was looking for on the thread I started a week or so ago, and only got the same old same old, people either bashing the Ramseys because they "felt" they were guilty, or staunchly defending them because they "felt" they were not. Thank you for your post Jayells.
 
  • #103
Hbgchick said:
Ditto to that. This is exactly what I was looking for on the thread I started a week or so ago, and only got the same old same old, people either bashing the Ramseys because they "felt" they were guilty, or staunchly defending them because they "felt" they were not. Thank you for your post Jayells.
Sounds like you came with the same closed mind you think others have. Several people cited evidence to you, not just opinion, and you didn't choose to view it as such.
 
  • #104
Nuisanceposter said:
Sounds like you came with the same closed mind you think others have. Several people cited evidence to you, not just opinion, and you didn't choose to view it as such.
Lol...yeah, right. Like I've said from the beginning, I see some evidence that might or might not point to the Ramseys, and some that might or might not point away from them. So I certainly have seen evidence, just none that proves anything, at least to me. If you want to say "Patsy did not shower, therefore she killed Jon Benet" (NOT that I'm saying you said exactly that - it's a hypothetical statement), that might be enough for you, but I need a little more proof before I convict someone.



FYI, for a very long time I honestly believed the Ramseys DID kill Jon Benet. I'm just not so sure anymore, and I'm not going to blindly stick to an opinion that I no longer feel is accurate. I'm also not going to just keep repeating the same thing over and over like a parrot as "proof" that they did (or did not do) anything. I prefer to actually use my brain and THINK about it, then weigh the so-called "evidence" objectively.
 
  • #105
Okay, fair enough, but let me ask you this: what did you see or read etc. that changed your mind?
 
  • #106
Nuisanceposter said:
Okay, fair enough, but let me ask you this: what did you see or read etc. that changed your mind?
I think my mind was made up - in the beginning - based not on evidence but of a perception that The Ramsey's et al were abusive (physically and sexually) to Jon Benet. It was easy to jump to the conclusion that they were guilty of murder based on that perception. I didn't "approve" of the way Patsy paraded Jon Benet around like a minature beauty queen and thought that if a mother could do that to a child, that murder wasn't out of the question. I was also under the impression that John sexually abused her - also from the same school of thought that if a father could let his daughter parade around in bikinis with adult makeup, etc. sexual abuse wasn't too far from that (IMO).

However, in reading more about the case today, I just can't stick to that (even though I still think child beauty queen thing is pretty sick). The Ramsey's were different, that's for sure. Weird, even. Also had some pretty weird friends. But I can't equate "weird" to "murderer" anymore. I don't see any evidence of previous or ongoing sexual or physical abuse, which was what my whole opinion is based on.
 
  • #107
"This is exactly what I was looking for on the thread I started a week or so ago, and only got the same old same old, people either bashing the Ramseys because they "felt" they were guilty, or staunchly defending them because they "felt" they were not."

Welcome to our world.

"I was also under the impression that John sexually abused her - also from the same school of thought that if a father could let his daughter parade around in bikinis with adult makeup, etc. sexual abuse wasn't too far from that (IMO)."

Well, hbgchick, I've always said that it wasn't a big leap between the two. I guess you've proven me right. It wouldn't be a big leap for a jury, either, imo.

"I don't see any evidence of previous or ongoing sexual or physical abuse, which was what my whole opinion is based on."

Tell you what, hbgchick. I'll put this up and you can make up your own mind. Here goes:

<<Internationally known forensic psychiatrist Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber studied the autopsy report and came to the conclusion that JBR's vaginal injuries, - new and healed - raised the chilling possibility that she had been the victim of sexual abuse in the past - in the weeks or even months prior to the murder.

Abuse or Not Summary
Precise summary of physicians' opinions on if there was prior abuse

Seven physicians on whether or not there was prior sexual abuse of JonBenet.
All seven experts agreed there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse, although one appeared to be undecided.

Five of the medical doctors believed that prior sexual abuse had occurred:
Cyril Wecht
David Jones
James Monteleone
John McCann
Ronald Wright.
Two of the medical doctors were unclear in their responses:
Richard Krugman
Werner Spitz.>>

That's just for openers. Let's expand on that a little:

<<In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all (emphasis mine) of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. (Emphasis mine, again.) There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia.>>

<<Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.

In discussing perpetrators of sexual abuse on children, McCann stated that the majority of children this age are molested by someone with whom they have close contact most commonly family members. He explained that if the molester is a stranger or someone else with whom the child is not close, the child will usually tell someone or psychological problems appear which create behavior changes observed by their parents. Common symptoms would be eating disorders, nightmares or a variety of behaviors indicating that something is bothering them. Commencement or increased bedwetting is also commonly seen in sexually abused children. When asked about JonBenet's sexualized behavior during her pageant performances, McCann said that this was not necessarily a sign of abuse, since this was taught behavior for the pageants. Also, with children's exposure to sexually explicit television programs, sexualized behavior is no longer considered to be an indication of possible sexual abuse.>>

<<In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation.>>

That's the best I can do for you, and even I'm not convinced that it wasn't two kids messing around. But, you can make up your own minds.
 
  • #108
Hbgchick said:
I think my mind was made up - in the beginning - based not on evidence but of a perception that The Ramsey's et al were abusive (physically and sexually) to Jon Benet. It was easy to jump to the conclusion that they were guilty of murder based on that perception. I didn't "approve" of the way Patsy paraded Jon Benet around like a minature beauty queen and thought that if a mother could do that to a child, that murder wasn't out of the question. I was also under the impression that John sexually abused her - also from the same school of thought that if a father could let his daughter parade around in bikinis with adult makeup, etc. sexual abuse wasn't too far from that (IMO).

However, in reading more about the case today, I just can't stick to that (even though I still think child beauty queen thing is pretty sick). The Ramsey's were different, that's for sure. Weird, even. Also had some pretty weird friends. But I can't equate "weird" to "murderer" anymore. I don't see any evidence of previous or ongoing sexual or physical abuse, which was what my whole opinion is based on.
Being weird doesn't mean you aren't capable of accidentally killing your child.

But what evidence did you see or hear about that told you the Rs are just weird and not murderers? The Rs saying we didn't do it and couldn't have? The words of their friends, saying it would be Jekyll and Hyde a thousand times over?

What specific things made you change your mind from RDI to whatever your theory is now? What is your theory now? I've pretty well decided what I think it looks like happened, but I really like hearing what other people think.

And excellent, excellent info from SuperDave. Wow, I am so glad I finally found other people (very informed people) who actually want to discuss JonBenet's case - my friends and family are tired of hearing me talk about it (my mother told other relatives to not even mention JonBenet in my presence) and they don't know or care enough to debate anyway.
 
  • #109
"my friends and family are tired of hearing me talk about it (my mother told other relatives to not even mention JonBenet in my presence) and they don't know or care enough to debate anyway"

Welcome to the club!

Thanks for the compliment, but I am only a humble messenger.
 
  • #110
Nuisanceposter said:
Being weird doesn't mean you aren't capable of accidentally killing your child.
But what evidence did you see or hear about that told you the Rs are just weird and not murderers? The Rs saying we didn't do it and couldn't have? The words of their friends, saying it would be Jekyll and Hyde a thousand times over?

What specific things made you change your mind from RDI to whatever your theory is now? What is your theory now? I've pretty well decided what I think it looks like happened, but I really like hearing what other people think.
And excellent, excellent info from SuperDave. Wow, I am so glad I finally found other people (very informed people) who actually want to discuss JonBenet's case - my friends and family are tired of hearing me talk about it (my mother told other relatives to not even mention JonBenet in my presence) and they don't know or care enough to debate anyway.
Unfortunately it's tough to prove a negative, sans some compelling proof that places all three Ramsey’s in Siberia at the time Jon Benet was killed. Even that doesn't mean they didnt' hire a third party to do it though.

So, I don't have "proof" they didn't. And I don't have proof they did...still.
To SuperDave's point re/all of the folks who jumped to the conclusion that the Ramsey's were murderers or molesters based on the beauty pageant lifestyle, there ya go. In lots of families (especially in the south) it's perfectly normal. Not to me, but to lots of people. Just because some people may think its unusual does not prove molestation, and even if it WAS molestation who knows who did it.

I'm not going to get into a posting war with anyone, but just as many doctors say that she was NOT molested (no, I don't have links but everyone knows they are out there). This is why I didn’t want to weed through the loooooooong posts with quotes from everybody on each side. There are two sides, both with equal amounts of “facts” that prove their point.

And look here folks. I'm sure some of you may have picked this up from some of my previous posts...but I was molested as a child by an ex-boyfriend of my mothers'. I am the absolute LAST person to condone molestation. In fact that is probably what made me jump to an unproven conclusion in the first place. But even I have gotten past my own past (‘scuse the double entendre) and have trouble convicting someone on speculation and hearsay, like all of the millions of people out there seem to have done. If there were not people that were equally sure that he did NOT molest anyone, it would be easier to believe.

As for theory, I don't have one. I am leaning towards an intruder, but one who was very familiar with the Ramsey’s. There are equal arguments for both sides, and I’m not agreeing with or defending either one of them. I simply don’t know what happened.

I think the only way this will ever be solved though, if it will at all, is when people stop beating each other up trying to prove that the Ramsey's did it, or the Ramsey's didn't do it. As the first poster so eloquently put it, why can't we all just be on JON BENET's side? The "Ramsey's did it" (or covered it up) and the "Ramsey's didn't do it" (and didn't cover it up) camps are so diametrically opposed and are so busy trying to convince the other side who is "right", that I'm afraid the real point is getting lost. NOBODY KNOWS who killed Jon Benet, and that's the tragedy.
 
  • #111
Hbgchick said:
Just because some people may think its [the beauty pageant lifestyle] unusual does not prove molestation...
It's the sexualization of JonBenet that raises a red flag for some, not necessarily beauty pageants per se. No, it doesn't prove molestation, but the sexualization indicates the parent(s) might possibly have a problem with sexual boundaries with his/her child.

...just as many doctors say that she was NOT molested (no, I don't have links but everyone knows they are out there)... There are two sides, both with equal amounts of “facts” that prove their point.
Not exactly. Some of the doctors, including Dr. Krugman, believed she wasn't "sexually molested," but rather, physically abused in the vaginal area, that she was vaginally abused but not for sexual gratification purposes. Is that the same as not being molested?

Although the medical experts disagree on the nature of the abuse, the medical evidence shows, and the medical opinion is overwhelming, that there was prior/chronic vaginal abuse.

Additionally, her pediatrician Dr. Beuf, who claimed she wasn't molested (aka vaginally abused), was not in a position to know, not having ever done a pelvic exam on her nor even examined her vagina since four months prior to her death.
 
  • #112
Britt said:
It's the sexualization of JonBenet that raises a red flag for some, not necessarily beauty pageants per se. No, it doesn't prove molestation, but the sexualization indicates the parent(s) might possibly have a problem with sexual boundaries with his/her child.
Yes, obviously. I did not realize I had to spell it out so clearly.

Britt said:
Not exactly. Some of the doctors, including Dr. Krugman, believed she wasn't "sexually molested," but rather, physically abused in the vaginal area, that she was vaginally abused but not for sexual gratification purposes. Is that the same as not being molested?

Although the medical experts disagree on the nature of the abuse, the medical evidence shows, and the medical opinion is overwhelming, that there was prior/chronic vaginal abuse.

Additionally, her pediatrician Dr. Beuf, who claimed she wasn't molested (aka vaginally abused), was not in a position to know, not having ever done a pelvic exam on her nor even examined her vagina since four months prior to her death.
Yes. The medical experts disagree on the nature of the abuse, or even if it was abuse. The medical experts disagree as to whether it was prior or chronic or done (if it was) by the killer. The medical experts disagree whether it was from masturbation or sexual abuse or riding a pony or a bike or God knows what.

Still nothing proven, thanks for your opinion too, though.
 
  • #113
Hbgchick said:
The medical experts disagree on the nature of the abuse, or even if it was abuse.
The majority med experts do not disagree on if it was abuse.

As I said, they disagree on whether the abuse was sexually motivated.

The medical experts disagree as to whether it was prior or chronic or done (if it was) by the killer.
Yes, there was probably a dissenting opinion or two, though I don't know unless someone can provide a source or quote, but the overwhelming majority opinion was prior/chronic abuse. It is not an evenly divided issue.

The medical experts disagree whether it was from masturbation or sexual abuse or riding a pony or a bike or God knows what.
Masturbation? Pony riding? Bike riding? What med expert said that?
 
  • #114
  • #115
SuperDave said:
That's the best I can do for you, and even I'm not convinced that it wasn't two kids messing around. But, you can make up your own minds.

SuperDave,

The bolded text was a favorite theme of BlueCrab's which led onto DS and/or NI et al ...

If prior sexual abuse is assumed then there may be more than other children involved.

What if the Ramsey's were really dysfunctional sexually, e.g. an adult molesting JonBenet, and also other children possibly indulging in what we term as playing doctor, this might explain the wall of silence?

.
 
  • #116
Jayelles said:
My point is that PDIs seem to believe that she didn't change her clothes or shower. The only "proof" we have that patsy didn't shower is Patsy's own word that she didn't. The only "proof" that we have that she wore the same clothes all night is the fact that was was wearing the same outfit when last seen on 25th and first seen on 26th.

Who is to say that she didn't change out of her festive outfit when she got home ... then murder Jonbenet whilst dressed in her nightdress ... perform the staging ... throw the nightdress in the washer and tumbledryer then put it back in the drawer ... shower ... get dressed back into her festive outfit in time to phone police and tell them that she hadn't had a shower because it was broken? She did have 8 hours to do this after all.

People are suspicious of a freshly showered suspect - but it could be a double bluff. A suspect who says they didn't shower and who is suspected of not changing - but who has no forensics on their person.

As you say - she had no way of knowing whether she'd get an opportunity to throw herself on the body.

As I said - we only have Patsy's word that she didn't shower.

Jayelles,

yes I agree with what you suggest it makes more sense than wearing the same clothes all night.

IMO Patsy staged the wine-cellar scenario, this does not mean she killed JonBenet, but the forensic evidence that links her to the wine-cellar goes beyond the circumstantial, even if its not conclusive.

Assuming this as per the fibers etc, and you are correct about her not wearing the clothing, then the possible timeline for her to accomplish the wine-cellar staging might be shorter than we think.

What is certain is that JonBenet's homicide which was intended to be portrayed as a kidnapping morphed into an intruder abduction and sexual assault!

One thing that did not change was the ransom note, since there was an original one which was destroyed, as per the missing pages, I'll assume the RN author ran out of time to write another?

.
 
  • #117
Britt said:
The majority med experts do not disagree on if it was abuse.

As I said, they disagree on whether the abuse was sexually motivated.


Yes, there was probably a dissenting opinion or two, though I don't know unless someone can provide a source or quote, but the overwhelming majority opinion was prior/chronic abuse. It is not an evenly divided issue.


Masturbation? Pony riding? Bike riding? What med expert said that?
:doh: :doh: :doh:
 
  • #118
Did Patsy or John ever explain the reasoning behind where each bedroom was? I understand JonBenet's and Burkes bedrooms were on the second floor and Patsy and Johns was on the third floor. I would think it would be easier to monitor things as a parent to have the parents on the second floor and the children on the third. The way it was, the parents were much less likely to hear anything strange that might be going on downstairs or to know when the children might be up. Also with Patsy already having undergone cancer treatments, it would be harder for her to walk up to the third floor I would think.

Old Broad
 
  • #119
Patsy stayed in JAR's bedroom on the second floor when she was in cancer treatment as the bathroom was only six steps from the bed.
 
  • #120
"To SuperDave's point re/all of the folks who jumped to the conclusion that the Ramsey's were murderers or molesters based on the beauty pageant lifestyle, there ya go. In lots of families (especially in the south) it's perfectly normal. Not to me, but to lots of people. Just because some people may think its unusual does not prove molestation, and even if it WAS molestation who knows who did it."

Don't put words in my mouth, hbgchick. (They won't fit with my foot in there lol) I didn't say that they proved molestation. I was saying that it's not a big leap of imagination between the two.

You and I are like ying and yang. I'm the exact opposite. Used to believe in their innocence, but now...I'd say it's fairly obvious. But let me say this: I AM on JB's side. I'm also on mine, and I've known me a lot longer.

"Yes, there was probably a dissenting opinion or two, though I don't know unless someone can provide a source or quote, but the overwhelming majority opinion was prior/chronic abuse. It is not an evenly divided issue."

That's about the size of it, far as I know. It might help to mention that John McCann is generally recognized as THE authority on the subject.

"SuperDave,
The bolded text was a favorite theme of BlueCrab's which led onto DS and/or NI et al"

UKGuy, I was merely expressing a feeling, not asserting anything. Like I said, it could be innocent (innocent as that can be, I should say).

"What if the Ramsey's were really dysfunctional sexually, e.g. an adult molesting JonBenet, and also other children possibly indulging in what we term as playing doctor, this might explain the wall of silence?"

Maybe. Hadn't given it much thought, really.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
2,410
Total visitors
2,526

Forum statistics

Threads
632,719
Messages
18,630,927
Members
243,274
Latest member
WickedGlow
Back
Top