Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[BBB167893]

It amazes me how so few people realize that statements such as that(and many more, especially by Ramseys) destroys the house of cards known as the official timeline to the point of making that timeline bordering on meaningless, yet its parroted as somehow relevant.

Hell, just the high possibility of Jonbenet being awake at the time they came home shatters the timeline completely but this doesn't stop people from cherry picking their favorite moments of the timeline to suit specific theories.


Really? How so? The fact a ransom note was found literally feet from a dead body is one of the things that helped make the case so unique and pretty much unsolvable. The closer a body is to a note, the less there is for them to explain because for one it makes little sense and two instead of a LE slam dunk we've got a case that everyone and their grandma has a different theory on 19 years and counting.

Do I think they should have explained more? Absolutely. Going by what you just said they had no reason to say squat yet you think that scenario gives them a reason to say more and control the developing situation. They controlled it alright but not based on that. Thank Barney, Gomer, Goober, and the rest of the Mayberry PD for that problem.

You'll have to forgive me for not following you, singularity. I'm puzzled as to this "official timeline" you speak of. I have my own timeline.

 

[andreww]

It amazes me how so few people realize that statements such as that(and many more, especially by Ramseys) destroys the house of cards known as the official timeline to the point of making that timeline bordering on meaningless, yet its parroted as somehow relevant.

Hell, just the high possibility of Jonbenet being awake at the time they came home shatters the timeline completely but this doesn't stop people from cherry picking their favorite moments of the timeline to suit specific theories.


Really? How so? The fact a ransom note was found literally feet from a dead body is one of the things that helped make the case so unique and pretty much unsolvable. The closer a body is to a note, the less there is for them to explain because for one it makes little sense and two instead of a LE slam dunk we've got a case that everyone and their grandma has a different theory on 19 years and counting.

Do I think they should have explained more? Absolutely. Going by what you just said they had no reason to say squat yet you think that scenario gives them a reason to say more and control the developing situation. They controlled it alright but not based on that. Thank Barney, Gomer, Goober, and the rest of the Mayberry PD for that problem.

This case was unsolvable? I think not. This case would have been solved within 48 hours if the DA hadn't tied investigators hands. If cops had taken Patsy in to custody on the 27th, you don't think she would have cracked?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SapphireSteel]

The case essentially is solved.

Time has solved it.

Fewer and fewer people believe the Ramseys Lies. 20 year later the entire world has now lived through Susan Smith, Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias, OJ.

Now we believe that people can lie. And lie, and lie some more.

Now we believe what seems Unthinkable.

John Ramsey is a very lucky individual indeed - he should've been in the Electric Chair.

I suspect he's a Serial Killer. I suspect the accident that claimed Beth's life was intentional sabotage by JR who could not STAND the fact she was breaking away (see: boyfriends car).

His insistence on shoving his face on TV again and again speaks of enormous Narcissism and frankly, Dupers Delight - let's see how far I can go.

Quite a long way it seems, if you're Wealthy in the US.

 

[awakeandaware]

IDK why a spouse would cover up for the other...maybe it's as simple as them keeping outsiders out of personal business. When a wife looks at her husband, she wouldn't just see a murderer, she'd still see her husband ...and maybe she has always made excuses for him and semi blames the child. A lot of times, I've noticed that men take parenting cues from their wives. If she's lenient, so is he. If she's abusive, so is he. If a mother was the murderer, I could see this kind of man just stepping back and not involving himself, unless he's accused. I've been married for over 20 years and if my husband did something like this, I'd be horrified...partly because there would be no signs. But if somebody was married to a different kind of man, they might not be so shocked...so how they'd handle it, would be different. My town's police chief's wife was a shoplifter, but nobody knew about it until after he died. She got caught in a neighboring town and he wasn't around to take care of the problem. I wonder how far a man man like that would go to protect his wife and name. MOO

I agree especially when you enter the factor that he may have been guilty of something else like molestation. Then he too would have a stake in the cover up.

 

[johnjay]

I've never seen any evidence that makes me believe that JR would sexually abuse his daughter or hurt her in any physical way. Is there such evidence? Why do people believe he would do such things?

 

[andreww]

I've never seen any evidence that makes me believe that JR would sexually abuse his daughter or hurt her in any physical way. Is there such evidence? Why do people believe he would do such things?

Because its easy to take pot shots without evidence. But I agree, there is no evidence against John except for the fact that she was abused. The number of suspects is low so some people feel free to just take a free shot.

 

[cady]

I've never seen any evidence that makes me believe that JR would sexually abuse his daughter or hurt her in any physical way. Is there such evidence? Why do people believe he would do such things?

They can't imagine that her mother would,or her brother....its clear that as part of the staging, she was penetrated bythe paintbrush end (by someone) but I have always thought that since she suffered chronically from vaginal infections,that it was likely JonBenet who was chronically responding to the discomfort of the accompanying itch. JMO

 

[serenityinstars]

Hello WebSleuths I am Serenity (SIS). I am a new member to the forum but have been reading the threads for a short while before I joined. I started out reading with an open mind, knowing relatively little about the case. I was 14 when the murder occurred and didn't follow it as murder kinda creeped me out as a kid. All I remember is seeing the horrifying picture of JonBenet with the garrote around her neck on the cover of every magazine and tabloid, at every store I went to.

Now I am older and better able to cope with delving into this terrible tragedy. I began reading thinking it would be a clear-cut case, boy was I wrong! After studying the threads with an open mind, I found that there is really only one explanation, which doesn't really explain anything except the who. I found myself to be RDI. Which Ramsey did it is really a constant debate in my mind, but beyond a doubt a Ramsey. I lean towards BDI with Patsy and John involved in the cover-up. If JDI or PDI then at the very least Burke knows more than he is saying.

As to prior molestation I believe it would likely have been one of the males in her family. As to which one I think it possible that it was any particular one, father, brother, or half-brother. Regarding the night of the murder, I would believe it to be any one of the male family members, but I also could accept that it was the mother trying to cover up the previous molestation, not realizing JonBenet was still alive, hence the bleeding. I lean towards Burke molesting then hitting her that night, with parents covering up the molestation with the garrote and paintbrush.

I base my opinion on the fact that Burke knew about the knife and head wound, which I would not think he would know unless he was there. Also, on the enhanced 911 tape I did hear a young, male child's voice asking, "What did you find?" That seems an odd question, as if he knew there was something to be found. I would think a child would have asked, "What happened? " or "What's the matter, why are you calling the police?" It also seemed to me that at the very end of the tape the child could be heard asking, "Am I going to be arrested?" Did anyone else hear this as well?

(All my own personal opinion based on what I have read to date)

SIS

"You can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me." -Firefly

 

[johnjay]

Hello WebSleuths I am Serenity (SIS). I am a new member to the forum but have been reading the threads for a short while before I joined. I started out reading with an open mind, knowing relatively little about the case. I was 14 when the murder occurred and didn't follow it as murder kinda creeped me out as a kid. All I remember is seeing the horrifying picture of JonBenet with the garrote around her neck on the cover of every magazine and tabloid, at every store I went to.

Now I am older and better able to cope with delving into this terrible tragedy. I began reading thinking it would be a clear-cut case, boy was I wrong! After studying the threads with an open mind, I found that there is really only one explanation, which doesn't really explain anything except the who. I found myself to be RDI. Which Ramsey did it is really a constant debate in my mind, but beyond a doubt a Ramsey. I lean towards BDI with Patsy and John involved in the cover-up. If JDI or PDI then at the very least Burke knows more than he is saying.

As to prior molestation I believe it would likely have been one of the males in her family. As to which one I think it possible that it was any particular one, father, brother, or half-brother. Regarding the night of the murder, I would believe it to be any one of the male family members, but I also could accept that it was the mother trying to cover up the previous molestation, not realizing JonBenet was still alive, hence the bleeding. I lean towards Burke molesting then hitting her that night, with parents covering up the molestation with the garrote and paintbrush.

Hi serenityinstars, I'm new here too. It's my understanding (from Chief Kolar's book) that JonBenet died from strangulation (the blow on the head happened first and it would have killed her in time if she didn't get quick medical help and maybe even then but the garrote is what killed her). I myself can't believe that either parent would strangle her.

I base my opinion on the fact that Burke knew about the knife and head wound, which I would not think he would know unless he was there. Also, on the enhanced 911 tape I did hear a young, male child's voice asking, "What did you find?" That seems an odd question, as if he knew there was something to be found. I would think a child would have asked, "What happened? " or "What's the matter, why are you calling the police?" It also seemed to me that at the very end of the tape the child could be heard asking, "Am I going to be arrested?" Did anyone else hear this as well?

(All my own personal opinion based on what I have read to date)

SIS

"You can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me." -Firefly

I heard the "are they going to arrest me" or something like that, but I don't hear he "What did you find".

 

[UKGuy]

Hello WebSleuths I am Serenity (SIS). I am a new member to the forum but have been reading the threads for a short while before I joined. I started out reading with an open mind, knowing relatively little about the case. I was 14 when the murder occurred and didn't follow it as murder kinda creeped me out as a kid. All I remember is seeing the horrifying picture of JonBenet with the garrote around her neck on the cover of every magazine and tabloid, at every store I went to.

Now I am older and better able to cope with delving into this terrible tragedy. I began reading thinking it would be a clear-cut case, boy was I wrong! After studying the threads with an open mind, I found that there is really only one explanation, which doesn't really explain anything except the who. I found myself to be RDI. Which Ramsey did it is really a constant debate in my mind, but beyond a doubt a Ramsey. I lean towards BDI with Patsy and John involved in the cover-up. If JDI or PDI then at the very least Burke knows more than he is saying.

As to prior molestation I believe it would likely have been one of the males in her family. As to which one I think it possible that it was any particular one, father, brother, or half-brother. Regarding the night of the murder, I would believe it to be any one of the male family members, but I also could accept that it was the mother trying to cover up the previous molestation, not realizing JonBenet was still alive, hence the bleeding. I lean towards Burke molesting then hitting her that night, with parents covering up the molestation with the garrote and paintbrush.

I base my opinion on the fact that Burke knew about the knife and head wound, which I would not think he would know unless he was there. Also, on the enhanced 911 tape I did hear a young, male child's voice asking, "What did you find?" That seems an odd question, as if he knew there was something to be found. I would think a child would have asked, "What happened? " or "What's the matter, why are you calling the police?" It also seemed to me that at the very end of the tape the child could be heard asking, "Am I going to be arrested?" Did anyone else hear this as well?

(All my own personal opinion based on what I have read to date)

SIS

"You can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me." -Firefly

serenityinstars,
There is a case for any of the R's doing it, but BDI is the most consistent, all the others have big holes, like: PDI why does Patsy not cleanup the breakfast bar, or dress JonBenet in ugly size-12's, how does JR know what to say to back her up?

Similarly with JDI, why does he not cleanup the breakfast bar, remove the ties from JonBenet's hair, not use his shirt to cleanup JonBenet, have different initial version of events?

Curious that about BR , he definitely should not know about any head injury, only revealed at autopsy and the parents said they never discussed the details with BR!

The molestation with the paintbrush may have been intentionally postmortem, i.e. it was sexually gratifying, and the prior chronic abuse might have been caused by multiple people, e.g. on sleepovers, or BR playing doctors, whatever?

BR said JonBenet walked into the house, she had asymmetric hair-ties in place, and pineapple in her stomach, all enough to contradict the parents version of events.

So it looks like its BDI, with BR doing some minimal staging and the parents the rest, otherwise why would the GJ not indict either parent for first degree murder, and why would alex hunter not present the GJ conclusions to a judge? All because legally they had to airbrush a minor out of the case?

In general it all worked out, probably not as intended, but the R's are free to live as they please, media oops events not withstanding.

Those that doubt BDI, note BR has vanished into thin air, he does no media interviews, does private chat on the internet, avoids public events, he is in effect a self declared persona non grata!

.

 

[serenityinstars]

Hi serenityinstars, I'm new here too. It's my understanding (from Chief Kolar's book) that JonBenet died from strangulation (the blow on the head happened first and it would have killed her in time if she didn't get quick medical help and maybe even then but the garrote is what killed her). I myself can't believe that either parent would strangle her.



I heard the "are they going to arrest me" or something like that, but I don't hear he "What did you find".

Ah yes thank you. I forgot to say that it was my belief also that the strangulation occurred when the garrote was applied. Possibly accidentally during the application of the garrote. I also don't believe the parents could have purposely strangled her, the only instance I could even begin to fathom would be a mercy strangulation, believing her too far gone to get help. Even then I think mercy killing is a stretch. But it's also possible Burke hit and strangled her, and the parents applied the garrote to explain/cover up the strangulation. And although I can't fathom it, it is possible the parents were so cold-hearted that when they found her they strangled her to avoid having to deal with what would have been a lifetime of care for a child who would likely never fully recover from her head injury (providing they knew about the head injury.) If only someone would confess, so all the questions could be answered.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

I've never seen any evidence that makes me believe that JR would sexually abuse his daughter or hurt her in any physical way. Is there such evidence? Why do people believe he would do such things?

I can't speak for other people, johnjay, but I'll say this: for me, it's a question of converging elements.

1) JonBenet was a victim of repeated molestation. That's proven as much as it can be without the victim making a statement or an eyewitness. That means the perpetrator had easy access to her. That narrows the field to a very few.

2) PR's early victory over ovarian cancer came at a steep price: the inability to engage sexually. JonBenet was available as a substitute. She was easily manipulated into silence. When JR talks about how JonBenet was "pure Patsy," it ties up with what Dr. Rudolf Krafft-Ebing said about situational molesters: a misplaced attraction.

 

[BBB167893]

Because its easy to take pot shots without evidence. But I agree, there is no evidence against John except for the fact that she was abused. The number of suspects is low so some people feel free to just take a free shot.

andreww, I'm not looking for a fight, especially with you. But I will ask you straight out: who do you think did the abuse and why?

 

[UKGuy]

I can't speak for other people, johnjay, but I'll say this: for me, it's a question of converging elements.

1) JonBenet was a victim of repeated molestation. That's proven as much as it can be without the victim making a statement or an eyewitness. That means the perpetrator had easy access to her. That narrows the field to a very few.

2) PR's early victory over ovarian cancer came at a steep price: the inability to engage sexually. JonBenet was available as a substitute. She was easily manipulated into silence. When JR talks about how JonBenet was "pure Patsy," it ties up with what Dr. Rudolf Krafft-Ebing said about situational molesters: a misplaced attraction.

SuperDave,
Allow me to comment, your 1. and 2. might be independent factors. 1. is given if you assume an RDI, but 2. is patently dependent on whatever RDI you propose.

3.) JonBenet's chronic abuse might have been arrived at via non-situational elements, i.e. BR's numerous sleepovers, or/and BR himself indulging in what we euphemistically describe as playing doctor?

The latter is a third explanation for the facts, I'm not saying its the case just that its in addition to 1. and 2.

Also 3. might offer an incentive for Glenn and Susan Stine to play ball?


.

 

[questfortrue]

~RSBM~
When JR talks about how JonBenet was "pure Patsy," it ties up with what Dr. Rudolf Krafft-Ebing said about situational molesters: a misplaced attraction.

Simply to add to your list of folks who spoke about this-

I don’t discount Kolar’s thesis of SBP, but I also do not discount the theories of some of the other authorities and analysts on abuse. Without JB’s testimony, no one could ever say with certainty who abused her. The following are some of the others who looked at this:
-CPS/Social Services shared with LA (who testified in a depo about this) that based on their experience they detected father/daughter abuse.
-Mark McLish, a statement analyst who was once endorsed and referenced by Kolar, commented that JR was deceptive in his statement about abuse.
-Three forensic psychologist/psychiatrists (Andrew Hodges, author of A Mother Gone Bad, Dr. C. Jess Groesbeck, and Dr. Patrick Callahan) concluded that JR fits the classic profile of a situational molester. They believed that the loss of his daughter and his wife’s diagnosis triggered a desire for comfort from someone young and safe.
-Cyril Wecht, without naming anyone in particular, suggested her internal injuries were caused by someone older than a child of 9. He based his analysis on the AR. (I do not personally believe the evidence supports his theory of what happened that night, but I do have regard for his interpretation of her injuries.)

 

[questfortrue]

For anyone interested in the legal aspect, from a Colorado criminal attorney I have learned there is no legal mandate to “erase” a child from a crime in Colorado. If a child is a participant in or a witness to a crime, the DA in his preparation of materials for submission to a court and for charges, will use the initials of a child. If a child is the only participant in a felony, say homicide of another child, the case will not go to court but to social services/CPS who will require mental health treatment and possibly removal from a home. Though the information will not be presented to the public, it is not anything which is simply brushed away.

Prosecutor Kane gave various charges to the GJ to consider. Imo, Andreww had it right, the charges selected were likely the only ones which could have been taken to court. Also, it was not a unanimous agreement by the attorneys involved in this case not to file it. IIRC, there were a couple of attorneys who believed it should have been filed, end of story.

Regarding DA AH, his background was to work deals behind the scenes. He once told a GJ not to vote in the Sid Wells case. Wells’ roommate Thayne Smika was being investigated by this GJ for the crime. AH signed a secret agreement with Smika’s attorney not to indict. No one knew about this for some time. Now DA Garnett has formally indicted Smika for the homicide of Sid Wells.

 

[johnjay]

Ah yes thank you. I forgot to say that it was my belief also that the strangulation occurred when the garrote was applied. Possibly accidentally during the application of the garrote. I also don't believe the parents could have purposely strangled her, the only instance I could even begin to fathom would be a mercy strangulation, believing her too far gone to get help. Even then I think mercy killing is a stretch. But it's also possible Burke hit and strangled her, and the parents applied the garrote to explain/cover up the strangulation. And although I can't fathom it, it is possible the parents were so cold-hearted that when they found her they strangled her to avoid having to deal with what would have been a lifetime of care for a child who would likely never fully recover from her head injury (providing they knew about the head injury.) If only someone would confess, so all the questions could be answered.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

From what I've read, it would have been difficult for the parents to know the extent of the head injury unless they caused it, which I doubt. Even then, it would be hard to know just how bad the head injury was from looking at JonBenet. I say that because even the folks doing the autopsy were surprised about what they found there. I think the parents instincts would have been to call for medical help and cover up what needed to be covered up. So that makes me think that JonBenet was dead, and very obviously dead, by the time the parents found her.

 

[johnjay]

I can't speak for other people, johnjay, but I'll say this: for me, it's a question of converging elements.

1) JonBenet was a victim of repeated molestation. That's proven as much as it can be without the victim making a statement or an eyewitness. That means the perpetrator had easy access to her. That narrows the field to a very few.

That's my understanding too. Although there does seem to be some room for doubt about prior sexual abuse.

2) PR's early victory over ovarian cancer came at a steep price: the inability to engage sexually. JonBenet was available as a substitute. She was easily manipulated into silence. When JR talks about how JonBenet was "pure Patsy," it ties up with what Dr. Rudolf Krafft-Ebing said about situational molesters: a misplaced attraction.

I think it would take more than a need for a sexual substitute for JR to sexually abuse his child. JR was a successful well traveled business man. That afforded him plenty of opportunity to find all sorts of "sexual substitutes" if, and I'll repeat, if, he was so inclined. I've seen no evidence that he would have either the desire or will to engage in such with a child. The evidence that I see it that he was attracted to beautiful women and they were/are attracted to him.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

[BBB167893]

Simply to add to your list of folks who spoke about this-

I don’t discount Kolar’s thesis of SBP, but I also do not discount the theories of some of the other authorities and analysts on abuse. Without JB’s testimony, no one could ever say with certainty who abused her. The following are some of the others who looked at this:
-CPS/Social Services shared with LA (who testified in a depo about this) that based on their experience they detected father/daughter abuse.
-Mark McLish, a statement analyst who was once endorsed and referenced by Kolar, commented that JR was deceptive in his statement about abuse.
-Three forensic psychologist/psychiatrists (Andrew Hodges, author of A Mother Gone Bad, Dr. C. Jess Groesbeck, and Dr. Patrick Callahan) concluded that JR fits the classic profile of a situational molester. They believed that the loss of his daughter and his wife’s diagnosis triggered a desire for comfort from someone young and safe.
-Cyril Wecht, without naming anyone in particular, suggested her internal injuries were caused by someone older than a child of 9. He based his analysis on the AR. (I do not personally believe the evidence supports his theory of what happened that night, but I do have regard for his interpretation of her injuries.)

Much obliged, QFT!

 

[Jolamom]

For anyone interested in the legal aspect, from a Colorado criminal attorney I have learned there is no legal mandate to “erase” a child from a crime in Colorado. If a child is a participant in or a witness to a crime, the DA in his preparation of materials for submission to a court and for charges, will use the initials of a child. If a child is the only participant in a felony, say homicide of another child, the case will not go to court but to social services/CPS who will require mental health treatment and possibly removal from a home. Though the information will not be presented to the public, it is not anything which is simply brushed away.

Prosecutor Kane gave various charges to the GJ to consider. Imo, Andreww had it right, the charges selected were likely the only ones which could have been taken to court. Also, it was not a unanimous agreement by the attorneys involved in this case not to file it. IIRC, there were a couple of attorneys who believed it should have been filed, end of story.

Regarding DA AH, his background was to work deals behind the scenes. He once told a GJ not to vote in the Sid Wells case. Wells’ roommate Thayne Smika was being investigated by this GJ for the crime. AH signed a secret agreement with Smika’s attorney not to indict. No one knew about this for some time. Now DA Garnett has formally indicted Smika for the homicide of Sid Wells.

Thank you for this information. I have often read that if BR was involved, from a legal standpoint, it would have to be concealed. I never knew what was true.