Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[neesaki]

That's an awful thought, neesaki. I don't think I can agree with it right now. But I will say this: on the first page of this thread, OneLove, a worker for some state agency, spoke about how victims of sexual abuse tend to repeat the cycle. Also, it seems to me that in this case, you had a perfect storm: a husband who deeply loves his wife, a wife rendered incapable of sexual activity (or at least incapable of enjoying it), and a beautiful, loving daughter who reminds the husband of his wife ("pure Patsy" I think were his words) and has been highly sexualized. It doesn't take a big leap to connect those dots, does it?

It is an awful thought, but it's about the only explanation I can come up with for a mother to take away her own little girl's innocence. She had her child looking like a hooker at times. Idk, maybe she was doing it subconsciously and didn't realize what she was doing, whatever the case PR was really screwed up, IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

It is an awful thought, but it's about the only explanation I can come up with for a mother to take away her own little girl's innocence. She had her child looking like a hooker at times. Idk, maybe she was doing it subconsciously and didn't realize what she was doing, whatever the case PR was really screwed up, IMO.

I sometimes think that myself.

 

[reintarnation]

True, and it's not likely the family would be truthful about a family secret like that. But it's not normal for a mother to sexualize her young daughter the way PR did. That's what pedophiles and sometimes victims of sexual abuse do. I've often thought that PR was using JB as a substitute, a stand in, for JR, to keep him from straying away from the home front. Jmo

That's an intriguing train of thought, neesaki. Personally, I don't believe that PR was sexualizing JBR by putting her in the beauty pageant life. My thoughts are below, but I would also be interested to hear if there was anything else that got you thinking along those lines (using JBR as a sexual substitute, using JBR as a hook in JR, etc.).

I'm assuming that you are talking about the beauty pageants? On the outside looking in, it is easy to be appalled by mothers who put their daughters in those events because it focuses so heavily on personal appearance and physical beauty. In our culture, and especially for females, beautiful means sexy, so when little girls' appearances are altered to appear more beautiful for pageants, it inevitably means they are made up to look more mature and sexually attractive. This coupled with the fact that they are showcased for the judges viewing pleasure, which is enough to make most peoples' stomach turn (mine included).

All of that being the case, the women who participate in this don't see it as sexualizing little girls. Many of the mothers, PR included, were former beauty pageant contestants themselves. For them it is about the performance aspect for entertainment; they dress in costumes but also perform talents and other skills in the show. And JBR was involved with singing and dancing troupes in addition to her beauty pageant work. Many of these girls are more or less forced to do this by their mothers who are living vicariously through them to some degree, but some really like getting dressed up, doing a little show, and being applauded or winning prizes for it.

My opinion is that PR wanted JBR involved because it was something she was into, JBR was her only girl (so she wanted to share common interests with her), and JBR seemed to be into it (whether that was just to please her mom or genuine interest, we'll never know). All of this is totally natural and not suspicious, except that it created an unhealthy focus on JBR's physical appearance and public persona. Then again, PR was motivated by image and materialism in all aspects of her life, not just JBR. I am a PDI, and I think that this angle is part of the puzzle.

 

[neesaki]

That's an intriguing train of thought, neesaki. Personally, I don't believe that PR was sexualizing JBR by putting her in the beauty pageant life. My thoughts are below, but I would also be interested to hear if there was anything else that got you thinking along those lines (using JBR as a sexual substitute, using JBR as a hook in JR, etc.).

I'm assuming that you are talking about the beauty pageants? On the outside looking in, it is easy to be appalled by mothers who put their daughters in those events because it focuses so heavily on personal appearance and physical beauty. In our culture, and especially for females, beautiful means sexy, so when little girls' appearances are altered to appear more beautiful for pageants, it inevitably means they are made up to look more mature and sexually attractive. This coupled with the fact that they are showcased for the judges viewing pleasure, which is enough to make most peoples' stomach turn (mine included).

All of that being the case, the women who participate in this don't see it as sexualizing little girls. Many of the mothers, PR included, were former beauty pageant contestants themselves. For them it is about the performance aspect for entertainment; they dress in costumes but also perform talents and other skills in the show. And JBR was involved with singing and dancing troupes in addition to her beauty pageant work. Many of these girls are more or less forced to do this by their mothers who are living vicariously through them to some degree, but some really like getting dressed up, doing a little show, and being applauded or winning prizes for it.

My opinion is that PR wanted JBR involved because it was something she was into, JBR was her only girl (so she wanted to share common interests with her), and JBR seemed to be into it (whether that was just to please her mom or genuine interest, we'll never know). All of this is totally natural and not suspicious, except that it created an unhealthy focus on JBR's physical appearance and public persona. Then again, PR was motivated by image and materialism in all aspects of her life, not just JBR. I am a PDI, and I think that this angle is part of the puzzle.

I agree with much of your post. I think this thought occurred to me for several reasons: Yes, PR seemed to be a shallow, materialistic type person, then when she went through ovarian cancer it would have been a devastating experience and loss. This disease and the loss of her ovaries as well as the treatment itself would have and probably did have a significant affect on her sense of her own womanhood, as well as her sexuality, primarily desire. She had to have been concerned with keeping her husband happy and satisfied. I also think it's a possibility that she could have become desperate and insecure enough to do something, though probably not entirely consciously, like sexualizing her daughter to in some degree, satisfy JR and keep him, and keep her family together. Maybe for her it would have been much more devastating and much more of a wound to her ego for her to find out JR was seeing other women. Oh I'm sure, if this was the case, that she was in complete denial about it. She would never say it out loud, or admit it to herself.

I'm sure when she started JB in the pageants, she wasn't thinking of it as sensualizing / sexualizing her. But the fact is it did. Yet she continued to do it, she never saw it for what it was, she never "got it", she never saw what she was doing to her little girl. Or did she? The fact is there was something seriously wrong in that family, there's absolutely nothing even approaching normal about children smearing feces all over the place. I'm sure it's possible that whatever was going on, PR was totally blind to it, but I don't think so. There were too many things that were obvious. JMO

Also, there are a lot of sick parents out there, there are parents out there that one would never believe capable of all forms of abuse. There are cases of incest where the wife knows (but they claim they don't) . There are even parents who sell their children into sex slavery, there are parents who murder their own children. So it's not a far stretch for me to consider this situation as a possibility. All jmo.

Re: the bolded in your post, I'm unclear on what exactly you mean. Could you clarify ? TIA

 

[FrankieB]

I have never agreed with that theory, John had already cheated on his previous marriage and if he was determined to do it again, a "sexualized" version of his daughter was not going to stop him. There are also multiple ideas they could resort to before engaging Jonbenét in sexual contact. They were not stranded on a desert island. I don't believe in "situational abuse" and I've never seen, read or heard any evidence of John being a child molester. Patsy had been a beauty queen and she wanted to vicariously re-live the experience through her daughter, that's what I think at least.

 

[reintarnation]

No problem, neesaki! To clarify, I think that PR's emphasis on public image and her pension for materialism play a significant role in understanding the motive behind her actions.

I believe that JBR's toileting issues were a significant source of stress for PR that she may have interpreted as an act of defiance. Toileting issues can be prolonged or exacerbated by a variety of factors, and I've seen it mentioned many times that victims of incest sometimes resort to soiling to deter their abuser. But JBR could also have done it intentionally to raise her mother's ire, or from the stress of living up to the perfect, pristine image of herself that PR obsessed over. My opinion is that PR murdered JBR accidentally over a toileting incident that night, which was the culmination of abusive treatment from PR for the recurring toileting issues. I believe PR staged a cover-up rather than face up to the reality of her situation and the deep shame and guilt that goes along with it. Additionally, she had worked hard to achieve wealth and status, and could not bear to lose it over this. You mentioned PR's denial, and I think that is spot on. In my theory, I think PR may have convinced herself first that this was JBR's fault all along (if she didn't defy her with soiling, she would not have lost her temper), and then between her psychological issues, dependence on prescription meds, and her commitment to her new role of grieving, innocent mother, she was able to believe her own lies and probably died believing IDI.

I echo FrankieB's take on JR turning to his daughter instead of cheating on PR with another woman. I agree with you that we need to keep our minds totally open to everything when analyzing this or any unsolved case, and just about the sickest thing you can imagine, someone has done far worse. We can't avoid such heinous explanations just because they are so awful to think about or hard to imagine. I am just not aware of the evidence out there that JR ever had a sexual interest in little girls - not that that evidence doesn't exist, necessarily, just that I am not aware of it. That's why I've been looking down the PDI path and not that JBR was being sexually abused, and I don't think the PR got JBR into the pageants to sexualize her (although I agree, that's exactly what happened).

 

[B00kw0rm]

I pretty convinced that JR didn't molest JonBenet, but it's definitely not unheard of for children to be molested supposedly as a replacement for their mothers. My younger sister had close friends when she was a pre-teen who had been severely sexually abused by their father during the time she knew them. When they told my sister, they said that he told them he did it because they looked so much like their mother and he missed her. Sickening, but it happens.

 

[neesaki]

I pretty convinced that JR didn't molest JonBenet, but it's definitely not unheard of for children to be molested supposedly as a replacement for their mothers. My younger sister had close friends when she was a pre-teen who had been severely sexually abused by their father during the time she knew them. When they told my sister, they said that he told them he did it because they looked so much like their mother and he missed her. Sickening, but it happens.

I appreciate your input, I personally am not convinced that he didn't molest her. Then again, I have no idea if he did. And I'm also not convinced that his wife, PR didn't enable it to happen. Theln again, I have no idea if she did. Or, perhaps it did happen and she just turned a blind eye. As I've seen posted once or twice, she was in many ways living life vicariously through her little girl. Perhaps she carried it a bit too far ? Sadly enough, that kind of thing happens much more than we want to admit. Who knows, but apparently someone was molesting this little girl, if it wasn't JR, who was it ? BR ? JAR? Idk, I just put forth one theory. That's really all it is. JMO

 

[BBB167893]

I have never agreed with that theory, John had already cheated on his previous marriage and if he was determined to do it again, a "sexualized" version of his daughter was not going to stop him. There are also multiple ideas they could resort to before engaging Jonbenét in sexual contact. They were not stranded on a desert island. I don't believe in "situational abuse" and I've never seen, read or heard any evidence of John being a child molester. Patsy had been a beauty queen and she wanted to vicariously re-live the experience through her daughter, that's what I think at least.

Well, FrankieB, I look at it this way: yes, John cheated on his first wife, and he got caught. In 1996, he had a cancer-stricken wife and a lot of money. Now, we've seen what happened when two other rich guys with cancer-stricken wives cheated and got caught. I'm referring to Newt Gingrich and John Edwards. But a child, especially one like this, would have been easy to keep silent.

As for not believing in situational abuse, well, what more can I tell you?

 

[B00kw0rm]

I appreciate your input, I personally am not convinced that he didn't molest her. Then again, I have no idea if he did. And I'm also not convinced that his wife, PR didn't enable it to happen. Theln again, I have no idea if she did. Or, perhaps it did happen and she just turned a blind eye. As I've seen posted once or twice, she was in many ways living life vicariously through her little girl. Perhaps she carried it a bit too far ? Sadly enough, that kind of thing happens much more than we want to admit. Who knows, but apparently someone was molesting this little girl, if it wasn't JR, who was it ? BR ? JAR? Idk, I just put forth one theory. That's really all it is. JMO

Obviously it is possible that it was JR, but I lean more towards JAR or "Santa Bill", personally.

 

[BBB167893]

No problem, neesaki! To clarify, I think that PR's emphasis on public image and her pension for materialism play a significant role in understanding the motive behind her actions.

I believe that JBR's toileting issues were a significant source of stress for PR that she may have interpreted as an act of defiance. Toileting issues can be prolonged or exacerbated by a variety of factors, and I've seen it mentioned many times that victims of incest sometimes resort to soiling to deter their abuser. But JBR could also have done it intentionally to raise her mother's ire, or from the stress of living up to the perfect, pristine image of herself that PR obsessed over. My opinion is that PR murdered JBR accidentally over a toileting incident that night, which was the culmination of abusive treatment from PR for the recurring toileting issues. I believe PR staged a cover-up rather than face up to the reality of her situation and the deep shame and guilt that goes along with it. Additionally, she had worked hard to achieve wealth and status, and could not bear to lose it over this. You mentioned PR's denial, and I think that is spot on. In my theory, I think PR may have convinced herself first that this was JBR's fault all along (if she didn't defy her with soiling, she would not have lost her temper), and then between her psychological issues, dependence on prescription meds, and her commitment to her new role of grieving, innocent mother, she was able to believe her own lies and probably died believing IDI.

I echo FrankieB's take on JR turning to his daughter instead of cheating on PR with another woman. I agree with you that we need to keep our minds totally open to everything when analyzing this or any unsolved case, and just about the sickest thing you can imagine, someone has done far worse. We can't avoid such heinous explanations just because they are so awful to think about or hard to imagine. I am just not aware of the evidence out there that JR ever had a sexual interest in little girls - not that that evidence doesn't exist, necessarily, just that I am not aware of it. That's why I've been looking down the PDI path and not that JBR was being sexually abused, and I don't think the PR got JBR into the pageants to sexualize her (although I agree, that's exactly what happened).

Reintarnation, I'm not claiming that JR had a sexual interest in little girls; I'm saying he may have had a sexual interest in THIS little girl. That's all.

 

[neesaki]

Obviously it is possible that it was JR, but I lean more towards JAR or "Santa Bill", personally.

Yeah, that Santa guy, I wondered a lot about him in the beginning, and have always had suspicions about him since. He was actually my first suspect for a long, long time.

Not that Santa guy or anyone else could explain the very dysfunctional things going on in the Ramsey household at the time. I have to say that I will always wonder how Santa guy was ever completely cleared. For that matter, I wonder how JAR was really cleared ( as far as sexual abuse). Actually, thinking about it, I don't think they were every really cleared, I think they were just eliminated as a technicality, because those in charge of the investigation had screwed it up so much they were completely clueless, so to make it easier on themselves, they just started marking people off. Well, think about it, this investigation from the beginning has been a joke, it's like something from the world of Barney Fife. Except for one thing... Barney Fife was actually funny.

Anyway, at this point, God is the only one who could possibly solve this case. IMO

 

[BoldBear]

The previous molestation may not have had anything to do with the murder. It that could be true, then they would have two separate investigations on their hands: one for the murder and one for the sexual molestation. If after that, the two investigations intersected, then they'd be connected. Basically put, I think the murder investigation was their main focus and they were trying to add the sexual molestation to her murder. What if the molestation had nothing to do with the murder? Now you're looking for clues that don't make sense because you're dealing with two different crimes committed at different times.

 

[FrankieB]

Who knows, but apparently someone was molesting this little girl, if it wasn't JR, who was it ? BR ? JAR? Idk, I just put forth one theory. That's really all it is. JMO

That's exactly what I think neesaki, either Burke or JAR. I think we do have some evidence to back both theories up. In the case of Burke, the playing under the sheets (apocryphal as the story might be) and in the case of JAR there is a whole pile: cute pictures probably taken from his bedroom, a semen stained blanket with a Dr. Seuss book, several unexplained or unidentified items in his bedroom and third hand recollections of him speaking obsessively about Jonbenét at school.

There is a hole in my theory though, and that hole is Patsy. I do not picture her turning a blind eye to JAR abusing her daughter, even less so covering for him after the murder. JAR seemed genuinely affected by her death which was quite a contrast to Patsy's hands on throat kneeling by the grave photograph. So I guess I am back to square 1. This is how it is with the case, you keep finding holes and have to go back.

However I'm not entirely sure if Patsy knew about the abuse or didn't know at all.

In favour she didn't know: the way the child seemed like her most prized possession and the way she turned her into "mega" Jonbenét makes me think she wouldn't have allowed anyone she knew to defile her. She didn't allow her to eat McDonald's but she allowed abuse to be done to her body? Seems odd.

Against her:

1. The pediatritian MUST have known hadn't he?

2. She called him frantically 3 times within 10 minutes and then conveniently forgot what the calls were for. Isn't that highly suspicious?

3. The staging of the crime scene with a sexual angle, including pictures. People tend to get fixated on the garrote and the paint brush, but those pictures and the suitcase contents are equally important.

4. She was most likely not taken to the ER after the head bash because of fear of sexual abuse discovery

5. Her reaction to the news Jonbenét presented sexual molestation during her interrogation was highly unconvincing and quite frankly suspicious.

SuperDave: I might have generalized too much. In fact I think I did, thank you for pointing it out to me. I'd be really upset if I were to offend anyone with such experience. I retract my statement and recognize it does happen but I do NOT believe it happened in this particular case.

 

[FrankieB]

Yeah, that Santa guy, I wondered a lot about him in the beginning, and have always had suspicions about him since. He was actually my first suspect for a long, long time.

Not that Santa guy or anyone else could explain the very dysfunctional things going on in the Ramsey household at the time. I have to say that I will always wonder how Santa guy was ever completely cleared. For that matter, I wonder how JAR was really cleared ( as far as sexual abuse). Actually, thinking about it, I don't think they were every really cleared, I think they were just eliminated as a technicality, because those in charge of the investigation had screwed it up so much they were completely clueless, so to make it easier on themselves, they just started marking people off. Well, think about it, this investigation from the beginning has been a joke, it's like something from the world of Barney Fife. Except for one thing... Barney Fife was actually funny.

Anyway, at this point, God is the only one who could possibly solve this case. IMO

Santa Bill is quite an object of interest. First and foremost I do not believe he killed her, but as Singularity said, he DID have an unhealthy and bizarre interest in her.

I don't picture him as the abuser because the parents would never have covered for him. But do take a look at this list of oddities:

-ripped up christmas card found in Jonbenét's bedroom trash can
-Bill insisted on Patsy having a party on the 23rd, she wasn't even going to
-is one of the guests present at the house when the 911 call was made
-after all his insistence, leaves early due to "other commitments"
-held on to Jonbenét's "glittery stardust" during open heart surgery. Sorry this is just flat out ODD to me.

Some of these things might have an innocent explanation except one and that is the 911 call. He might have had nothing to do with that but if the atmosphere got tense I can see him excusing himself to leave.

 

[BBB167893]

The previous molestation may not have had anything to do with the murder. It that could be true, then they would have two separate investigations on their hands: one for the murder and one for the sexual molestation. If after that, the two investigations intersected, then they'd be connected. Basically put, I think the murder investigation was their main focus and they were trying to add the sexual molestation to her murder. What if the molestation had nothing to do with the murder? Now you're looking for clues that don't make sense because you're dealing with two different crimes committed at different times.

Well, that's the fly in the oatmeal, isn't it? I can only assume that one led to the next, but even I can't be 100% It provides a motive to try and cover up an unplanned killing, but did the person who started the tragedy know about it?

 

[BBB167893]

That's exactly what I think neesaki, either Burke or JAR. I think we do have some evidence to back both theories up. In the case of Burke, the playing under the sheets (apocryphal as the story might be) and in the case of JAR there is a whole pile: cute pictures probably taken from his bedroom, a semen stained blanket with a Dr. Seuss book, several unexplained or unidentified items in his bedroom and third hand recollections of him speaking obsessively about Jonbenét at school.

There is a hole in my theory though, and that hole is Patsy. I do not picture her turning a blind eye to JAR abusing her daughter, even less so covering for him after the murder.

Agreed. He wasn't her son. John might try to protect him, but not her. I'm not sure that JAR and PR even liked each other that much.

JAR seemed genuinely affected by her death which was quite a contrast to Patsy's hands on throat kneeling by the grave photograph. So I guess I am back to square 1. This is how it is with the case, you keep finding holes and have to go back.

Every case has some parts that don't fit, FrankieB.

However I'm not entirely sure if Patsy knew about the abuse or didn't know at all.

In favour she didn't know: the way the child seemed like her most prized possession and the way she turned her into "mega" Jonbenét makes me think she wouldn't have allowed anyone she knew to defile her. She didn't allow her to eat McDonald's but she allowed abuse to be done to her body? Seems odd.

Against her:

1. The pediatrician MUST have known hadn't he?

2. She called him frantically 3 times within 10 minutes and then conveniently forgot what the calls were for. Isn't that highly suspicious?

3. The staging of the crime scene with a sexual angle, including pictures. People tend to get fixated on the garrote and the paint brush, but those pictures and the suitcase contents are equally important.

4. She was most likely not taken to the ER after the head bash because of fear of sexual abuse discovery

5. Her reaction to the news Jonbenét presented sexual molestation during her interrogation was highly unconvincing and quite frankly suspicious.

You've got more against than for, and pretty much along the same lines as me.

SuperDave: I might have generalized too much. In fact I think I did, thank you for pointing it out to me. I'd be really upset if I were to offend anyone with such experience. I retract my statement and recognize it does happen but I do NOT believe it happened in this particular case.

I've got no beef with you, FrankieB. But I would ask that you explain your reasons.

 

[UKGuy]

That's exactly what I think neesaki, either Burke or JAR. I think we do have some evidence to back both theories up. In the case of Burke, the playing under the sheets (apocryphal as the story might be) and in the case of JAR there is a whole pile: cute pictures probably taken from his bedroom, a semen stained blanket with a Dr. Seuss book, several unexplained or unidentified items in his bedroom and third hand recollections of him speaking obsessively about Jonbenét at school.

There is a hole in my theory though, and that hole is Patsy. I do not picture her turning a blind eye to JAR abusing her daughter, even less so covering for him after the murder. JAR seemed genuinely affected by her death which was quite a contrast to Patsy's hands on throat kneeling by the grave photograph. So I guess I am back to square 1. This is how it is with the case, you keep finding holes and have to go back.

However I'm not entirely sure if Patsy knew about the abuse or didn't know at all.

In favour she didn't know: the way the child seemed like her most prized possession and the way she turned her into "mega" Jonbenét makes me think she wouldn't have allowed anyone she knew to defile her. She didn't allow her to eat McDonald's but she allowed abuse to be done to her body? Seems odd.

Against her:

1. The pediatritian MUST have known hadn't he?

2. She called him frantically 3 times within 10 minutes and then conveniently forgot what the calls were for. Isn't that highly suspicious?

3. The staging of the crime scene with a sexual angle, including pictures. People tend to get fixated on the garrote and the paint brush, but those pictures and the suitcase contents are equally important.

4. She was most likely not taken to the ER after the head bash because of fear of sexual abuse discovery

5. Her reaction to the news Jonbenét presented sexual molestation during her interrogation was highly unconvincing and quite frankly suspicious.

SuperDave: I might have generalized too much. In fact I think I did, thank you for pointing it out to me. I'd be really upset if I were to offend anyone with such experience. I retract my statement and recognize it does happen but I do NOT believe it happened in this particular case.

FrankieB,
Here is what we know: JAR has been reported as having an infatuation with JonBenet, did it go any further, who knows, but he was not present when JonBenet was assaulted and asphyxiated. BR knows if JonBenet was molested since allegedly he played doctors with her, and by extension so do some of his friends, e.g. those invited over for sleepovers. BR was present in the house when JonBenet was killed.

Speculating, if the suitcase, contents and pictures were not part of a staging and removed so to avoid embarrassment then one of the parents knew about JAR's infatuation, and recognized the part it might play in any investigation?

Not getting medical assistance for JonBenet and staging away the sexual assault might indicate that one or both of the parents knew that JonBenet was being abused.

The simple conclusion is that more than one person was abusing JonBenet and that Patsy was relaxed about this since she viewed JonBenet as her prized possession, someone to be protected from outside threats, but inside the family home, well that's domestic and it cements her hold over whomever was abusing JonBenet?

.

 

[reintarnation]

Santa Bill is quite an object of interest. First and foremost I do not believe he killed her, but as Singularity said, he DID have an unhealthy and bizarre interest in her.

I don't picture him as the abuser because the parents would never have covered for him. But do take a look at this list of oddities:

-ripped up christmas card found in Jonbenét's bedroom trash can
-Bill insisted on Patsy having a party on the 23rd, she wasn't even going to
-is one of the guests present at the house when the 911 call was made
-after all his insistence, leaves early due to "other commitments"
-held on to Jonbenét's "glittery stardust" during open heart surgery. Sorry this is just flat out ODD to me.

Some of these things might have an innocent explanation except one and that is the 911 call. He might have had nothing to do with that but if the atmosphere got tense I can see him excusing himself to leave.

There were quite a few more oddities than this, including the fact that his daughter and her friend were kidnapped and molested as children. All of them are detailed in Steve Thomas's book JonBenet: Inside the Murder Investigation (2000). He also details that Bill McReynolds was cleared by an airtight alibi. Team Ramsey and the DA brought him up as a POI multiple times over the years saying that he needed to be thoroughly investigated, but if Steve Thomas's account of the investigation is true, he was thoroughly vetted and cleared.

 

[B00kw0rm]

reintarnation, I'm just not convinced that the person who had been molesting her is necessarily the person who killed her. Or even that there couldn't have been more then one person abusing her. Even if Bill McReynolds was cleared for the murder, I still think it's very likely he was the/an abuser.