Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[ShadyLadySleuth]

ShadyLadySleuth,
As others will testify to. Your theory has been already been proposed. The weak point is that Patsy did not need John's co-operation, she only needed to dial 911 and report a case of child abuse.

John would have been arrested and found guilty, even if Patsy had killed JonBenet, she would hve received public sympathy. Also she would inherit John's estate whilst he was imprisoned.

A better theory incorporating John and Patsy is that BDI and they cover for him?



.[/QUOT

Thanks UKGuy

Patsy desperately wishes to keep her "Perfect Family" image. She needs John Ramsay, his name, money and power. She is willing to sacrifice JBR to keep it all. When she gave John the choice, she knew he would choose to keep it all with Patsy. Therefore, he chooses to cooperate with her.

The theory that BDI is a good also. He may have been intensely jealous of JBR and struck her on the head in anger that night while she was eating the pineapple in the kitchen while the parents were in their bedroom.

Being new to a forum on JBR, I probably seem naive on some points. But it was this case that made me search for others of like interest.

 

[LinasK]

Thanks UKGuy

Patsy desperately wishes to keep her "Perfect Family" image. She needs John Ramsay, his name, money and power. She is willing to sacrifice JBR to keep it all. When she gave John the choice, she knew he would choose to keep it all with Patsy. Therefore, he chooses to cooperate with her.

The theory that BDI is a good also. He may have been intensely jealous of JBR and struck her on the head in anger that night while she was eating the pineapple in the kitchen while the parents were in their bedroom.

Being new to a forum on JBR, I probably seem naive on some points. But it was this case that made me search for others of like interest.

Welcome ShadyLadySleuth! I'm a John Did It!

 

[vlpate]

My possible scenario which I haven't seen anywhere else: Patsy has suspected John of possibly sexually abusing JBR. Christmas night she catches him in the act. She flies into a rage. She has to turn him in to the authorities, ignore it, or....tells him "either she goes or I turn you in to police." "I will not have you and JBR in this house together ever again." Both Patsy and John, who is being blackmailed by Patsy, kill JBR, and stage the cover-up. They both write the criminally-unsophisticated ransom note. Patsy's problem is solved, no more competition with JBR for John's sexual interest. John saves his good name, million dollar business, and is the poor grieving father. They both win. And so far, they have succeeded.

John lost his business and he never really appeared to be the grieving father, more the man who was on a mission to prove his innocence. They, by their own admission, have been vilified since the day JBR's body was found. I'm not sure what they won.

You are right though, I've never seen this theory, except maybe when the case first broke and there was nothing much to go on, anywhere before.

Welcome to the forum lady

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Well, they never went to jail so that's a pretty big win right there.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy wouldn't inherit anything from JR unless he was dead. When a husband goes to prison, his wife is left with paying all the bills and running the house, taxes, etc. Whether she has a job or not is not a factor. JR being in prison does not mean he forfeits his bank accounts- though they may be drained to pay his legal fees. I assume the Rs had enough money for Patsy to continue to live some semblance of her normal life even if JR was imprisoned.
Assets only become an "estate" when someone dies, so in this case there is nothing to inherit. All assets that were in JR's name remain that way, even if he is in prison. Only in cases of financial fraud, tax fraud, profits from drugs or racketeering, etc. are assets confiscated when someone is imprisoned. (as in the Bernie Madoff case).

 

[azwriter]

Thoughtout the years, evidence takes on a life of its own and is misstated. It wasn't her vagina that was enlarged, but the size of the opening in her hymen that was reported to be larger in comparrison to other girls her age.
jmo

From what I have read, it was the vaginal opening itself. The hymen was not present at all- according to the autopsy, it was "represented by a rim of hymenal tissue". NO girls that age would be expected to have an opening in the hymen.[/QUOTE]

DeeDee, you're right about the opening of the vagina, but that would include the hymen, which is supposed to be at the opening of the vagina. And for a child that age, it should not even be stretched or open in anyway. With that I agree.

I'm no expert on a female atamony, and I may have misstated the actual condition. What I was trying to explain was that the actual size of her vagina wasn't listed as being larger but the fact the hymen was opened and nearly gone. Thanks for your input.
jmo

 

[jujube]

Hi Nuisance,

I'm still on the fence about prior sexual abuse, and I am NO fan of PR, but this reaction does not surprise me or tell me anything. Think about how many times you've heard a child say they told their parents about sexual abuse and the mother calling them a liar. Mothers do not want to hear there was something so awful going on without their knowledge. Either because a.) That would make them a bad mother, or b) They don't want to hear it about the person abusing the child (Burke or JR...Burke, IMO, if anyone).

I think Patsy would have the same reaction if Haney had said JBR showed signs of neglect because there were signs that her fingernails were chronically filthy.

Patsy was perfect and her life and children were perfect, and thus the staging and cover-up, IMO, of the death of JBR by her hands.

As a mother, I can tell you no flippin' way would I have reacted like Patsy did. They would have had to call in someone to give me a sedative if I had been told that not only had someone murdered my daughter but that she had been sexually molested as well.

I have tried in vain to find a reliable source for this unnaturally enlarged and I cannot. Would you mind providing one for me? Digital penetration, even if by a finger, would not render her vagina twice it's normal size, that is ridiculous. Chronic abuse, maybe, but I've never said I didn't think prior abuse was out of the question, I just lean more toward corporal punishment.


Not the same? Please explain the difference for me? On a six year old, they are most certainly the same, staged or not. As I've said before, I think JonBenet was probably still alive when the sexual assault was staged, but just barely.




What barbie doll? The one posters think they saw in a picture? The nightgown had blood on it? Who said? Lou Smit? Aphrodite Jones? Judge Carnes? ALL unreliable sources. Hell, Aphrodite Jones said there was "touch dna" found on the nightgown. Carnes said the ONLY place blood was found was on JonBenet and the nightgown. Smit? Where do I begin? Unless you have a better source, this, IMO, is misinformation that's been repeated far too many times.



Yes, this only stands to reason since Steve left the case early on and was not privy to any further evidence or findings.

I don't know if this is what you wanted????

From http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm
DR. MCCANN

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 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. 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. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell.

Remember the neighbor,Melody Stanton heard a child's scream that night JonBenet died.

 

[BBB167893]

"against their will"....

I think the paint brush was part of the staging. I mean, why would the molester use the paint brush if he/she wasn't going to cause way more physical harm to her vagina? I feel like whomever was doing the staging didn't actually WANT to digitally penetrate her (I know, the "comment" was that she was digitally penetrated, but not part of the official autopsy). I forget, what were the dimensions of the paint brush?

It just seems confusing - the garotting and gash in her head were so violent, yet the abrasions/tearing to her vagina were minimal, relatively speaking. To me, that says the molestation was staged - at least it was the night she died. If she had been molested that night, then why the paint brush - just doesn't make sense.

Please, I am not saying inserting a paint brush into a six year old is not sexually molesting her - obviously it is... just to be clear.

I bolded those parts, vlpate, because to me, they're vital to understanding this case.

 

[BBB167893]

If the bleeding happened when she was alive- it was molestation. If it happened after she was dead it was staging.

DD, you know I've got nothing but love for you, but I used to get into arguments with HOTYH about this (I actually miss those days). And as I told him, it's not that black-and-white an issue. If JB were technically alive, but so out of it that the perp THOUGHT she was dead, it's still staging.

 

[BBB167893]

I think they thought she was dead - but she wasn't, her blood was still flowing but her brain was dead. I think that is why they garrotted her - staging. IDI asks, why so violent then (garrotte)....because they couldn't just hang it around her neck like they did the ties on her wrist. They had to make it look real.

Hey, vlpate. That's what Norm Early said.

The fibers from Patsy's sweater were everywhere she said she hadn't been:

In the paint tray
3 on the duct tape
Twisted in the cord that was twisted in her hair.

When confronted about the fibers Patsy's answer was, "Don't go there pal..." I think Hunter instilled that sense of confidence in her.

Then there are the fiber's from John's shirt in her big undies. His answer? He told them not to dirty the relationship he had with his daughter.

Yeah, that about sums it up!

 

[UKGuy]

DD, you know I've got nothing but love for you, but I used to get into arguments with HOTYH about this (I actually miss those days). And as I told him, it's not that black-and-white an issue. If JB were technically alive, but so out of it that the perp THOUGHT she was dead, it's still staging.

SuperDave,

Yes, a contentious issue this one. So like the touch-dna, if you ask the right question the fog might go away:


1. Was JonBenet sexually assaulted prior to her death?

2. Was a sexual assault staged on JonBenet after she was whacked on the head?

IMO both may have occurred. But then you have to ask, why bother staging a sexual assault then wipe JonBenet down and redress her in the size-12's?

IMO it all points to multiple staging, there is no real proof of this, but I reckon seasoned sleuthers accept the evidence leads you there.


I forget what the technical evidence is regarding JonBenet's neck but it could be used in conjunction with the internal bleeding to demonstrate that JonBenet was still alive, but possibly comatose, during the wine-cellar staging?

Lets assume Coroner Meyer had a decent grasp of what he was dealing with e.g. oversize underwear, internal bleeding, genital injuries and the groin area being wiped clean.

So when he voices his opinion that JonBenet had been digitally penetrated and subject to sexual contact I'm assuming he is differentiating between a staged sexual assault and an acute sexual assault that took place prior to her head injury. Otherwise a staged opinion only requires that digital penetration need occur?



.

 

[DeeDee249]

DD, you know I've got nothing but love for you, but I used to get into arguments with HOTYH about this (I actually miss those days). And as I told him, it's not that black-and-white an issue. If JB were technically alive, but so out of it that the perp THOUGHT she was dead, it's still staging.

I mean in a criminal sense. A sexual act on a dead body is legally desecration of a body and can't be considered rape or molestation.
Of course, you are right in that even if they thought she was already dead, the sexual assault was staging, though she was still alive.

 

[vlpate]

SuperDave,

Yes, a contentious issue this one. So like the touch-dna, if you ask the right question the fog might go away:


1. Was JonBenet sexually assaulted prior to her death?

2. Was a sexual assault staged on JonBenet after she was whacked on the head?

IMO both may have occurred. But then you have to ask, why bother staging a sexual assault then wipe JonBenet down and redress her in the size-12's?

IMO it all points to multiple staging, there is no real proof of this, but I reckon seasoned sleuthers accept the evidence leads you there.


I forget what the technical evidence is regarding JonBenet's neck but it could be used in conjunction with the internal bleeding to demonstrate that JonBenet was still alive, but possibly comatose, during the wine-cellar staging?

Lets assume Coroner Meyer had a decent grasp of what he was dealing with e.g. oversize underwear, internal bleeding, genital injuries and the groin area being wiped clean.

So when he voices his opinion that JonBenet had been digitally penetrated and subject to sexual contact I'm assuming he is differentiating between a staged sexual assault and an acute sexual assault that took place prior to her head injury. Otherwise a staged opinion only requires that digital penetration need occur?



.

BBM "Wipe her down" makes me think you mean all of her - legs, arms, torso.... but she was actually "wiped". For me that means her genital area. I always asked my daughter, when she was potty training, "did you wipe?". There were traces of blood and what appeared to be consistent with digital penetration. If Patsy was violently wiping JonBenet in a rage, she would have, naturally, only been wiping her genital area and around the top of her thighs. This would also mean to me, if it were a toileting issue, it happened either in the car or in her bed, while she was sitting or laying - otherwise, with just panties and pants, the urine would have run down her legs.

Patsy didn't have anything against wearing the same thing two days in a row. Maybe, and I'd never thought of this before, she put JonBenet to bed with the red turtleneck and her little pants so that she would only have to carry her to the car and not deal with dressing her the next day. So JBR urinates in bed and wets the back and top of the turtleneck as well as her pants and Wednesday panties. Patsy would have been pretty upset - making her own luck, of course - and would likely have reacted harshly...IMO

 

[FairM]

A question ref the "pull up nappies" that were found in a package hanging on the door, do we know whether JRB ever wore these in the day? Did she ever wear them at night? She must have worn them sometimes otherwise why were they there? I would have thought Christmas time a time when you would use them as so much going on and late nights etc would mean it was easier to use - perhaps she wore them that day?

 

[UKGuy]

BBM "Wipe her down" makes me think you mean all of her - legs, arms, torso.... but she was actually "wiped". For me that means her genital area. I always asked my daughter, when she was potty training, "did you wipe?". There were traces of blood and what appeared to be consistent with digital penetration. If Patsy was violently wiping JonBenet in a rage, she would have, naturally, only been wiping her genital area and around the top of her thighs. This would also mean to me, if it were a toileting issue, it happened either in the car or in her bed, while she was sitting or laying - otherwise, with just panties and pants, the urine would have run down her legs.

Patsy didn't have anything against wearing the same thing two days in a row. Maybe, and I'd never thought of this before, she put JonBenet to bed with the red turtleneck and her little pants so that she would only have to carry her to the car and not deal with dressing her the next day. So JBR urinates in bed and wets the back and top of the turtleneck as well as her pants and Wednesday panties. Patsy would have been pretty upset - making her own luck, of course - and would likely have reacted harshly...IMO

vlpate,
That was me attempting to be impartial. Since if you consider much of the wine-cellar crime-scene to represent Undoing then cleaning JonBenet's torso would fit the bill.

There were traces of blood and what appeared to be consistent with digital penetration.

Correct and also consistent with a PDI staging event. But why clean Jonbenet up, redress her in size-12's, longjohns and wrap her in a blanket, is that the MO of a sociopathic pedophile?

Also factor in that JonBenet's vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. And from Steve Thomas' ITRI:

"She [Det. Jane Harmer] showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of JonBenét. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of "chronic sexual abuse", although the detectives referred to it only as "prior vaginal trauma".

If you then also add in the Bonita Papers take on this:

"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. 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"

Does this not all seem to add up to prior sexual abuse?

Patsy didn't have anything against wearing the same thing two days in a row. Maybe, and I'd never thought of this before, she put JonBenet to bed with the red turtleneck and her little pants so that she would only have to carry her to the car and not deal with dressing her the next day. So JBR urinates in bed and wets the back and top of the turtleneck as well as her pants and Wednesday panties. Patsy would have been pretty upset - making her own luck, of course - and would likely have reacted harshly...IMO

Yes, you could be correct here. But did Patsy and JonBenet not clash earlier over the red turtleneck, did this carry over to bedtime? I guess if PDI over bedwetting then BPD will have tested JonBenet for urine traces.

I reckon publicly BPD promoted PDI as their best theory, hoping Patsy would crack and do a deal to take the stand against John. BPD internally knew that there was a sexual component to the case but never enlarged on it. Consider how Holly Smith was removed from the case, after finding JonBenet's underwear had fecal staining, then when she wrote her book, anything relating to the JonBenet case was excised! Just what does she know that is so damaging to the Ramsey position? I'll bet a cent to a $ it has something to do with the size-6 underwear per se, e.g. Wednesday feature, since we already know about the staining and the suspicion of sexual abuse!


So it could be PDI, staging her cleanup as a sexual assault, e.g. the cellulose particles, but along comes John thinking no, no, who then wipes her down and redresses JonBenet hoping to fly away before any sexual assault is noticed e.g. its just an abduction gone wrong?

That is Patsy has a personality disorder, she has been assaulting JonBenet regularly e.g. digitally. This would explain a lot of stuff at a stroke, particularly the wine-cellar crime-scene, and link Patsy's finger to cellulose from the paintbrush handle?



.

 

[UKGuy]

A question ref the "pull up nappies" that were found in a package hanging on the door, do we know whether JRB ever wore these in the day? Did she ever wear them at night? She must have worn them sometimes otherwise why were they there? I would have thought Christmas time a time when you would use them as so much going on and late nights etc would mean it was easier to use - perhaps she wore them that day?

FairM,
The Ramsey's housekeeper, Linda Pugh-Hoffman said JonBenet, at one point, wore the pullups during the day?

.

 

[FairM]

FairM,
The Ramsey's housekeeper, Linda Pugh-Hoffman said JonBenet, at one point, wore the pullups during the day?

.

thanks , do you mean on Christmas Day or just during the day in general?

 

[DeeDee249]

thanks , do you mean on Christmas Day or just during the day in general?

LHP meant in general, not Christmas Day. If you read her comments, she said that when JB regressed in her potty training, Patsy used to put pull ups on her, but in recent times Patsy just tired of it and just stripped the bed each morning for LHP to launder the bedding and remake the bed. I am sure neither Patsy or JB were happy about a child of that age wearing pull ups to school or under the pageant costumes. It isn't that unusual for kids that age (6) to have accidents at night or wear pull ups to bed, but when a child that has been dry at night and completely potty trained in the day for three years begins to wet and soil both day and night it is always a cause for alarm.
I am sure Patsy still had the pull ups "just in case", but according to LHP they were no longer used.
As far as I know, no USED pull ups were found in the home, in the trash, etc. Only the package near JB's room.

 

[UKGuy]

thanks , do you mean on Christmas Day or just during the day in general?

FairM,
As DeeDee249 suggests it was in general. JonBenet alike Burke had periods of bedwetting. Which I reckon was an emotional response to the then current situation.

IMO it simply boils down to which RDI you consider the best suspect. I've seen them all, and Patsy as per profiling, fit the bill, lets say 80% of the time. This assumes John is clean based on no prior accusations etc.



.

 

[BBB167893]

Patsy wouldn't inherit anything from JR unless he was dead. When a husband goes to prison, his wife is left with paying all the bills and running the house, taxes, etc. Whether she has a job or not is not a factor. JR being in prison does not mean he forfeits his bank accounts- though they may be drained to pay his legal fees. I assume the Rs had enough money for Patsy to continue to live some semblance of her normal life even if JR was imprisoned.
Assets only become an "estate" when someone dies, so in this case there is nothing to inherit. All assets that were in JR's name remain that way, even if he is in prison. Only in cases of financial fraud, tax fraud, profits from drugs or racketeering, etc. are assets confiscated when someone is imprisoned. (as in the Bernie Madoff case).

That's actually something I wanted to know about. Thanks, DD.