View Poll Results: who molested/abused JB?

Voters
365. You may not vote on this poll
  • JR

    102 27.95%
  • BR

    88 24.11%
  • JAR

    19 5.21%
  • a close family friend

    19 5.21%
  • a stranger/stalker a la JMK

    14 3.84%
  • PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

    68 18.63%
  • she wasn't previously abused/molested

    55 15.07%
Page 11 of 45 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 1123

Thread: Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

  1. #251
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    vlpate,
    If by definition Coroner Meyer was only making evident that digital penetration is sexual contact then presumably any staged molestation is also sexual contact?


    Do you? At what point do you think it occurred and did it include digital penetration?



    .
    No, not presumably - sexual contact on a live or dead six year old is sexual molestation. The sexual contact, in this case, and sexual molestation, are the same thing.

    At what point do I think what occurred? The staging? I covered that. As for whether or not the staging included digital penetration, I don't know, but Meyers said her injuries were "consistent" with digital penetration - using a variety of items would be "consistent" with digital penetration. If this penetration did not cause bleeding then it could have occurred after death.

    Whether she was dying and unresponsive, giving the perp the impression she was dead... or actually dead, it is my opinion the sexual molestation was staged the night she died.

    Did I answer your question because I feel like I'm repeating what I've already written. Maybe I wasn't clear

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  3. #252
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    Anytime there is digital penetration of a six year old, save for examination by a Doctor, it is sexual contact. I think the molestation was staged that night. As I have said so many times, the molestation did not fit the violence of the head bashing and strangulation. I don't get the paint brush...why? I guess if there were more damage to her vagina, I could see the point...sadism...but the physical harm to her vagina was minimal and there were no bruises on her in places that would indicate she struggled - pulling her legs together and having them forced back down. Only if she were already dying, would she not struggle. JonBenet showed no signs whatsoever of a struggle.
    Ah, I see now UK Guy - I was in a hurry to get back to the office when I wrote this...it should have been "sexual molestation". Sorry.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  5. #253
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,564
    I am not sure sexual acts on or with a dead body are considered legally to be sexual molestation. This would probably be desecration of a body.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  7. #254
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,564
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    did she let them run amok or could she not stop them from running amok?
    She let them wander around freely. Not that they were "running amok" literally. She wasn't happy about it, but didn't seem to realize that she had the authority and the power (she had a gun, after all) to force them to leave the house altogether and if she didn't want to do that, she could have made them gather in one room and remain there with her (gun drawn if need be) until more LE arrived. LA did a lot of complaining (justified) about not receiving backup and being left on her own to deal with an active crime scene she obviously did not have control over. But she really didn't TAKE control as she could have and should have.
    As a rape victim advocate, she had a leaning towards viewing women as victims, and certainly felt that way about Patsy from the beginning. Her suspicion was always on JR. And we also have the directive that came down from the DA (via the governor's office?) was to "treat these people (the Rs) like victims, not like suspects".
    Whatever she observed while at the house that day, and whatever suspicions about the family's guilt or involvement, she kept them to herself, until JR "found" his daughter. As she said herself, a lot of things became clear to her at that point, and she then "understood" that JR had killed his daughter. She even said she mentally counted the bullets in her gun, preparing to use it if she had to. She did not elaborate on this, but my impression is that if JR discerned that she suspected him of killing his daughter, he may have turned on her or others in the home and she was prepared to shoot if needed.
    But all this was preventable in the first place, including the contamination of the body and the crime scene- all she had to do was keep everyone in one room and not let anyone leave. Simple, right? But she did not do it.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  9. #255
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I am not sure sexual acts on or with a dead body are considered legally to be sexual molestation. This would probably be desecration of a body.
    I'm not sure she was dead when the staging of the garrotte OR the sexual contact/molestation took place.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  11. #256
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Alix,
    Quite possibly so. Then you and vplate can correct me and explain the forensic evidence for other members?


    .
    Not sure how I got thrown into this one. I'm pretty sure I know what rape is and the insult to Americans seems uncalled for. What happened to JonBenet was rape, staged or not....unless she was dead, that would be, as DeeDee pointed out, desecration.

    Seems a matter of symatics at this point. Whether she was dead or alive when the (staged IMO), rape/molestation/sexual contact took place is my question.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  13. #257
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    Not sure how I got thrown into this one. I'm pretty sure I know what rape is and the insult to Americans seems uncalled for. What happened to JonBenet was rape, staged or not....unless she was dead, that would be, as DeeDee pointed out, desecration.

    Seems a matter of symatics at this point. Whether she was dead or alive when the (staged IMO), rape/molestation/sexual contact took place is my question.
    No insult was meant by me. I think we really don't understand what rapes means in this country, preferring to either blame the victim or play word games. I really didn't mean to be rude.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Alix For This Useful Post:


  15. #258
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,418
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    No, not presumably - sexual contact on a live or dead six year old is sexual molestation. The sexual contact, in this case, and sexual molestation, are the same thing.

    At what point do I think what occurred? The staging? I covered that. As for whether or not the staging included digital penetration, I don't know, but Meyers said her injuries were "consistent" with digital penetration - using a variety of items would be "consistent" with digital penetration. If this penetration did not cause bleeding then it could have occurred after death.

    Whether she was dying and unresponsive, giving the perp the impression she was dead... or actually dead, it is my opinion the sexual molestation was staged the night she died.

    Did I answer your question because I feel like I'm repeating what I've already written. Maybe I wasn't clear

    vlpate,
    Did I answer your question because I feel like I'm repeating what I've already written. Maybe I wasn't clear
    The distinction between a staged and actual molestation was not clarified.

    Meyers said her injuries were "consistent" with digital penetration - using a variety of items would be "consistent" with digital penetration.
    Not quite. Here semantics does play a role, but when a Coroner uses the term digital it is not a throw away line intended for wide interpretation, it has precise meaning e.g. a finger.

    Whether she was dying and unresponsive, giving the perp the impression she was dead... or actually dead, it is my opinion the sexual molestation was staged the night she died.
    So you reckon at the time of her death the only episode of sexual contact occurred only as the result of staging?

    Some members think that JonBenet was sexually assaulted upstairs prior to her head injury occurring. Then to cover all this up she was staged as the victim of an intruder pedophile. Later this was abandoned and re-staged as an abduction scenario with JonBenet by necessity being redressed and her sexual assault being hidden from immediate view?

    If as you suggest the sexual molestation was staged the night she died. why bother if it is an abduction that you are staging, not an assault by a pedophile, and if you are staging the latter why bother hiding it, beneath all the clothing?

    .

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  17. #259
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    She let them wander around freely. Not that they were "running amok" literally. She wasn't happy about it, but didn't seem to realize that she had the authority and the power (she had a gun, after all) to force them to leave the house altogether and if she didn't want to do that, she could have made them gather in one room and remain there with her (gun drawn if need be) until more LE arrived. LA did a lot of complaining (justified) about not receiving backup and being left on her own to deal with an active crime scene she obviously did not have control over. But she really didn't TAKE control as she could have and should have.
    As a rape victim advocate, she had a leaning towards viewing women as victims, and certainly felt that way about Patsy from the beginning. Her suspicion was always on JR. And we also have the directive that came down from the DA (via the governor's office?) was to "treat these people (the Rs) like victims, not like suspects".
    Whatever she observed while at the house that day, and whatever suspicions about the family's guilt or involvement, she kept them to herself, until JR "found" his daughter. As she said herself, a lot of things became clear to her at that point, and she then "understood" that JR had killed his daughter. She even said she mentally counted the bullets in her gun, preparing to use it if she had to. She did not elaborate on this, but my impression is that if JR discerned that she suspected him of killing his daughter, he may have turned on her or others in the home and she was prepared to shoot if needed.
    But all this was preventable in the first place, including the contamination of the body and the crime scene- all she had to do was keep everyone in one room and not let anyone leave. Simple, right? But she did not do it.
    i saw LA on GMA years ago, and i read her depo. she was apparently silenced afterwards. and it seems that keeping them corralled was not so simple given all of the circumstances that morning.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to runsdeep For This Useful Post:


  19. #260
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    i think the professionals documented give unspecific and conflicting reports on the exact nature of JBR's history and last moments.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to runsdeep For This Useful Post:


  21. #261
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug99 View Post
    They answered with I'm not going to provide one, or it's common knowledge no link is necessary.
    Are you saying that someone on this board came right out and told you "I'm not going to provide a link"? I must have missed that. That doesn't sound characteristic of WS or the JonBenet board.

    How many times have you been told that? Were you told that by one person, or have you been told that on more than one occasion, by more than one person?

    What was the context in which that statement was allegedly made?

    Could you please provide a link to that for us, so we can all see it as well - so that it doesn't happen again? I'm sure you won't mind, as we can tell how important links are to you by your constant demand for them and consistent derision for others over alleged lack of.


    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    After 15 years, some of us are sick of doing everyone else's research for them and not having it do any good.

    Some of us haven't got all the patience in the world.

    Some of us don't feel like being put upon anymore.

    Thank you, SD. I quite agree. Especially when the links that have been provided aren't even clicked on or fully read by the people who insist on them. That's just an exercise in futility, and it's not only discouraging, it's disheartening.


    No offense meant, but:

    At a certain point, Junebug, YOU are responsible for doing your own homework. You can't expect people to spell every little thing out for you.

    The regular posters here have all done our own research to get to where we are now, and yes, it is a labor-intensive task, but it is quite necessary when discussing a case as complicated and as confusing as this one.

    Almost everything we discuss has already been discussed on this board, and the links will be there, too - you just have to be willing to spend a little time doing some investigative work. We've all done it before, and we still do it today. It's an integral part of discussing the case.

    One of the best things about being a member here at WS is being able to use the search feature. Search engines like Google are also well worth your time when you want to look something up. There's also a bonus to researching items discussed, too - I often find that looking up one thing leads me to more information and other aspects of the case to research and discuss.

    This has been my opinion.

  22. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Nuisanceposter For This Useful Post:


  23. #262
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter View Post
    Are you saying that someone on this board came right out and told you "I'm not going to provide a link"? I must have missed that. That doesn't sound characteristic of WS or the JonBenet board.

    How many times have you been told that? Were you told that by one person, or have you been told that on more than one occasion, by more than one person?

    What was the context in which that statement was allegedly made?

    Could you please provide a link to that for us, so we can all see it as well - so that it doesn't happen again? I'm sure you won't mind, as we can tell how important links are to you by your constant demand for them and consistent derision for others over alleged lack of.





    Thank you, SD. I quite agree. Especially when the links that have been provided aren't even clicked on or fully read by the people who insist on them. That's just an exercise in futility, and it's not only discouraging, it's disheartening.


    No offense meant, but:

    At a certain point, Junebug, YOU are responsible for doing your own homework. You can't expect people to spell every little thing out for you.

    The regular posters here have all done our own research to get to where we are now, and yes, it is a labor-intensive task, but it is quite necessary when discussing a case as complicated and as confusing as this one.

    Almost everything we discuss has already been discussed on this board, and the links will be there, too - you just have to be willing to spend a little time doing some investigative work. We've all done it before, and we still do it today. It's an integral part of discussing the case.

    One of the best things about being a member here at WS is being able to use the search feature. Search engines like Google are also well worth your time when you want to look something up. There's also a bonus to researching items discussed, too - I often find that looking up one thing leads me to more information and other aspects of the case to research and discuss.

    This has been my opinion.
    Thank you. Very well put.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  25. #263
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    vlpate,

    The distinction between a staged and actual molestation was not clarified.


    Not quite. Here semantics does play a role, but when a Coroner uses the term digital it is not a throw away line intended for wide interpretation, it has precise meaning e.g. a finger.


    So you reckon at the time of her death the only episode of sexual contact occurred only as the result of staging?

    Some members think that JonBenet was sexually assaulted upstairs prior to her head injury occurring. Then to cover all this up she was staged as the victim of an intruder pedophile. Later this was abandoned and re-staged as an abduction scenario with JonBenet by necessity being redressed and her sexual assault being hidden from immediate view?

    If as you suggest the sexual molestation was staged the night she died. why bother if it is an abduction that you are staging, not an assault by a pedophile, and if you are staging the latter why bother hiding it, beneath all the clothing?

    .
    Wow, I had a very long post in reply and it went away when I tried to review. I'll try again later.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  27. #264
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632

    quick tip

    i've found that when i am in the middle of a long post reply, it helps if I highlight and do a 'copy' of my typed response just in case I lose it, get kicked out of the page, or am typing my response so long that I get logged out...then I can go back in/log back in, find the thread I was working on, and 'paste' my reply back in. After losing my replies like this the hard way.... I always remember to do a copy of my reply every once in a while if I am in the middle of a big reply...


    ...hope that helps

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  29. #265
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    435
    I am confused about if PR was part of the staging ,why wouldn't she put the right size clothes on JB? It seems that whoever did redress her had no idea what to put on her IMO

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cindysue For This Useful Post:


  31. #266
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    vlpate,

    The distinction between a staged and actual molestation was not clarified.


    Not quite. Here semantics does play a role, but when a Coroner uses the term digital it is not a throw away line intended for wide interpretation, it has precise meaning e.g. a finger.
    You are a very smart individual, and you know "consistent" is not a throw away word either. It's just a matter of selective throw away words. Many experts found the handwriting "consistent" with Patsy's handwriting...some find that black and white, some find it gray -- interpretation. I know a "digit" is a finger, but it can also, IMO, be representative. He didn't expound, so we do. It's been going on for half my daughter's lifetime

    So you reckon at the time of her death the only episode of sexual contact occurred only as the result of staging?
    I don't know whether it was the only episode or not, but I believe that night was staged.

    Some members think that JonBenet was sexually assaulted upstairs prior to her head injury occurring. Then to cover all this up she was staged as the victim of an intruder pedophile. Later this was abandoned and re-staged as an abduction scenario with JonBenet by necessity being redressed and her sexual assault being hidden from immediate view?
    I would not be one of those members, although I do respect their opinion.
    The more I think about it, the more I believe that PR was oblivious to the head injury being so severe. I think she was extremely pist that JonBenet wet herself -- either in bed or in the car. In a fit of rage she yanked her up by her turtleneck and drug her to the bathroom. She won't yell at her because that would make her look bad in front of JR and Burke. Ohhhh, but she is SO mad. She's tired and just wants to go to bed. She shakes her hard, banging her head against a hard surface in the bathroom, still twisting the turtleneck with brute force, wiping her HARD and without realizing her own strength -- JBR passes out and PR can't revive her. OMG, what do I do, what do I DO! "JonBenet, wake up" she says quietly, but JonBenet doesn't respond. She takes her downstairs to hide from anyone in the house hearing what is going on. She forgets to get something to redress her in. The dryer has a blanket and some longjohns. She remembers the panties that were supposed to be a gift. It is not by chance that she retrieves Wednesday. She is freaking out. She decides to just leave JonBenet in the dank room, thinking it's a good hiding place, and writes the ransom note -- that will explain why she's not here. Good. Done. But then there is the possibility her body will be found...what would make the perp leave her? Sexual molestation. Patsy needs to make it look like AEA.... or not. I don't know because I wasn't there. No one knows for sure, but there was no cover up for the head injury, so I don't think she knew about it. I don't think the cover up is three fold at all...just the strangulation and the abuse to JBR's privates. IMO, PR was just as shocked at the head injury discovery as we were. How could she know?

    If as you suggest the sexual molestation was staged the night she died. why bother if it is an abduction that you are staging, not an assault by a pedophile, and if you are staging the latter why bother hiding it, beneath all the clothing?
    See above

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  33. #267
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,564
    Quote Originally Posted by cindysue View Post
    I am confused about if PR was part of the staging ,why wouldn't she put the right size clothes on JB? It seems that whoever did redress her had no idea what to put on her IMO
    This has been discussed before. JB'c clothes WERE the right size. It was her panties that were not the right size. Here are some reasons for it:

    IF JB was wearing panties in her right size that said "Wednesday" that became soiled or bloodied (it is an established FACT that JB bled from the vagina), they needed to be replaced with an identical Wednesday pair. The only pair available was the too-big pair bought for an older cousin. They were likely right there in the basement, wrapped up in a gift to be sent to that cousin after the R returned from their holiday vacation.
    This also eliminated the need to go back to JB's room/bathroom to get another pair of her own, with her brother in the room right down the hall.
    Even if the "wednesday" theory is not a factor, using the panties from the basement gift box still eliminated the need to go back to her room for her own panties.
    Personally, I have always maintained that the stagers never thought that the size of the panties would become such an issue. They were put on JB UNDER her longjohns, which were snug-fitting, and it wasn't until the coroner removed her longjohns on the autopsy table that anyone noticed the size of the panties she was wearing.
    Whoever redressed her put the panties on her for one of those reasons. They knew what they were doing and why. They just didn't think anyone else would notice.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  34. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  35. #268
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    4,230
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    This has been discussed before. JB'c clothes WERE the right size. It was her panties that were not the right size. Here are some reasons for it:

    IF JB was wearing panties in her right size that said "Wednesday" that became soiled or bloodied (it is an established FACT that JB bled from the vagina), they needed to be replaced with an identical Wednesday pair. The only pair available was the too-big pair bought for an older cousin. They were likely right there in the basement, wrapped up in a gift to be sent to that cousin after the R returned from their holiday vacation.
    This also eliminated the need to go back to JB's room/bathroom to get another pair of her own, with her brother in the room right down the hall.
    Even if the "wednesday" theory is not a factor, using the panties from the basement gift box still eliminated the need to go back to her room for her own panties.
    Personally, I have always maintained that the stagers never thought that the size of the panties would become such an issue. They were put on JB UNDER her longjohns, which were snug-fitting, and it wasn't until the coroner removed her longjohns on the autopsy table that anyone noticed the size of the panties she was wearing.
    Whoever redressed her put the panties on her for one of those reasons. They knew what they were doing and why. They just didn't think anyone else would notice.
    The size of the panties could very well have not been an issue as you say Dee Dee. But the fact that she be wearing panties was important to someone.

    I don't know why the original pair of Wednesday panties were removed, maybe because of the blood. That sounds like a good idea since evidence showed blood was wiped from her legs.

    I think the underlying reason for any panties being on her, especially one's that were Wednesdays was necessary because JonBenet had to appear as she did when she was at the party and also how she appear when she got home and as the parents claimed: put straight to bed since she was asleep or zonked out.

    It was important that the story being told included that no one in the family had any contact (outside of removing her coat and outer clothes) with JonBenet once she arrived home and was put into bed sound asleep.

    Why is that? Why did the person(s) who placed her in the "wine cellar" care what she was wearing? Would a member of a small foreign faction care that this little girl be found wearing a pair of Bloomies with the day of the week Wednesday on them?

    Also, since I am on the RDI side of the fence, I would suggest that as the underware was being changed, for whatever reason, a plan was being formed by both or either parent of what to tell officials about JonBenet's arrival at home. It all had to look very innocent and typical.

    It appears to me that step-by-step as this unfolded, the parents had to be communicating with each other as to what to tell police that happened. They knew they would need to answer questions. They had to be prepared. They probably went over a mental check list to make sure everything was covered...but one thing they did forget - the pineapple snack. They couldn't include that because the story was that she arrived home zonked out and no one in the immediate family was to have seen her again until her body was recovered or wink, wink until the kidnappers returned her.

    I suggest that both parents were quite busy covering their tracks. Which leads me to another question - why was it necessary for JonBenet to appear to have been sexually insulted by someone that night ? Especially if in the final staging of the body it appeared that part of the crime was hidden?

    Perhaps it had to do with the idea that she was sexually abused in the commission of the staging in order to hide previous sexual contact that possibly was going on that very night. The person(s) who hid her, prepped her, did the staging, knew about the on-going sexual abuse she had gone through and by staging another molestation, were trying to hide previous abuse.

    I think to unravel it all, we have to work backwards and figure out the reason for every little step - all the way back to why if this all began with an accident, why wasn't she taken to the hospital immediately. I suggest it was because of the evidence within her body that this little girl was molested before.

    The End. Have fun with my thoughts.

    jmo
    The Hokey Pokey Clinic - A good place to turn yourself around:

  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to azwriter For This Useful Post:


  37. #269
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by azwriter
    Perhaps it had to do with the idea that she was sexually abused in the commission of the staging in order to hide previous sexual contact that possibly was going on that very night. The person(s) who hid her, prepped her, did the staging, knew about the on-going sexual abuse she had gone through and by staging another molestation, were trying to hide previous abuse.
    I agree with this 100%.

    IMO, both PR and JR knew that evidence of prior sexual abuse was there to be found, and they attempted to cover it up or make it look like she had only been molested on the night she was murdered. IMO, they did not know that the erosion and lack of intact hymen would be as obvious to the coroner as it was when the autopsy was conducted, but they had some idea that evidence of prior abuse may be detected and did whatever they could to try and cover it up, or make it look different than what it was.

    Their reactions when told by police of the evidence of prior abuse seem to me to be the reactions of two people who already knew their daughter had been molested but want to pretend they didn't by acting like they are outright indignant, insulted at the very suggestion, and in abject disbelief that it could have been true.

    I know you don't always know how you would react in certain situations, but let me tell you, I do know that if my daughter was killed at age 6 and the detectives investigating the murder informed me that evidence of prior sexual abuse was discovered in addition to my baby having been molested the night she was killed, I would have broken down in tears and begun questioning myself out loud as to WHO could possibly have that kind of access to her, and how I didn't know - had she tried to tell me, and I just didn't understand? Who? When? How?

    I would have been near inconsolable that my poor little girl had been put through such suffering and I hadn't been aware, much less able to stop it.

    IMO, it certainly sounds like Patsy's mother Nedra Paugh was also aware that JonBenet had been the victim of ongoing sexual abuse with the outrageous "only a little bit molested" comment. ANY bit is TOO MUCH.

    I do not even to begin to comprehend what kind of situation was going on where the victim's own family members react as if they all knew but want to give the impression that they didn't by responding with "If you're trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter" (JR), "She was only a little bit molested" (NP), and Patsy's response is to question the findings (from the '98 interviews):


    TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
    0581
    1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
    2 intrusion on JonBenet?
    3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
    4 Prior to the night she was killed?
    5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
    6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
    7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
    9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
    10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
    11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
    12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
    13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
    14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
    15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
    16 been violated like that?
    17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
    18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
    19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
    20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
    21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
    22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
    23 did not.
    24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
    25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
    0582
    1 see where it says that and who reported that.
    2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
    3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
    4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
    5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
    6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
    7 photos, but--
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
    9 that?
    10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
    11 it's pretty significant?
    12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
    13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
    14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
    15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
    16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
    17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
    18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
    19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
    20 be fair to my client.
    21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
    22 reliable medical information that we have at
    23 this point, that is a fact.
    24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
    25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
    0583
    1 me here?
    2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
    3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
    4 something was inserted?
    5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
    6 that she was assaulted?
    7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
    9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
    10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
    11 shocked.
    12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
    13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
    14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
    15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
    16 you?
    17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
    18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --


    I don't know about everyone else, but...that "Yeah, prove it" and "find it and show it to me" response does not sound like she's anywhere near as shocked as she would have everyone believe to hear that chronic as well as acute abuse was found in JonBenet's vaginal area.

  38. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Nuisanceposter For This Useful Post:


  39. #270
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter View Post
    I agree with this 100%.

    IMO, both PR and JR knew that evidence of prior sexual abuse was there to be found, and they attempted to cover it up or make it look like she had only been molested on the night she was murdered. IMO, they did not know that the erosion and lack of intact hymen would be as obvious to the coroner as it was when the autopsy was conducted, but they had some idea that evidence of prior abuse may be detected and did whatever they could to try and cover it up, or make it look different than what it was.

    Their reactions when told by police of the evidence of prior abuse seem to me to be the reactions of two people who already knew their daughter had been molested but want to pretend they didn't by acting like they are outright indignant, insulted at the very suggestion, and in abject disbelief that it could have been true.

    I know you don't always know how you would react in certain situations, but let me tell you, I do know that if my daughter was killed at age 6 and the detectives investigating the murder informed me that evidence of prior sexual abuse was discovered in addition to my baby having been molested the night she was killed, I would have broken down in tears and begun questioning myself out loud as to WHO could possibly have that kind of access to her, and how I didn't know - had she tried to tell me, and I just didn't understand? Who? When? How?

    I would have been near inconsolable that my poor little girl had been put through such suffering and I hadn't been aware, much less able to stop it.

    IMO, it certainly sounds like Patsy's mother Nedra Paugh was also aware that JonBenet had been the victim of ongoing sexual abuse with the outrageous "only a little bit molested" comment. ANY bit is TOO MUCH.

    I do not even to begin to comprehend what kind of situation was going on where the victim's own family members react as if they all knew but want to give the impression that they didn't by responding with "If you're trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter" (JR), "She was only a little bit molested" (NP), and Patsy's response is to question the findings (from the '98 interviews):


    TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
    0581
    1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
    2 intrusion on JonBenet?
    3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
    4 Prior to the night she was killed?
    5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
    6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
    7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
    9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
    10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
    11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
    12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
    13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
    14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
    15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
    16 been violated like that?
    17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
    18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
    19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
    20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
    21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
    22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
    23 did not.
    24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
    25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
    0582
    1 see where it says that and who reported that.
    2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
    3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
    4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
    5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
    6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
    7 photos, but--
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
    9 that?
    10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
    11 it's pretty significant?
    12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
    13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
    14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
    15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
    16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
    17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
    18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
    19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
    20 be fair to my client.
    21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
    22 reliable medical information that we have at
    23 this point, that is a fact.
    24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
    25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
    0583
    1 me here?
    2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
    3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
    4 something was inserted?
    5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
    6 that she was assaulted?
    7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
    9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
    10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
    11 shocked.
    12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
    13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
    14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
    15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
    16 you?
    17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
    18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --


    I don't know about everyone else, but...that "Yeah, prove it" and "find it and show it to me" response does not sound like she's anywhere near as shocked as she would have everyone believe to hear that chronic as well as acute abuse was found in JonBenet's vaginal area.
    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.

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  41. #271
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    i'm curious what LA discovered to cause her to mention in her depo about the roles of every member of the family in the incest dynamic...anyone know of further info on that?

  42. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to runsdeep For This Useful Post:


  43. #272
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,418
    Quote Originally Posted by azwriter View Post
    The size of the panties could very well have not been an issue as you say Dee Dee. But the fact that she be wearing panties was important to someone.

    I don't know why the original pair of Wednesday panties were removed, maybe because of the blood. That sounds like a good idea since evidence showed blood was wiped from her legs.

    I think the underlying reason for any panties being on her, especially one's that were Wednesdays was necessary because JonBenet had to appear as she did when she was at the party and also how she appear when she got home and as the parents claimed: put straight to bed since she was asleep or zonked out.

    It was important that the story being told included that no one in the family had any contact (outside of removing her coat and outer clothes) with JonBenet once she arrived home and was put into bed sound asleep.

    Why is that? Why did the person(s) who placed her in the "wine cellar" care what she was wearing? Would a member of a small foreign faction care that this little girl be found wearing a pair of Bloomies with the day of the week Wednesday on them?

    Also, since I am on the RDI side of the fence, I would suggest that as the underware was being changed, for whatever reason, a plan was being formed by both or either parent of what to tell officials about JonBenet's arrival at home. It all had to look very innocent and typical.

    It appears to me that step-by-step as this unfolded, the parents had to be communicating with each other as to what to tell police that happened. They knew they would need to answer questions. They had to be prepared. They probably went over a mental check list to make sure everything was covered...but one thing they did forget - the pineapple snack. They couldn't include that because the story was that she arrived home zonked out and no one in the immediate family was to have seen her again until her body was recovered or wink, wink until the kidnappers returned her.

    I suggest that both parents were quite busy covering their tracks. Which leads me to another question - why was it necessary for JonBenet to appear to have been sexually insulted by someone that night ? Especially if in the final staging of the body it appeared that part of the crime was hidden?

    Perhaps it had to do with the idea that she was sexually abused in the commission of the staging in order to hide previous sexual contact that possibly was going on that very night. The person(s) who hid her, prepped her, did the staging, knew about the on-going sexual abuse she had gone through and by staging another molestation, were trying to hide previous abuse.

    I think to unravel it all, we have to work backwards and figure out the reason for every little step - all the way back to why if this all began with an accident, why wasn't she taken to the hospital immediately. I suggest it was because of the evidence within her body that this little girl was molested before.

    The End. Have fun with my thoughts.

    jmo
    azwriter,
    I think the underlying reason for any panties being on her, especially one's that were Wednesdays was necessary because JonBenet had to appear as she did when she was at the party and also how she appear when she got home and as the parents claimed: put straight to bed since she was asleep or zonked out.
    Since the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene and the size-12's form part of it, then you have to consider what might have been the stagers intention?

    IMO there are three main possibilities:

    1. The size-12's were selected to match the day of the week feature since her size-6 underwear had this feature?

    2. The size-12's were selected to match the day of the week feature because the stager wanted the underwear suggest something about the time of JonBenet's death?

    3. The size-12's were selected at random since underwear was required, any underwear!

    1. seems the obvious choice, but it also includes say John redressing JonBenet with the size-12's, then adding the longjohns hoping if Patsy had a quick look she would see the day of the week feature?

    If BPD do not have a pair of size-6 underwear with a Wednesday day of the feature in their evidence cage then I reckon option 1. is the front runner.


    .

  44. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  45. #273
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,418
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    You are a very smart individual, and you know "consistent" is not a throw away word either. It's just a matter of selective throw away words. Many experts found the handwriting "consistent" with Patsy's handwriting...some find that black and white, some find it gray -- interpretation. I know a "digit" is a finger, but it can also, IMO, be representative. He didn't expound, so we do. It's been going on for half my daughter's lifetime


    I don't know whether it was the only episode or not, but I believe that night was staged.


    I would not be one of those members, although I do respect their opinion.
    The more I think about it, the more I believe that PR was oblivious to the head injury being so severe. I think she was extremely pist that JonBenet wet herself -- either in bed or in the car. In a fit of rage she yanked her up by her turtleneck and drug her to the bathroom. She won't yell at her because that would make her look bad in front of JR and Burke. Ohhhh, but she is SO mad. She's tired and just wants to go to bed. She shakes her hard, banging her head against a hard surface in the bathroom, still twisting the turtleneck with brute force, wiping her HARD and without realizing her own strength -- JBR passes out and PR can't revive her. OMG, what do I do, what do I DO! "JonBenet, wake up" she says quietly, but JonBenet doesn't respond. She takes her downstairs to hide from anyone in the house hearing what is going on. She forgets to get something to redress her in. The dryer has a blanket and some longjohns. She remembers the panties that were supposed to be a gift. It is not by chance that she retrieves Wednesday. She is freaking out. She decides to just leave JonBenet in the dank room, thinking it's a good hiding place, and writes the ransom note -- that will explain why she's not here. Good. Done. But then there is the possibility her body will be found...what would make the perp leave her? Sexual molestation. Patsy needs to make it look like AEA.... or not. I don't know because I wasn't there. No one knows for sure, but there was no cover up for the head injury, so I don't think she knew about it. I don't think the cover up is three fold at all...just the strangulation and the abuse to JBR's privates. IMO, PR was just as shocked at the head injury discovery as we were. How could she know?



    See above

    vplate,
    I don't think the cover up is three fold at all...just the strangulation and the abuse to JBR's privates. IMO, PR was just as shocked at the head injury discovery as we were. How could she know?
    Because JonBenet was unnaturally enlarged. And the Coroner stated that there had been sexual contact which is not the same as staging a sexual assault. Then if your theory is correct you should explain away the barbie doll and bloodstained nightgown doll found in the wine-cellar. All suggesting either an interrupted staging or evidence from a prior staging.

    There is more to this case than what is in Steve Thomas' book.



    .

  46. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  47. #274
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    vplate,

    Because JonBenet was unnaturally enlarged. And the Coroner stated that there had been sexual contact which is not the same as staging a sexual assault. Then if your theory is correct you should explain away the barbie doll and bloodstained nightgown doll found in the wine-cellar. All suggesting either an interrupted staging or evidence from a prior staging.

    There is more to this case than what is in Steve Thomas' book.



    .
    Vastly more UK.

  48. The Following User Says Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  49. #275
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    vplate,

    Because JonBenet was unnaturally enlarged.
    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.

    And the Coroner stated that there had been sexual contact which is not the same as staging a sexual assault.
    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.


    Then if your theory is correct you should explain away the barbie doll and bloodstained nightgown doll found in the wine-cellar. All suggesting either an interrupted staging or evidence from a prior staging.
    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.

    There is more to this case than what is in Steve Thomas' book.
    Yes, this only stands to reason since Steve left the case early on and was not privy to any further evidence or findings.



    .[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by vlpate; 10-07-2011 at 08:51 AM. Reason: clarity

Page 11 of 45 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131415161718192021 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Molested with the handle?
    By Paradox in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 396
    Last Post: 06-26-2014, 09:42 AM
  2. OK- girls molested at slumber party
    By peeples in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 09:49 AM
  3. 20+ Teens Molested by PA Cop
    By MrsBuckWeaver in forum Crimes in the News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-28-2007, 11:11 PM
  4. Replies: 65
    Last Post: 09-06-2006, 01:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •