View Poll Results: who molested/abused JB?

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

    102 27.79%
  • BR

    90 24.52%
  • JAR

    19 5.18%
  • a close family friend

    19 5.18%
  • a stranger/stalker a la JMK

    14 3.81%
  • PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

    68 18.53%
  • she wasn't previously abused/molested

    55 14.99%
Page 35 of 46 FirstFirst ... 252627282930313233343536373839404142434445 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 875 of 1126

Thread: Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

  1. #851
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,153
    Common sense dictates they both abused her, and both were involved in her death.

    I say this because both were involved in staging. Neither would willingly protect the other so there has to be mutual guilty knowledge for them to collaborate.

    The details don't really matter to me, who tied what where. I think they are both responsible and PR at least has not escaped judgement.

    ETA: if she was as religious as she pretended to be, she must've been terrified when she died.
    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to SapphireSteel For This Useful Post:


  3. #852
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,958
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Unless the person had on gloves I'd expect the DNA of whomever put the ligature on JonBenet to be on the rope. I have no idea if the rope has been tested for DNA. We do know it has been publicly reported that many fibers found entwined in in the ligature were consistent with fibers from the jacket Patsy wore to the White's Christmas party.

    I wouldn't assume anything about Patsy wearing gloves or not. Somewhere I read that latex gloves were found (iirc) in the bathroom adjoining the bedroom across the hall from JonBenet's bedroom. I believe Patsy stated she had used them either the 24th or 25th when she colored her hair. (See post #517 at Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet? - Page 21 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community)

    I just know that Steve Thomas stated he believed Patsy was the responsible and he believed the trauma (or at least some of it) came when Patsy subjected JonBenet to some form of corporal cleansing. The ligature has to fit into his theory somewhere. I may be all wet but I see it as logical the rope could have been used as a restraint device in some manner.
    Yes, he believed PR was the culprit and he along with just about everyone else, seemed to think JR was some kind of bystander that got involved after the fact. But I'm not so sure they ever really excluded him. When they were all on Larry King together, there was a little exchange between ST and JR that made me think they weren't as sold on JR's innocence as we were led to believe. JR-" What did you find in our background that would demonstrate that we are capable of this crime"? ST-" I gave you a pass, John. Unless you want to say otherwise, I don't think you were involved". IMO, this doesn't sound like ST was convinced of JR's innocence. A 'pass' is not exoneration and then he gave him an opportunity to open up. Then PR said, " We, he said we". (and really, what was the point in her repeating the 'we'? And then JR being JR, stuttered around with, " I'm asking about, you accused Patsy of murder, me of complicity". Considering that JR wasn't seen as a suspect, it was weird that he included himself in the 'we'. What would have made more sense would have been for him to distance himself from the crime and defend PR ...because there really wasn't much to defend himself from. But, by his own words, this was a 'we' crime, not a 'she' crime and PR made a point to reiterate the 'we'...just in case ST missed it the 1st few times JR said it? moo

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dodie20 For This Useful Post:


  5. #853
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by midwest mama View Post
    UK Guy - In response to your reference to BR - his possible involvement with JB just before she was killed........

    Given BR was a part of the R domestic travesty, it is very possible he did not know that behaviors of his with JB which would be considered abnormal by healthy psychological standards, would ever lead to such disaster.

    But, if he had been allowed to view incest was an acceptable standard for their own immediate family, as long as it was always kept a secret from outside social circles, then there would be little chance of him having to demonstrate enough rage against JB to cause the head bash or a strangulation if we assume the rage was to "shut her up". He shouldn't have had to worry about that, if the family was used to dealing with their episodes.

    It is not impossible that Burke was involved with JB that night. But I do not believe he was the one who tied that hand-fashioned ligature around JB's neck and strangled the final life from her.

    By Burke being given a "pass", what I meant to say is that the R's, with their books being so intently focused on the intruder theory, and yet their own "telling" statements about their lives, we are expected to look completely away from any possibility of Burke being involved in her ultimate death that night. And less pressure from the public looking at Burke eases his ability to try to move forward in life without him having the added burden of trying to offer proof of his non-involvement.
    THat is what I'm thinking, is that why does every article mention only Jon and Patti but never Burke? We have all heard of the terrible things even young, disturbed kids can do....like recently that boy who killed his sister. I can believe more that a young boy who was mental lost control and did what he did, rather than the parents who would be afraid they would leave DNA, etc, and would get caught. Also the crime just seems so out-of-control. I don't know a lot about it, but I think it makes sense that the boy did it, and then the parents covered up for him.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aa9511 For This Useful Post:


  7. #854
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,153
    I don't think BDI makes sense one little bit.

    No sane parent would stage and murder their dying child to cover up for another.

    There is just zero logic to that, especially when JB was her mother's favourite toy and any 9 year old who hurt his sister is unable to be held legally responsible anyway.

    JR was a very successful business man. He didn't do one single thing he didn't plan to do. The convoluted "kidnapping" theory was his brainchild. A chitty and hastily thought out brainchild, but one invented under pressure by someone who thinks they're pretty smart and is probably running on adrenaline.

    What you've got to remember about these narcissists, is they think everyone else is incredibly stupid and they can fool everyone. What's sad is, they often succeed, for a while anyway, especially if they have money and can afford fancy lawyers and PR and political pressure.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  8. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to SapphireSteel For This Useful Post:


  9. #855
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    I don't think BDI makes sense one little bit.

    No sane parent would stage and murder another child to cover up for the first.

    There is just zero logic to that, especially when JB was her mother's favourite toy.
    No, but I'm saying Burke would have been the one who "accidentally" killed her. By the time Jr and PR found her, she was already dead. Then they covered up so that their son wouldn't be found out.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to aa9511 For This Useful Post:


  11. #856
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,958
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    No, but I'm saying Burke would have been the one who "accidentally" killed her. By the time Jr and PR found her, she was already dead. Then they covered up so that their son wouldn't be found out.
    I used to think this was some kind of accident gone terribly wrong, but I'm not so sure anymore. I still don't think it was planned or premeditated necessarily, but building the garrote took some forethought and since that was the actual murder weapon, this couldn't have been an accident. PR's fibers were entwined in the rope, not BR's, so IMO, she built it and used it to kill JB. I think the head bash might fall under the 'accident' theory with everything else done in an effort to cover it up. That bash cracked JB's skull from end to end and left a huge hole in her head. IMO, it's possible that PR didn't want to be forced to explain what happened, so she covered it up with a murder and fake kidnapping. This seems heartless and almost unimaginable, but when you consider the options, it makes some sense. She could call an ambulance and be forced to explain the hole in JB's head, or she could finish her off and blame a kidnapper. And I happen to think, (don't know though), that PR was aware of how much damage she did to JB' skull. IMO, she swung as hard as she could and probably heard the skull crack and IMO, JB probably fell into an unconscious heap. IMO, this could be about extreme abuse and self preservation. But, there are a lot of things missing from this theory. Like how JR slept through it all...the bash, the screaming, the roaming all over the house, PR sitting and leisurely writing the ransom note. IDK, but I don't think BR was involved in this. moo

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dodie20 For This Useful Post:


  13. #857
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    12
    IMO PR wanted her life to seem perfect. I believe BR accidentally did it and parents stupidly covered it up. He had knowledge of knots. Maybe he had been abused by someone and was trying things out on her and took it too far. The family could not risk having their only child left have their name ran through the mud.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Kdube For This Useful Post:


  15. #858
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,438
    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    I used to think this was some kind of accident gone terribly wrong, but I'm not so sure anymore. I still don't think it was planned or premeditated necessarily, but building the garrote took some forethought and since that was the actual murder weapon, this couldn't have been an accident. PR's fibers were entwined in the rope, not BR's, so IMO, she built it and used it to kill JB. I think the head bash might fall under the 'accident' theory with everything else done in an effort to cover it up. That bash cracked JB's skull from end to end and left a huge hole in her head. IMO, it's possible that PR didn't want to be forced to explain what happened, so she covered it up with a murder and fake kidnapping. This seems heartless and almost unimaginable, but when you consider the options, it makes some sense. She could call an ambulance and be forced to explain the hole in JB's head, or she could finish her off and blame a kidnapper. And I happen to think, (don't know though), that PR was aware of how much damage she did to JB' skull. IMO, she swung as hard as she could and probably heard the skull crack and IMO, JB probably fell into an unconscious heap. IMO, this could be about extreme abuse and self preservation. But, there are a lot of things missing from this theory. Like how JR slept through it all...the bash, the screaming, the roaming all over the house, PR sitting and leisurely writing the ransom note. IDK, but I don't think BR was involved in this. moo
    dodie20,
    It could be all three R's were involved but at different points in time. This might explain the largely discordant forensic evidence, i.e. the broken window, the suitcase, the photographs, the barbie doll, the barbie nightgown, the size-12's, PR's fibers?

    So it might go something like this:

    BR then PR then JR the latter cleaning up behind the others?

    or

    BR then JR then PR, the latter ignorant that JonBenet is wearing size-12's?

    Another suggestion might be BR was videotaping JonBenet, or taking photographs?


    .

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


  17. #859
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,153
    BR was sound asleep.

    Which is why you heard his voice early next morning on the 911 call saying "what did you find?".

    Proof positive he hadn't been schooled, or involved at any stage, in my opinion.

    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SapphireSteel For This Useful Post:


  19. #860
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    BR was sound asleep.

    Which is why you heard his voice early next morning on the 911 call saying "what did you find?".

    Proof positive he hadn't been schooled, or involved at any stage, in my opinion.

    SapphireSteel,
    LOL, nope thats BR acting out his role. He is asking PR what she found that caused a 911 phone call?

    He was then sent to bed and told to fake being asleep, as per the Ramsey version of events.

    Which is all fake of course!


    .

  20. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  21. #861
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,958
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    BR was sound asleep.

    Which is why you heard his voice early next morning on the 911 call saying "what did you find?".

    Proof positive he hadn't been schooled, or involved at any stage, in my opinion.

    I'm not sure he was sound asleep, but I doubt he was in the middle of all the commotion. Didn't he admit to hearing voices and the house creak at some point? And then he said he faked sleep that morning. IMO, it sounds like he knew something was going on but decided to stay in his room. If that was his voice on the 911, his questions point away from him knowing a thing. He wouldn't have had to ask what they found.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dodie20 For This Useful Post:


  23. #862
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Unless the person had on gloves I'd expect the DNA of whomever put the ligature on JonBenet to be on the rope. I have no idea if the rope has been tested for DNA. We do know it has been publicly reported that many fibers found entwined in in the ligature were consistent with fibers from the jacket Patsy wore to the White's Christmas party.

    I wouldn't assume anything about Patsy wearing gloves or not. Somewhere I read that latex gloves were found (iirc) in the bathroom adjoining the bedroom across the hall from JonBenet's bedroom. I believe Patsy stated she had used them either the 24th or 25th when she colored her hair. (See post #517 at Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet? - Page 21 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community)

    I just know that Steve Thomas stated he believed Patsy was the responsible and he believed the trauma (or at least some of it) came when Patsy subjected JonBenet to some form of corporal cleansing. The ligature has to fit into his theory somewhere. I may be all wet but I see it as logical the rope could have been used as a restraint device in some manner.
    Maybe that's why the basement was chosen,so JB won't be heard by BR and JR?
    But I am thinking,if JB wet the bed and went to tell PR..JR would have woken up?
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  24. The Following User Says Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  25. #863
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,541
    I have my JDI alone/PDI alone theories but they were probably both involved somehow.I mean,yeah,I could understand lying to police to protect your partner but they didn't stop here,they went on national TV and backed each other up,this is different IMO and it tells me they are both GUILTY.They just don't act like one is the guilty party and the other one was just collateral damage because he/she found out the truth too late.
    There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
    Buddha


  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to madeleine For This Useful Post:


  27. #864
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,503
    I have always wondered if the "cleansing" was PR's sick thinking that she might be able to advance the maturity of JonBenet and give her an advantage in pageantry.....

    I can't believe I just posted this....I can't help it, winning was everything to PR.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to bayouland For This Useful Post:


  29. #865
    Chelly's Avatar
    Chelly is offline Blessed are they with nothing to say and the wisdom not to say it.
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    4,741
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    BR was sound asleep.

    Which is why you heard his voice early next morning on the 911 call saying "what did you find?".

    Proof positive he hadn't been schooled, or involved at any stage, in my opinion.

    Perhaps BR was involved before he went to sleep.
    Nel's Belle

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


  31. #866
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North Carolina's beautiful Blue Ridge Mtns.
    Posts
    5,429
    It's time JR tells the truth. I have always suspected PR. I'm sure she gave both children enemas and didn't she give JBR douches? I don't know for sure but I think she was the abuser and JR ignored it as long as possible. I think she had some mental problems. If JR wants to vindicate BR it's time he told the truth, otherwise this is going to haunt BR all his life. Just my opinion!
    About the time we can make ends meet, somebody moves the ends. Herbert Hoover

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to tiredblondy For This Useful Post:


  33. #867
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    143
    NO ONE molested Jon Benet! It was just her picking at herself to help with her constipation. She was constipated because of her mom's anxiety genetics and her mom's busy schedule for Jon Benet to be "perfect." She wet the bed because her filled-up colon was pressing against her bladder. She picked at herself in all areas to try to help the constipation issue. No one sexually molested Jon Benet EXCEPT Patsy in her delusional psychosis after her killing her child. JMHO.
    It's just moo!

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to cattlekate For This Useful Post:


  35. #868
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    714
    The most logical thing to me would be Patsy bizarrely douching her due to the chronic incontinence. Patsy being obsessive about her hygiene etc. and having mental health issues. That would be why she kept minimizing the molestation - she knew she'd caused damaged, and didn't want to admit to it, but wanted to explain it away because it was such an awful thought - so just "minor damage". Maybe there never was molestation - that'd make the case much easier IMO. The sexual element of this crime confuses me.

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


  37. #869
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NWLA
    Posts
    4,699
    I'm sorry, but fecal and bladder incontinence at the age of 6, combined with her alleged (by friends and family members) hyper sexuality just SCREAM sexual abuse.

    And then there's her murder which just amplifies all of it.

    WHO did it? iDK. But I have had strong feelings about all three of the surviving Ramseys who lived in that house.

    A six year old who who wets and soils her clothing and linens to the point she wear pullups is NOT NORMAL. Sorry, but it's not.

  38. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to FrayedKnot For This Useful Post:


  39. #870
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5,422
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    madeleine,
    The masking of any sexual assault is a big clue. Consider JonBenet's homicide as the real deal e.g. intruder makes an unseen entrance into the Ramsey household, enters JonBenet's room, sexually assaults her, then strangles her using some cord he brought for that purpose. Then he thinks I'll need some time to return back to base so I'll hide the body in the basement, and write a bogus ransom note, this should give me a few extra hours to shower and burn my clothing etc etc.

    But JonBenet is found secluded in the wine-cellar redressed in clean size-12 underwear underneath a pair of white longjohns.

    No psychopath is going to bother redressing and wiping down JonBenet. The sexual assault is the last thing on his mind, he knows that will be discovered, because he knows there will be a post-mortem investigation, so hiding it is redundant!

    Now a corroborating piece of evidence is the Ramsey testimony. They say changed JonBenet's clothing upon return from the White's.

    They placed the longjohns on her, which indirectly suggests hiding her genital injuries was very important to the person conducting the wine-cellar staging.

    Otherwise she could have been left as per the former psychpathic scenario, e.g. bottomless and obviously injured.

    In an alleged RDI someone chose to mask the injury and incorporate dressing JonBenet in the longjohns as part of their version of events the night before.

    But the size-12's gave the game away, big time, so much so the Ramsey's found the remaining size-12's in a packing crate at a much later date. Even they knew how important the size-12's were.

    So its entirely possible that PR killed JonBenet as per Steve Thomas' theory, but that JR has something that requires to be hidden, so he amends Patsy's preferred staging to one that suits his agenda?

    Yet from memory Coroner Meyer explicitly said that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted prior to her death e.g. not merely vigorously cleansed?


    .
    Excellent informative post!

    BBM~ Why is the "size 12" important to the scenarios you are proposing?

    I followed this case and read the book, but not this deeply. TIA.

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


  41. #871
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    28,792
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    madeleine,
    The masking of any sexual assault is a big clue. Consider JonBenet's homicide as the real deal e.g. intruder makes an unseen entrance into the Ramsey household, enters JonBenet's room, sexually assaults her, then strangles her using some cord he brought for that purpose. Then he thinks I'll need some time to return back to base so I'll hide the body in the basement, and write a bogus ransom note, this should give me a few extra hours to shower and burn my clothing etc etc.

    But JonBenet is found secluded in the wine-cellar redressed in clean size-12 underwear underneath a pair of white longjohns.

    No psychopath is going to bother redressing and wiping down JonBenet. The sexual assault is the last thing on his mind, he knows that will be discovered, because he knows there will be a post-mortem investigation, so hiding it is redundant!

    Now a corroborating piece of evidence is the Ramsey testimony. They say changed JonBenet's clothing upon return from the White's.

    They placed the longjohns on her, which indirectly suggests hiding her genital injuries was very important to the person conducting the wine-cellar staging.

    Otherwise she could have been left as per the former psychpathic scenario, e.g. bottomless and obviously injured.

    In an alleged RDI someone chose to mask the injury and incorporate dressing JonBenet in the longjohns as part of their version of events the night before.

    But the size-12's gave the game away, big time, so much so the Ramsey's found the remaining size-12's in a packing crate at a much later date. Even they knew how important the size-12's were.

    So its entirely possible that PR killed JonBenet as per Steve Thomas' theory, but that JR has something that requires to be hidden, so he amends Patsy's preferred staging to one that suits his agenda?

    Yet from memory Coroner Meyer explicitly said that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted prior to her death e.g. not merely vigorously cleansed?


    .
    Excellent post!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


    Nosy by Nature and a Websleuther by choice

  42. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Linda7NJ For This Useful Post:


  43. #872
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5,422
    Quote Originally Posted by FrayedKnot View Post
    I'm sorry, but fecal and bladder incontinence at the age of 6, combined with her alleged (by friends and family members) hyper sexuality just SCREAM sexual abuse.

    And then there's her murder which just amplifies all of it.

    WHO did it? iDK. But I have had strong feelings about all three of the surviving Ramseys who lived in that house.

    A six year old who who wets and soils her clothing and linens to the point she wear pullups is NOT NORMAL. Sorry, but it's not.
    BBM~ IMO, JR was the abuser and PR was the one forced to write the ransom letter. Perhaps deep down Patsy was envious of JBR and in a way wanted her to go away, and let the abuse happen?

  44. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ElleElle For This Useful Post:


  45. #873
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    I don't think BDI makes sense one little bit.

    No sane parent would stage and murder their dying child to cover up for another.

    There is just zero logic to that, especially when JB was her mother's favourite toy and any 9 year old who hurt his sister is unable to be held legally responsible anyway.

    JR was a very successful business man. He didn't do one single thing he didn't plan to do. The convoluted "kidnapping" theory was his brainchild. A chitty and hastily thought out brainchild, but one invented under pressure by someone who thinks they're pretty smart and is probably running on adrenaline.

    What you've got to remember about these narcissists, is they think everyone else is incredibly stupid and they can fool everyone. What's sad is, they often succeed, for a while anyway, especially if they have money and can afford fancy lawyers and PR and political pressure.



    Yes it is perfectly logical if one is able to overcome the preconceived notion that a child is incapable of harming another child. And, the fact that both adult Ramseys are clearly narcicicstic makes a cover-up in this case all the more likely.

  46. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to fedfan4life For This Useful Post:


  47. #874
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    Yes, he believed PR was the culprit and he along with just about everyone else, seemed to think JR was some kind of bystander that got involved after the fact. But I'm not so sure they ever really excluded him. When they were all on Larry King together, there was a little exchange between ST and JR that made me think they weren't as sold on JR's innocence as we were led to believe. JR-" What did you find in our background that would demonstrate that we are capable of this crime"? ST-" I gave you a pass, John. Unless you want to say otherwise, I don't think you were involved". IMO, this doesn't sound like ST was convinced of JR's innocence. A 'pass' is not exoneration and then he gave him an opportunity to open up. Then PR said, " We, he said we". (and really, what was the point in her repeating the 'we'? And then JR being JR, stuttered around with, " I'm asking about, you accused Patsy of murder, me of complicity". Considering that JR wasn't seen as a suspect, it was weird that he included himself in the 'we'. What would have made more sense would have been for him to distance himself from the crime and defend PR ...because there really wasn't much to defend himself from. But, by his own words, this was a 'we' crime, not a 'she' crime and PR made a point to reiterate the 'we'...just in case ST missed it the 1st few times JR said it? moo
    Does this not make it abundantly clear that these two people would in no way be willing to protect one another for nothing more than one another's sake? There had to be a common goal, and them caring about the other was clearly not it.

  48. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to fedfan4life For This Useful Post:


  49. #875
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    OpenMind4U,
    Of course JR knew where to look, it was probably his plan to put JonBenet into the wine-cellar, you reckon Patsy would want her baby dumped in there?

    I think JonBenet was living in a culture of abuse, with her pageant role seemingly normalizing it all. Eventually someone went too far and killed JonBenet, and since the R's had money they were able to buy off justice.

    If the indictment process and all the information is made public via a FOI there will probably be a media feeding frenzy, with calls for JR to make statements etc.


    .
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    I have gone back and forth on this between P and J, and I've just now decided that it was BOTH.

    All we need to do is flip through these threads to see that male/female pedophile teams are scarily COMMON. Now the idiots are posting it online they're being caught, but back before the internet was available pedos probably took their own home movies and photos....my point is, they have always existed in secret, just not at the level we know about these days.

    I do not find it difficult at all to believe that J was the molester, and P possibly held the camera/obeyed orders/joined in willingly.

    It would explain the grooming of a baby into a Las Vegas Showgirl... to please or excite the man.

    We know P and J's sex life was non-existent (despite P insisting it was active and healthy) so it makes a sick type of sense to think she groomed her beautiful mini-me to fulfill that part of her marriage....and perhaps her own sick needs.

    I agree with everything that I have bolded as this makes sense to me.

    Original copy of the indictment.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/178967764/JonBenet-Ramsey

    Also here:

    http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm

    Has anyone been able to post the originals on this thread?

    I cannot convert this into text to paste here. Can anyone help?
    Last edited by Estelle; 10-27-2013 at 01:36 AM.
    Justice for Reeva Steenkamp and many others!
    _________________________________________
    Unless I have included a link, it is my opinion and only my opinion that I am expressing

  50. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Estelle For This Useful Post:


Page 35 of 46 FirstFirst ... 252627282930313233343536373839404142434445 ... 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
  •