View Poll Results: who molested/abused JB?

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

    105 28.23%
  • BR

    92 24.73%
  • JAR

    19 5.11%
  • a close family friend

    19 5.11%
  • a stranger/stalker a la JMK

    14 3.76%
  • PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

    68 18.28%
  • she wasn't previously abused/molested

    55 14.78%
Page 8 of 47 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 1160

Thread: Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

  1. #176
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by RTC View Post
    this is a good thread especially since it points out that there is considerable disagreement on what injury occurred first. the fact that john and patsy fibers were found on jb tell us this happended soon after they returned home before anyone undressed for bed. so lets say the kids are in kitchen eating a snack dad is doing his thing, mom is finishig all the last minute details. the kids go down to basement to play hostage ransome. jb lets b tie her up while she is sitting in a chair. he ties the rope around her neck and he decides he is going ot torture her. he grabs the paintbrush, pulls dow her pants, starts poking her with it. she screams, he hits her with the flashlight she falls back and some how is strangled in the process. he runs upstairs and goes to bed unaware she is dying of strangulation. mom soon becomes concerned goes down and theer is jb strangled and bashed, yells for john and the cover up begins. br really doesnt know that jb is dead but will never admit he pulled her pants down. thus they need to redress her and hide her and use the initital materials in a creative way to hide the truth

    the ransom notews to hide the truth from BR and create a red herring for the cops.it was brilliant. john and pr collaborated together, were both up all night, but jr is the only one that got the shower.
    are there any indicators of such behavior before/since that night by br? what was his life like since then?

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


  3. #177
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by LinasK View Post
    I totally agree!!! A recent poster tried to suggest it was...
    Who said she was a "little bit" molested? I stated the molestation didn't fit the violence and intensity of the rest of the attack, IMO. I said I thought the molestation that night was staged.

    I never said she was "a little bit molested" nor would I ever make that distinction when it comes to sexual abuse of children, women, or men. Abuse is abuse, sexual or otherwise when hands are placed where they don't belong.

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


  5. #178
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug99 View Post
    Good luck Tennison, getting credible sources sited around here is a lot like pulling teeth.
    What did you need a source for? Have you looked in the archives or at ACR's website? I agree, reliable sources are key to an intelligent debate...sometimes it is just assumed to be common knowledge after 15 years. OF course that is not true...there are many newcomers to the case still.

    No one credible here will ignore your request for a source....maybe they just haven't answered you yet?

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


  7. #179
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by tennison View Post
    I agree there is a very negative vibe towards people who look for quote evidence, a few members really are biased towards any differeciating point of view.
    I have researched as much evidence on this case as i can from the beginning and i cannot find any evidence for prior sexual molestation.
    Eroded hymen is oft quoted as proof as is 1cm vaginal opening but both of these are very easilly explained non sexually, certainly not proof by any means.
    Other evidence is also overlooked or downplayed when it does not fit the agenda.
    I really think the truth is what we should all be after, taking into consideration all the facts, as long as they ARE facts.
    Well...... lets keep on searching.
    I don't think any of us have access to actual "evidence", but there are many opinions out there...some say no prior molestation, some say there was prior molestation. As for actual proof, that would be impossible without a confession.

    Evidence is overlooked and downplayed on both sides of the fence - problem is, there's some RDI evidence that can't be downplayed no matter how one tries to spin it....I guess there's just a lot MORE evidence for RDI....and that's a fact.

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


  9. #180
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    europe
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    I don't think any of us have access to actual "evidence", but there are many opinions out there...some say no prior molestation, some say there was prior molestation. As for actual proof, that would be impossible without a confession.

    Evidence is overlooked and downplayed on both sides of the fence - problem is, there's some RDI evidence that can't be downplayed no matter how one tries to spin it....I guess there's just a lot MORE evidence for RDI....and that's a fact.
    More evidence for RDI? I dont agree at all, most of the RDI "evidence" is based on easily explained occurences, eg fibres, any fibres from john or patsy or indeed any relative had every right to be there, and transference and cross transference is a natural phenomena, why i bet you have fibres in your underwear right now from one or more of your family, doesnt mean there is anything untoward going on its just transference.

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


  11. #181
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    What did you need a source for? Have you looked in the archives or at ACR's website? I agree, reliable sources are key to an intelligent debate...sometimes it is just assumed to be common knowledge after 15 years. OF course that is not true...there are many newcomers to the case still.

    No one credible here will ignore your request for a source....maybe they just haven't answered you yet?
    They answered with I'm not going to provide one, or it's common knowledge no link is necessary.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Junebug99 For This Useful Post:


  13. #182
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    Who said she was a "little bit" molested? I stated the molestation didn't fit the violence and intensity of the rest of the attack, IMO. I said I thought the molestation that night was staged.

    I never said she was "a little bit molested" nor would I ever make that distinction when it comes to sexual abuse of children, women, or men. Abuse is abuse, sexual or otherwise when hands are placed where they don't belong.
    the only person who stated " a little bit molested" was the grandmother of the little girl.

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


  15. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,577
    Quote Originally Posted by tennison View Post
    I agree there is a very negative vibe towards people who look for quote evidence, a few members really are biased towards any differeciating point of view.
    I have researched as much evidence on this case as i can from the beginning and i cannot find any evidence for prior sexual molestation.
    Eroded hymen is oft quoted as proof as is 1cm vaginal opening but both of these are very easilly explained non sexually, certainly not proof by any means.
    Other evidence is also overlooked or downplayed when it does not fit the agenda.
    I really think the truth is what we should all be after, taking into consideration all the facts, as long as they ARE facts.
    Well...... lets keep on searching.
    tennison,
    In the absence of the autopsy photographs and expert opinion, evidence of prior sexual molestation, will be hard to find.

    Have you read Steve Thomas' book, he offers you numerous sources citing prior sexual abuse.

    This evidence flatly contradicts the books main theory PDI via bedwetting, its obvious he is attempting to avoid litigation. He tells you there can be no conclusive interpretation, but I doubt all these doctors are wrong about the past violation of the vagina or there was chronic abuse?


    This is a sexually motivated homicide and no intruder broke into the Ramsey household to resume chronic abuse!

    JonBenet's death and staged crime-scene has all been undertaken to hide the sexual abuse, something that JonBenet probably had to endure for years.

    She would have wanted to talk to someone about this not had its occurrence questioned becuase she could not cite some external source!




    .

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


  17. #184
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,289
    Hello all,
    I've been away from WS for a while and have spent the past week or so catching up.
    My belief is that PR was the chronic abuser and I'm not sure it was all "corporal punishment".
    I also don't think any of the staging was done to "hide" past abuse. I don't think PR realized that what she was doing previously to JBR was sexual abuse.
    Gah, I know this post makes no sense, so go easy on me

  18. #185
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by Squishified View Post
    Hello all,
    I've been away from WS for a while and have spent the past week or so catching up.
    My belief is that PR was the chronic abuser and I'm not sure it was all "corporal punishment".I also don't think any of the staging was done to "hide" past abuse. I don't think PR realized that what she was doing previously to JBR was sexual abuse.Gah, I know this post makes no sense, so go easy on me
    what do you think her intent was?

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


  20. #186
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    are there any indicators of such behavior before/since that night by br? what was his life like since then?
    B did hit JB with a golf club and she frequently slept in his room. one of the maids inferred she thought she caught them playing "doctor" The movie Ransom was a popular movie that year.

    I guess I would rather imagine this to be an accident between two kids while exploring rather than think JR or PR using an EA tool on their six year old.


    I do know incest is more common than we would all like to think but this is so much more than fondling. AE on a 6 year old? if JR was that sexed up he could have easily afforded a call girl. and where would he get the privacy to accomplish this?

    I used to think it was a bedwetting PR crazy moment, but the fact JR fibers were on JB changed my mind. I dont think he would have stood by her after losing Beth.

    I sure dont know what happened tht night but I dont believe the intruder theory at all

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RTC For This Useful Post:


  22. #187
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by RTC View Post
    B did hit JB with a golf club and she frequently slept in his room. one of the maids inferred she thought she caught them playing "doctor" The movie Ransom was a popular movie that year.

    I guess I would rather imagine this to be an accident between two kids while exploring rather than think JR or PR using an EA tool on their six year old.


    I do know incest is more common than we would all like to think but this is so much more than fondling. AE on a 6 year old? if JR was that sexed up he could have easily afforded a call girl. and where would he get the privacy to accomplish this?

    I used to think it was a bedwetting PR crazy moment, but the fact JR fibers were on JB changed my mind. I dont think he would have stood by her after losing Beth.

    I sure dont know what happened tht night but I dont believe the intruder theory at all
    i read that the golf club thing was an accident. and under covers with flashlight is on another end of the spectrum from what happened to her on her last night. his interview with the social worker sure raises eyebrows. linda arndt seemed to know things that she alluded to in deposition and on GMA, then no more details that i am aware.

    HENCE...we still have a mystery.

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


  24. #188
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by tennison View Post
    More evidence for RDI? I dont agree at all, most of the RDI "evidence" is based on easily explained occurences, eg fibres, any fibres from john or patsy or indeed any relative had every right to be there, and transference and cross transference is a natural phenomena, why i bet you have fibres in your underwear right now from one or more of your family, doesnt mean there is anything untoward going on its just transference.
    Unfortunately my undies have not seen a strange fiber in ages

    I'm just at lunch, so I will be back later to answer the rest

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  26. #189
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,709
    Quote Originally Posted by tennison View Post
    More evidence for RDI? I dont agree at all, most of the RDI "evidence" is based on easily explained occurences, eg fibres, any fibres from john or patsy or indeed any relative had every right to be there, and transference and cross transference is a natural phenomena, why i bet you have fibres in your underwear right now from one or more of your family, doesnt mean there is anything untoward going on its just transference.
    Fibers do not "have a right" to be in or on items specific to the crime.
    Patsy claimed she never wore that red sweater in the basement nor did she paint while wearing it. The paint tote and duct tape never left the basement- they are IMPORTANT parts of the crime scene. Patsy claimed JB put those huge panties on herself. How did JR's shirt fibers get INSIDE the crotch? Patsy was wearing the same clothes from the day before but NOT JR. It was fibers his shirt from the shirt worn the previous night that were found. And for fibers to be entwined inside the knot of the cord, that can only have happened when someone tied that knot.
    It isn't the presence of the fibers themselves. Yes, fibers from family members WILL be all over a home. But the presence of the fibers on items that were part of the crime ONLY (duct tape, garrote knot, staged panties, paint tote) are what points to a family coverup.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

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


  28. #190
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    per arndt, every one of them had a role in incest. what were those roles?

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


  30. #191
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    4,230
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Fibers do not "have a right" to be in or on items specific to the crime.
    Patsy claimed she never wore that red sweater in the basement nor did she paint while wearing it. The paint tote and duct tape never left the basement- they are IMPORTANT parts of the crime scene. Patsy claimed JB put those huge panties on herself. How did JR's shirt fibers get INSIDE the crotch? Patsy was wearing the same clothes from the day before but NOT JR. It was fibers his shirt from the shirt worn the previous night that were found. And for fibers to be entwined inside the knot of the cord, that can only have happened when someone tied that knot.
    It isn't the presence of the fibers themselves. Yes, fibers from family members WILL be all over a home. But the presence of the fibers on items that were part of the crime ONLY (duct tape, garrote knot, staged panties, paint tote) are what points to a family coverup.
    Great clearly written post DeeDee, but can I add something? While fibers from family members' garments would be found on a dead child's clothing or person, I would bet there would be just the same chance threads, hairs or whatever, could just as easily have been transfered from an intruder. Unless that person was dressed in a sealed plastic bag.
    That transfer would be not only on a body, but elsewhere in the house if the intruder had free rein or access to the entire house. What evidence is there of someone, a stranger, outside the family members, being in the home?
    jmo
    The Hokey Pokey Clinic - A good place to turn yourself around:

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to azwriter For This Useful Post:


  32. #192
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    europe
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Fibers do not "have a right" to be in or on items specific to the crime.
    Patsy claimed she never wore that red sweater in the basement nor did she paint while wearing it. The paint tote and duct tape never left the basement- they are IMPORTANT parts of the crime scene. Patsy claimed JB put those huge panties on herself. How did JR's shirt fibers get INSIDE the crotch? Patsy was wearing the same clothes from the day before but NOT JR. It was fibers his shirt from the shirt worn the previous night that were found. And for fibers to be entwined inside the knot of the cord, that can only have happened when someone tied that knot.
    It isn't the presence of the fibers themselves. Yes, fibers from family members WILL be all over a home. But the presence of the fibers on items that were part of the crime ONLY (duct tape, garrote knot, staged panties, paint tote) are what points to a family coverup.
    The TRANSFERENCE of fibres means that fibres are carried on all sorts of conduits, the basement area WAS searched beore JB was found. there were people walking all over the house prior to the discovery, while i admit this was a huge boo boo on the cops part none the less it happened, therefore fibres were getting tramped all over the place, and remember we are talking miniscule fibres, that are picked up all the time.
    fibres from jb parents would have been all over jb and could travel to and even inside jb by means of transference.
    Remember the pubic/Auxillary hair that was never identified as well as other forign fibres? people on the parents did it side ignore A LOT of unidentifiable trace evidence as well as other intruder evidence too.
    Lets stick to the facts please.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to tennison For This Useful Post:


  34. #193
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    europe
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by azwriter View Post
    Great clearly written post DeeDee, but can I add something? While fibers from family members' garments would be found on a dead child's clothing or person, I would bet there would be just the same chance threads, hairs or whatever, could just as easily have been transfered from an intruder. Unless that person was dressed in a sealed plastic bag.
    That transfer would be not only on a body, but elsewhere in the house if the intruder had free rein or access to the entire house. What evidence is there of someone, a stranger, outside the family members, being in the home?
    jmo
    There WAS unidentified fibre/dna/trace evidence found.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to tennison For This Useful Post:


  36. #194
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,577
    Quote Originally Posted by tennison View Post
    The TRANSFERENCE of fibres means that fibres are carried on all sorts of conduits, the basement area WAS searched beore JB was found. there were people walking all over the house prior to the discovery, while i admit this was a huge boo boo on the cops part none the less it happened, therefore fibres were getting tramped all over the place, and remember we are talking miniscule fibres, that are picked up all the time.
    fibres from jb parents would have been all over jb and could travel to and even inside jb by means of transference.
    Remember the pubic/Auxillary hair that was never identified as well as other forign fibres? people on the parents did it side ignore A LOT of unidentifiable trace evidence as well as other intruder evidence too.
    Lets stick to the facts please.
    tennison,

    DeeDee249 enumerated the facts I note you do not address any of them.

    Your post merely tells us that there is environmental debri floating around the Ramsey household. That on its own does not explain any of the crime-scene evidence.

    A LOT of unidentifiable trace evidence as well as other intruder evidence too.
    You add nothing to the debate by citing unidentifiable trace evidence , whatever that is, if it is unidentifiable then it has no current value, just like the touch-dna inside JonBenet's underwear.

    Please do not waste the boards time with quotes regarding unidentifiable trace evidence because other than the relevance of its location you cannot infer anything at all from it with any confidence.

    Conversely we can infer something from forensic evidence found at the crime-scene precisely because BPD have identified the origin of the black fibers from John Ramsey's Israeli manufactured shirt, discovered inside JonBenet's underwear.

    As DeeDee249 indicates numerous items of forensic evidence found at the crime-scene link the Ramsey's directly to it.

    To date there is no forensic evidence linking any intruder to the crime-scene, curious that.



    .

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


  38. #195
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,577
    Quote Originally Posted by tennison View Post
    There WAS unidentified fibre/dna/trace evidence found.
    tennison,

    There will be lots and lots unidentified artifacts to be found in the Ramsey household. Even items long forgotten by the Ramsey's themselves.


    Unidentified simply means we do not know who the owner of the said artifact was. It certainly does not mean that the owner must be an intruder.


    .

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


  40. #196
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,289
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    what do you think her intent was?
    I think her intent was to make sure JBR was "clean" down there. I feel icky even typing this but I think PR was douching her and perhaps doing some sort of gynocological(sp?) exams on JBR.

  41. The Following User Says Thank You to Squishified For This Useful Post:


  42. #197
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by Squishified View Post
    I think her intent was to make sure JBR was "clean" down there. I feel icky even typing this but I think PR was douching her and perhaps doing some sort of gynocological(sp?) exams on JBR.
    I would feel icky typing out that too. Where do people come up with these crazy theories? What makes you think that Patsy was playing gyno with her daughter? Why sit around a speculate such vile ideas, with absolutely no proof? Geez, do unto others............

  43. The Following User Says Thank You to Junebug99 For This Useful Post:


  44. #198
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by Squishified View Post
    I think her intent was to make sure JBR was "clean" down there. I feel icky even typing this but I think PR was douching her and perhaps doing some sort of gynocological(sp?) exams on JBR.
    with the many dr appointments, that wouldnt be inconsistent with the conditions in her autopsy report.

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


  46. #199
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    europe
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    tennison,

    DeeDee249 enumerated the facts I note you do not address any of them.

    Your post merely tells us that there is environmental debri floating around the Ramsey household. That on its own does not explain any of the crime-scene evidence.


    You add nothing to the debate by citing unidentifiable trace evidence , whatever that is, if it is unidentifiable then it has no current value, just like the touch-dna inside JonBenet's underwear.

    Please do not waste the boards time with quotes regarding unidentifiable trace evidence because other than the relevance of its location you cannot infer anything at all from it with any confidence.

    Conversely we can infer something from forensic evidence found at the crime-scene precisely because BPD have identified the origin of the black fibers from John Ramsey's Israeli manufactured shirt, discovered inside JonBenet's underwear.

    As DeeDee249 indicates numerous items of forensic evidence found at the crime-scene link the Ramsey's directly to it.

    To date there is no forensic evidence linking any intruder to the crime-scene, curious that.



    .
    Your version of events seem to omit the existence of the points below


    1. Untraced animal hair found on duct tape AND jonbenets hands
    2. Unidentified palmprint on cellar door
    3. Baseball bat Not belonging to ramsays found near house WITH fibres from the basement carpet.
    4. Cotton fibres found On JB,Duct tape AND ligature not sourced to ramsays
    5. Pubic hair not sourced to ramsays found on blanket covering the Jonbenet
    6. Unidentified touch DNA found on Jonbenet

    Now you will notice that it seems a short list, others may have included evidence such as Stun guns, unidentified footprints, moved window grate, disturbed basement door, footprints in cellar, suitcase under the cellar window ect, but i am openminded enough to see these as possibly explainable by other means, i dont necessarily disbelieve these were evidence to "suggest" an intruder, but i believe we must work with the facts that have not been fully explained.

    maybe you could collate a factual list similar to see if your theory holds up as well.
    I doubt it.

  47. The Following User Says Thank You to tennison For This Useful Post:


  48. #200
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by tennison View Post
    Your version of events seem to omit the existence of the points below


    1. Untraced animal hair found on duct tape AND jonbenets hands
    2. Unidentified palmprint on cellar door
    3. Baseball bat Not belonging to ramsays found near house WITH fibres from the basement carpet.
    4. Cotton fibres found On JB,Duct tape AND ligature not sourced to ramsays
    5. Pubic hair not sourced to ramsays found on blanket covering the Jonbenet
    6. Unidentified touch DNA found on Jonbenet

    Now you will notice that it seems a short list, others may have included evidence such as Stun guns, unidentified footprints, moved window grate, disturbed basement door, footprints in cellar, suitcase under the cellar window ect, but i am openminded enough to see these as possibly explainable by other means, i dont necessarily disbelieve these were evidence to "suggest" an intruder, but i believe we must work with the facts that have not been fully explained.

    maybe you could collate a factual list similar to see if your theory holds up as well.
    I doubt it.
    I remember something from a long time ago sourcing the animal hair to the paintbrushes in the artists tray belonging to Patsy. I've tried finding it again and I can't, so maybe it was just an opinion all those years ago.

    The palm print belonged to Melinda Ramsey.

    The baseball bat was outside the house, not inside. Besides, wouldn't it be awkward to hit her with a baseball bat, given the size, while choking and stun-gunning (tic), her?

    Many fibers were identified, including fibers from Patsy's jacket that were found on the sticky side of the duct tape....that was left in the cellar.

    It was not a pubic hair.

    Stun guns? How many were there? This is news to me, I didn't realize they'd found stun guns.

    Moved grate? Disturbed basement door? Please, refresh my memory?

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


Page 8 of 47 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... 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
  •