898 users online (111 members and 787 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 164
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968

    The REAL target?

    I've often thought that the molestation was so minimal in comparison to all the time and effort devoted to extraneous matters that the real target of the crime was the parents.

    I would like to compare JBR and Dru Sjodin.

    Sure ... LOTS of differences: age, geography, etc.

    Dru Sjodin was attacked in a mall's parking lot in Grand Forks, ND as she left work, her attacker arrived home three hours later. Its clear he had the knife in his hand at the mall and used it to inflict some sort of wound, then he took her somewhere fairly nearby raped her, killed her and disposed of the corpse and then drove home.

    No note, no weird bindings, no ineffective duct tape, no extraneous matters. Clearly a sexual assault. No one is going to say the parents were involved or that Dru Sjodin was involved in pornography.

    This is how a pervert operates.

    In the JBR case the molestation is similar to a 'hesitatiion wound' inflicted by a knife, it represents doubt and insufficiency.

    The murder of JonBenet Ramsey was not a sex crime; it was done to satisfy the intruder's perverted lust, it was done to inflict torment on the parents.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,910
    Interesting... I've always thought that the indication of molestation, coupled with the fact that it was "minor" (sorry, couldn't think of a better way to describe...) and not a brutal rape, points to someone trying to make it look like a sexually motivated attack when it really wasn't.


    "Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler".

    Albert Einstein


    “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.

    Mahatma Gandhi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    350
    If the "intruder" wanted to inflict "torment" on the Ramseys - it wouldn't have been a "minor" molestation.

    Wrong, Toth. It would have been brutal.

    It was either a cover-up fora molestation that happened earlier - or, it was a cover-up to make it look like a sexual molestion (agreeing with Jack).

    You can't justify it by saying it was done to "torment" the parents - actually, the more I think about it - the more ridiculous that reasoning is.
    IMO -

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    394
    Originally posted by TLynn
    If the "intruder" wanted to inflict "torment" on the Ramseys - it wouldn't have been a "minor" molestation.

    Wrong, Toth. It would have been brutal.

    It was either a cover-up fora molestation that happened earlier - or, it was a cover-up to make it look like a sexual molestion (agreeing with Jack).

    You can't justify it by saying it was done to "torment" the parents - actually, the more I think about it - the more ridiculous that reasoning is.
    What Jack and TLynn said.

    The "minimal" molestation was done:

    1. to cover up previous molestation for when JBR was examined by autopsy

    or

    2. to helping in the staging of the "crime scene" to deflect suspicion away from John, Patsy and Burke.

    If someone had wanted to hurt the Ramseys by murdering and molesting JBR, she would not have been wrapped papoose-like (as described by John) and suffered "minimal" molestation. The damage to her body would have been horrific and the crime scene much more violent.



    My opinion.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,064
    The lesser severity (if there is such a thing) of the vaginal injuries could also indicate that the perp was caught in the act and had to terminate the dirty deed. Or that JB balked, fell and hit her head. She could have fallen due to lack of oxygen from some source.

  6. #6
    MaxiGuest
    Perhaps the killer thought JBR would welcome the sexual contact. The realization that she didn't, or the realization of what s/he was really doing, may have been enough to make him or her stop before more damage was done. It may also have been enough to make him or her kill.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,910
    Could be Imon. If that is the case don't you think it would point to a known perp. If an intruder was caught in the act there would be no ransom note, etc. And an intruder bent on molesting would not be bothered by an unconcious victim.


    "Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler".

    Albert Einstein


    “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.

    Mahatma Gandhi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    The "real target" of this crime was NOT the parents - it was JonBenet. An accident that occured with subsequent elaborate staging to cover up the crime and divert attention away from the real perp(s) and what really happened (which I believe as do many experts and authorities).

    If the real "target" of this crime were the parents, JonBenet's body would have been "displayed" for them to see. Instead, the complete opposite occured. The body was "hidden." In the most remote part of the house.
    Not only hidden, but wrapped up and laid on a blanket.
    Her body WIPED DOWN from the assault and her pants pulled back up.
    These are not actions taken by a "pervert" out to target the parents. These are actions taken by someone who not only cared about JonBenet but was remorseful about what had happened. Yet the overriding emotion that propelled the perp and/or helper(s) into gear - was FEAR. Of being found out.

    And then there is that pesky note. The note has NO other purpose in this crime, taking every aspect of the crime into account, expect to diver attention AWAY from the real perps.
    It is just full of clues and is the closest thing to a smoking gun there is in this crime.
    It is the one thing that marries the Ramsesy forever to what happened in their home that night. Their signature is all over it.
    Had they not concocted that silly letter/note - they may well have gotten away with the perfect crime.

    The REAL target of the crime was JonBenet herself.
    Tragically.
    This post is my opinion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,910
    Can't say I disagree with you Angel.


    "Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler".

    Albert Einstein


    “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.

    Mahatma Gandhi

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    It seems most of us have stood by our original theories,parents or intruder,for years,the only thing we waiver on is how we perceive the motivation behind the murder. Was it sexually motivated,was the family the target,and ..on.
    This week,ya' all know I reconsider this from time to time....,I think the killer was embarrassed that he molested a child,and used something inanimate ( the paintbrush) to distance himself,and nothing more. A similar thing happened locally,a child was killed by a brutal rapist with a history of raping adult women,the child was his only kill and the only one among the victims that was molested with an object.
    jmo


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,199
    sissi...so, the molester molested the child with an object because he was embarrassed to have molested a child? Was he then so embarrassed to have molested the child with an object that he murdered her? I don't get your reasoning.

  12. #12
    MaxiGuest
    It sounds crazy, but maybe the killer just didn't have the stomach for what she or he'd done. I've read about would-be rapists who killed because they couldn't live with their behavior or their failure to actually accomplish the rape.

    These types sometimes engage in undoing behavior like covering the body or even just covering the victim's head. How sick is that?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    968
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by sissi
    It seems most of us have stood by our original theories, parents or intruder,for years,the only thing we waiver on is how we perceive the motivation behind the murder /QUOTE] Yes, very few seem actually to consider the evidence. There are some who even believe there had been ongoing molestation despite absolutely no evidence of it and considerable evidence against it. And as Prof. Tracy put it 'If they think Burke did it, they are barking mad'.

    Thats the hesitancy I had in starting this thread.

    Had Dru Sjodin been accosted at her home there would have been no note and maybe no concealment.

    I've wondered why a note of any sort much a note that was so strange and fanciful? I've wondered why the concealment? Why that particular little girl? Why the knife, cord, tape, rope, sack, flashlight(?), bat(?). Was he actually disorganized or merely wanted to give the appearance of it? Why a somewhat "minimal" assault? Was he hesitant? Was he merely adding insult to injury? Was he actually thrilled by his activities or was he revolted? Was it experimentation?

    I just see Dru's murder as a simple 'rape/homicide'. And I see the murder of JonBenet Ramsey as just having too many facets to ever use the word "simple" about it at all.

    Lou Smit's "she was a pedophile's dream, therefore a pedophile killed her" is tempting but it seems a bit too simplistic and I think it is wrong. I think it may have been made to merely look like a pedophile's actions.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Originally posted by Toth
    Why that particular little girl?
    Because she had the bad luck of living in the home of the molester and killer.
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,199
    Originally posted by sissi
    And as Prof. Tracy put it 'If they think Burke did it, they are barking mad'.
    sissi, apparently you and Tracy consider Cyril Wecht and Michael Baden both "barking mad" along with the rest of us who think Burke could have done it, since both Dr. Wecht and Dr. Baden believe that Burke was capable of having killed JonBenet. Wecht said there was nothing that was done to JonBenet that Burke couldn't have done, and Baden said Burke needs to be looked at.

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast