The REAL target?

New Posts

T

Toth

Inactive
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
967
Reaction score
17
Website
Visit site
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 *advertiser censored*.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

What Jack and TLynn said. :clap:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by sissi
And as Prof. Tracy put it 'If they think Burke did it, they are barking mad'.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Toth quote:
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.

I believe it was a very wrong assumption,Lou had it half right,an intruder did it!!!!!!!!!.....but he ,as well as the rest,helped the trail run cold by looking into every nook and cranny for a pedophile.
What kind of guy does this? Certainly not the guy that lays in wait for the quick grab of a playground child,nor the guy who works the fatherless boy at cubscouts,this was far more high risk .
The Leopold Loeb guys were close..maybe? They made it a game.
JMO and just for today:)
 
I wanna know how Lou knows what pedophiles dream about, LOL. Seriously, I guess he'd probably know from his training. However, with an out of the blue attack, as some say, I doubt it was pedophile. Those guys, from what I've read and seen, usually make the child their friend, first, and if any man had been near JB that much, I'd think the R's would have clued the LE in on it, and so far, (if they did clue them in) nothing matches. I poopoo the pedophile scenario.
 
Originally posted by Ivy
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.
Click to expand...
Forget the experts. Anyone so naive that they think a 10 year old boy couldn't swing a baseball bat hard enough to break the skull on a 6 year old little girl shouldn't be allowed out of the house alone.
 
Originally posted by sissi
I don't know why the stuff,but just did a little search and came up with this.
http://www.ratdogdick.com/askratdog/rd053199.shtml

jmo
Click to expand...
Reply from Lannie,
Thanks Sissi,very interesting,there was someone wanting to help, she knew she had dates ,phone records,ect,ect,.what struck me was that no one was willing to help with the crime at the ramsey home. All I can think of is "we lost our cell phones for a mo. HENCE there are no records of phone calls that night.Never saw THAT teddy bear,faint, Faint.Get my Golf clubs out of that house next day ,Get out of town the day of finding her body,don't care who Burke is with or how long he is unprotected, just get us out of town now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 59 more.
Total: 1,365 (members: 60, guests: 1,305)

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
1,305
Total visitors
1,365
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,787
Messages
17,958,879
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top