Sexual Assault -Merged-

New Posts

C

calus_3

Former Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
9
I see a lot of people here talking about how Karr couldn't be her because he said he had sex with her and there are no signs that she was raped.

Well....trying not to be graphic.....but sexually assualted can mean many many different things.

Just because there was little evidence of traditional insertive sex doesn't mean that she wasn't sexually assaulted. I mean if some guy grabs a little school girl walking home from school and fondles her, was she not sexually assaulted?

Let's be cautious here kicking around innuendo and assumptions about the facts as being told by anonymous posters and overhyped media types. Let's wait for the facts to come out. I am going to reassert my position that the DA's office would NOT have let this circus go on if they didn't have something concrete.

Cal
 
Point Taken...

In reference to 'what the DA knows that we are unaware of...', your post brought up a question for me...

The link to the Smoking Gun on a thread here listed various pages of warrants including findings at JBR's crime scene. It mentioned a black light used to see if semen was present on JBR's body. The recorder of the information stated that what was present when viewing it with a black light was consistant with finding semen present, but when the same area was swabbed, no semen was found.

Was this inconsistancy in crime scene tests ever explained? Were there speculations made as to why the black light showed the presence of what is concistant with that of semen yet the swab test did not??? Is the black light test speculative and the swab test definitive...and human error was to blame?
Do any threads here discuss this?
 
angelwngs said:
Point Taken...

In reference to 'what the DA knows that we are unaware of...', your post brought up a question for me...

The link to the Smoking Gun on a thread here listed various pages of warrants including findings at JBR's crime scene. It mentioned a black light used to see if semen was present on JBR's body. The recorder of the information stated that what was present when viewing it with a black light was consistant with finding semen present present but when the same area was swabbed, no semen was found.

Was this inconsistancy in crime scene tests ever explained? Were there speculations made as to why the black light showed the presence of what is concistant with that of semen yet the swab test did not??? Is the black light test speculative and the swab test definitive...and human error was to blame?
Do any threads here discuss this?
Click to expand...
i remember reading this also but can shed no light on it for you.
 
I doubt an intruder would go through the trouble of breaking in and not rape her. Unless she died before it got that far.
 
InnocentBystander said:
I doubt an intruder would go through the trouble of breaking in and not rape her. Unless she died before it got that far.
Click to expand...
A penis is not needed to rape someone. There are always other items one can use e.g. paint brush handle. I think who ever assualted JBR was possibly a 'non performer'.
 
Kazzbar on another post about sexual assault posted this but it was so important, I thought it needed its own post. About the sexual assault, we were talking about what constituted it. Kazz wrote this:

"A penis is not needed to rape someone. There are always other items one can use e.g. paint brush handle. I think who ever assualted JBR was possibly a 'non performer".


I don't think I have ever seen this theory:

Karr is clearly two balls worth short of manhood. He looks like a woman and is confused sexually. He watches the Polly Klass murder trial and either feeds or incubates his desire for little girls and their murders. He somehow becomes fixated on JBR....perhaps through his on-line *advertiser censored* searches he hits childs beauty pagents. He sees JBR and becomes fascinated with her and decides she will be his victim. After months of plotting and planning, he sees his chance. He breaks in or gets in, one way or the other, takes JBR to the basement and....whadda you know, he can't perform. Because of stress, gender confusion, or whatever he can't do the deed. He becomes so enraged that he grabs the nearby materials and visciously chokes her to death/near death and is still mad. He takes the flashlight and bashes her over the head in a rage.

I think I am onto something. The autopsy is clear that it was death by stangulation followed closely by or completed by being hit by an object (the flashlight was an exact match for the cracks in the skull). While I could see that someone in the family could bash the skull in in a fit of rage, I don't see that they could do all that to JBR.

One of the hardest things to explain if you believed the IDI theories were the nurturing pieces of the evidence found with JBR. Her favorite nightgown, etc. being placed nearby....almost reeked of a guilt ridden parent trying to console their child in death. But it could also be someone who believed they deeply cared for JBR...as in "we were in love" and "I loved JBR".

I think this kook fits just perfectly.

Cal
 
Yep, I've thought this scenario through before myself, but I still find it hard to believe this guy did it. Guess the "evidence" or lack thereof will tell the tale.
 
A non-performer is a person who is so enraged by it, he simply is on the prowl to kill women. He blames all his sexual problems on women.

Jack the Ripper is the perfect example in my opinion.
 
InnocentBystander said:
A non-performer is a person who is so enraged by it, he simply is on the prowl to kill women. He blames all his sexual problems on women.

Jack the Ripper is the perfect example in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Whoever killed JBR was performing , just not with his penis. How do we know Jack the Ripper was a non-performer?
 
calus_3 said:
Kazzbar on another post about sexual assault posted this but it was so important, I thought it needed its own post. About the sexual assault, we were talking about what constituted it. Kazz wrote this:

"A penis is not needed to rape someone. There are always other items one can use e.g. paint brush handle. I think who ever assualted JBR was possibly a 'non performer".


I don't think I have ever seen this theory:

Karr is clearly two balls worth short of manhood. He looks like a woman and is confused sexually. He watches the Polly Klass murder trial and either feeds or incubates his desire for little girls and their murders. He somehow becomes fixated on JBR....perhaps through his on-line *advertiser censored* searches he hits childs beauty pagents. He sees JBR and becomes fascinated with her and decides she will be his victim. After months of plotting and planning, he sees his chance. He breaks in or gets in, one way or the other, takes JBR to the basement and....whadda you know, he can't perform. Because of stress, gender confusion, or whatever he can't do the deed. He becomes so enraged that he grabs the nearby materials and visciously chokes her to death/near death and is still mad. He takes the flashlight and bashes her over the head in a rage.

I think I am onto something. The autopsy is clear that it was death by stangulation followed closely by or completed by being hit by an object (the flashlight was an exact match for the cracks in the skull). While I could see that someone in the family could bash the skull in in a fit of rage, I don't see that they could do all that to JBR.

One of the hardest things to explain if you believed the IDI theories were the nurturing pieces of the evidence found with JBR. Her favorite nightgown, etc. being placed nearby....almost reeked of a guilt ridden parent trying to console their child in death. But it could also be someone who believed they deeply cared for JBR...as in "we were in love" and "I loved JBR".

I think this kook fits just perfectly.

Cal
Click to expand...
-----------

I have heard of this type of rape.
 
calus_3 said:
I see a lot of people here talking about how Karr couldn't be her because he said he had sex with her and there are no signs that she was raped.

Well....trying not to be graphic.....but sexually assualted can mean many many different things.

Just because there was little evidence of traditional insertive sex doesn't mean that she wasn't sexually assaulted. I mean if some guy grabs a little school girl walking home from school and fondles her, was she not sexually assaulted?

Let's be cautious here kicking around innuendo and assumptions about the facts as being told by anonymous posters and overhyped media types. Let's wait for the facts to come out. I am going to reassert my position that the DA's office would NOT have let this circus go on if they didn't have something concrete.

Cal
Click to expand...
I agree with this completely Cal. First, that sexually assualted can mean many different things. Second, that I can't imagine that the DA's office would let this get so blown out of proportion if they didn't have something concrete.
 
Your theory doesn't explain how the writer of the ransom note knew that JR had received a bonus of $118,000. In order to link your theory with the facts, Karr would have had to have made contact with someone close enough to the Ramseys to know this information.
 
angelwngs said:
..

In reference to 'what the DA knows that we are unaware of...', your post brought up a question for me...

The link to the Smoking Gun on a thread here listed various pages of warrants including findings at JBR's crime scene. It mentioned a black light used to see if semen was present on JBR's body. The recorder of the information stated that what was present when viewing it with a black light was consistant with finding semen present, but when the same area was swabbed, no semen was found.

Was this inconsistancy in crime scene tests ever explained? Were there speculations made as to why the black light showed the presence of what is concistant with that of semen yet the swab test did not??? Is the black light test speculative and the swab test definitive...and human error was to blame?
Do any threads here discuss this?
Click to expand...
~~~At the risk of appearing narcissistic, I am quoting myself above... My actual question is, "Could 'he' have been performing, sexually in addition to the proof of sexual activity using an instrument consistant with the paintbrush? (We know there were slivers of brown material inside her consistant with the paint brush.) Could the black light have shown only trace evidence of semen contacting JBR's thighs, and swab evidence having been virtually destroyed when she was 'cleaned up' in that area? We know that the evidence shows she was 'wiped down'. ????
 
calus_3 said:
Kazzbar on another post about sexual assault posted this but it was so important, I thought it needed its own post. About the sexual assault, we were talking about what constituted it. Kazz wrote this:

"A penis is not needed to rape someone. There are always other items one can use e.g. paint brush handle. I think who ever assualted JBR was possibly a 'non performer".


I don't think I have ever seen this theory:

Karr is clearly two balls worth short of manhood. He looks like a woman and is confused sexually. He watches the Polly Klass murder trial and either feeds or incubates his desire for little girls and their murders. He somehow becomes fixated on JBR....perhaps through his on-line *advertiser censored* searches he hits childs beauty pagents. He sees JBR and becomes fascinated with her and decides she will be his victim. After months of plotting and planning, he sees his chance. He breaks in or gets in, one way or the other, takes JBR to the basement and....whadda you know, he can't perform. Because of stress, gender confusion, or whatever he can't do the deed. He becomes so enraged that he grabs the nearby materials and visciously chokes her to death/near death and is still mad. He takes the flashlight and bashes her over the head in a rage.

I think I am onto something. The autopsy is clear that it was death by stangulation followed closely by or completed by being hit by an object (the flashlight was an exact match for the cracks in the skull). While I could see that someone in the family could bash the skull in in a fit of rage, I don't see that they could do all that to JBR.

One of the hardest things to explain if you believed the IDI theories were the nurturing pieces of the evidence found with JBR. Her favorite nightgown, etc. being placed nearby....almost reeked of a guilt ridden parent trying to console their child in death. But it could also be someone who believed they deeply cared for JBR...as in "we were in love" and "I loved JBR".

I think this kook fits just perfectly.

Cal
Click to expand...
Before you get carried away, read K777Angels post "The Big Question" and give reasonable explainations to all the qeustions.

Also explain why he would choose to kidnap her on Christmas eve instead of just snatching her from or on the way to school.

Why he found it necessary to whipe the flashlight AND batteries even though he was wearing gloves, or if he were not wearing gloves manages to avoid leaving a single fingerprint.

Why he found it necessary to latch the winecellar door.

How he was able to give birth four times if he was an underperformer.

And finally what catch did he have on the R's to make them start hiering lawers to keep them from being arrested instead of looking for him.
 
That or he was in the house long enough to find it....perhaps John had it sitting on his desk waiting to take it to the bank or maybe the killer found the stub.

Just as that tends to exclude an intruder, I don't think the Ramseys (on their best day) could envision the layers of deflection putting in the actual dollar amount of John's bonus. Even in my best attempt at deception...if it was a harrowing night at the Ramseys.....could I figure out how putting that in the ransom note would implicate someone else. Just like you said, it almost implicates them.

I think whoever did it...if it wasn't a ramsey....was in that house for a LONG time before the Ramseys got home. I don't think that he wrote it during the actual kidnapping/murder.

Cal
 
Wasn't there a bank statement laying out with the 118,000 amount showing?
IMO an intruder had plenty of time to roam around the house and get very familiar with things when everyone was at the party.

OB
 
Old Broad said:
Wasn't there a bank statement laying out with the 118,000 amount showing?
IMO an intruder had plenty of time to roam around the house and get very familiar with things when everyone was at the party.

OB
Click to expand...
Even if there was a bankstatement. Why would the kidnapper choose that amount? Normally kidnappers has some idea about what they want, not just toss a dice or pick a number from a paper lying about.
 
calus_3 said:
That or he was in the house long enough to find it....perhaps John had it sitting on his desk waiting to take it to the bank or maybe the killer found the stub.

Just as that tends to exclude an intruder, I don't think the Ramseys (on their best day) could envision the layers of deflection putting in the actual dollar amount of John's bonus. Even in my best attempt at deception...if it was a harrowing night at the Ramseys.....could I figure out how putting that in the ransom note would implicate someone else. Just like you said, it almost implicates them.

I think whoever did it...if it wasn't a ramsey....was in that house for a LONG time before the Ramseys got home. I don't think that he wrote it during the actual kidnapping/murder.

Cal
Click to expand...
I agree Cal. Especially about the time frame. I also believe the intruder was in the house for a long time while the Ramsey's were out.

The dollar amount of the ransom note leads away from the Ramsey's IMO.

Has the possibility of the intruder just walking in and out of a door been ruled out?
 
JBean said:
I agree Cal. Especially about the time frame. I also believe the intruder was in the house for a long time while the Ramsey's were out.

The dollar amount of the ransom note leads away from the Ramsey's IMO.

Has the possibility of the intruder just walking in and out of a door been ruled out?
Click to expand...
Has the possibility of the intruder just walking in and out of a door been ruled out?

Why do you think Lou Smit climbed in and out of the basement window showing that was possible?
 

The $118,000 amount is the most sure pointer to Ramsey involvement in my opinion.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 99 more.
Total: 3,691 (members: 100, guests: 3,591)

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
3,591
Total visitors
3,691
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,528
Messages
17,953,904
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top