Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

who molested/abused JB?

  • JR

    Votes: 180 27.1%
  • BR

    Votes: 203 30.6%
  • JAR

    Votes: 28 4.2%
  • a close family friend

    Votes: 41 6.2%
  • a stranger/stalker a la JMK

    Votes: 20 3.0%
  • PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

    Votes: 89 13.4%
  • she wasn't previously abused/molested

    Votes: 103 15.5%

  • Total voters
    664
Status
Not open for further replies.
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. :innocent:
 
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.
 
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!




.
 
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 :)
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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 :innocent:

I'm just at lunch, so I will be back later to answer the rest :)
 
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.
 
per arndt, every one of them had a role in incest. what were those roles?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.



.
 
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.


.
 
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.
 
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............
 
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.
 
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.:seeya:
 
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.:seeya:

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
1,635
Total visitors
1,747

Forum statistics

Threads
589,179
Messages
17,915,161
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top