Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

Nuisanceposter · Oct 4, 2011

Junebug99 said:
They answered with I'm not going to provide one, or it's common knowledge no link is necessary. :innocent:

Are you saying that someone on this board came right out and told you "I'm not going to provide a link"? I must have missed that. That doesn't sound characteristic of WS or the JonBenet board.

How many times have you been told that? Were you told that by one person, or have you been told that on more than one occasion, by more than one person?

What was the context in which that statement was allegedly made?

Could you please provide a link to that for us, so we can all see it as well - so that it doesn't happen again? I'm sure you won't mind, as we can tell how important links are to you by your constant demand for them and consistent derision for others over alleged lack of.

SuperDave said:
After 15 years, some of us are sick of doing everyone else's research for them and not having it do any good.

Some of us haven't got all the patience in the world.

Some of us don't feel like being put upon anymore.

Thank you, SD. I quite agree. Especially when the links that have been provided aren't even clicked on or fully read by the people who insist on them. That's just an exercise in futility, and it's not only discouraging, it's disheartening.

No offense meant, but:

At a certain point, Junebug, YOU are responsible for doing your own homework. You can't expect people to spell every little thing out for you.

The regular posters here have all done our own research to get to where we are now, and yes, it is a labor-intensive task, but it is quite necessary when discussing a case as complicated and as confusing as this one.

Almost everything we discuss has already been discussed on this board, and the links will be there, too - you just have to be willing to spend a little time doing some investigative work. We've all done it before, and we still do it today. It's an integral part of discussing the case.

One of the best things about being a member here at WS is being able to use the search feature. Search engines like Google are also well worth your time when you want to look something up. There's also a bonus to researching items discussed, too - I often find that looking up one thing leads me to more information and other aspects of the case to research and discuss.

This has been my opinion.

vlpate · Oct 4, 2011

Nuisanceposter said:
Are you saying that someone on this board came right out and told you "I'm not going to provide a link"? I must have missed that. That doesn't sound characteristic of WS or the JonBenet board.

How many times have you been told that? Were you told that by one person, or have you been told that on more than one occasion, by more than one person?

What was the context in which that statement was allegedly made?

Could you please provide a link to that for us, so we can all see it as well - so that it doesn't happen again? I'm sure you won't mind, as we can tell how important links are to you by your constant demand for them and consistent derision for others over alleged lack of.

Thank you, SD. I quite agree. Especially when the links that have been provided aren't even clicked on or fully read by the people who insist on them. That's just an exercise in futility, and it's not only discouraging, it's disheartening.

No offense meant, but:

At a certain point, Junebug, YOU are responsible for doing your own homework. You can't expect people to spell every little thing out for you.

The regular posters here have all done our own research to get to where we are now, and yes, it is a labor-intensive task, but it is quite necessary when discussing a case as complicated and as confusing as this one.

Almost everything we discuss has already been discussed on this board, and the links will be there, too - you just have to be willing to spend a little time doing some investigative work. We've all done it before, and we still do it today. It's an integral part of discussing the case.

One of the best things about being a member here at WS is being able to use the search feature. Search engines like Google are also well worth your time when you want to look something up. There's also a bonus to researching items discussed, too - I often find that looking up one thing leads me to more information and other aspects of the case to research and discuss.

This has been my opinion.

Thank you. Very well put.

vlpate · Oct 4, 2011

UKGuy said:
vlpate,

The distinction between a staged and actual molestation was not clarified.

Not quite. Here semantics does play a role, but when a Coroner uses the term digital it is not a throw away line intended for wide interpretation, it has precise meaning e.g. a finger.

So you reckon at the time of her death the only episode of sexual contact occurred only as the result of staging?

Some members think that JonBenet was sexually assaulted upstairs prior to her head injury occurring. Then to cover all this up she was staged as the victim of an intruder pedophile. Later this was abandoned and re-staged as an abduction scenario with JonBenet by necessity being redressed and her sexual assault being hidden from immediate view?

If as you suggest the sexual molestation was staged the night she died. why bother if it is an abduction that you are staging, not an assault by a pedophile, and if you are staging the latter why bother hiding it, beneath all the clothing?

.

Wow, I had a very long post in reply and it went away when I tried to review. I'll try again later.

Whaleshark · Oct 5, 2011

i've found that when i am in the middle of a long post reply, it helps if I highlight and do a 'copy' of my typed response just in case I lose it, get kicked out of the page, or am typing my response so long that I get logged out...then I can go back in/log back in, find the thread I was working on, and 'paste' my reply back in. After losing my replies like this the hard way.... I always remember to do a copy of my reply every once in a while if I am in the middle of a big reply...

...hope that helps

cindysue · Oct 5, 2011

I am confused about if PR was part of the staging ,why wouldn't she put the right size clothes on JB? It seems that whoever did redress her had no idea what to put on her IMO

vlpate · Oct 5, 2011

UKGuy said:
vlpate,

The distinction between a staged and actual molestation was not clarified.

Not quite. Here semantics does play a role, but when a Coroner uses the term digital it is not a throw away line intended for wide interpretation, it has precise meaning e.g. a finger.

You are a very smart individual, and you know "consistent" is not a throw away word either. It's just a matter of selective throw away words. Many experts found the handwriting "consistent" with Patsy's handwriting...some find that black and white, some find it gray -- interpretation. I know a "digit" is a finger, but it can also, IMO, be representative. He didn't expound, so we do. It's been going on for half my daughter's lifetime

So you reckon at the time of her death the only episode of sexual contact occurred only as the result of staging?

I don't know whether it was the only episode or not, but I believe that night was staged.

Some members think that JonBenet was sexually assaulted upstairs prior to her head injury occurring. Then to cover all this up she was staged as the victim of an intruder pedophile. Later this was abandoned and re-staged as an abduction scenario with JonBenet by necessity being redressed and her sexual assault being hidden from immediate view?

I would not be one of those members, although I do respect their opinion.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that PR was oblivious to the head injury being so severe. I think she was extremely pist that JonBenet wet herself -- either in bed or in the car. In a fit of rage she yanked her up by her turtleneck and drug her to the bathroom. She won't yell at her because that would make her look bad in front of JR and Burke. Ohhhh, but she is SO mad. She's tired and just wants to go to bed. She shakes her hard, banging her head against a hard surface in the bathroom, still twisting the turtleneck with brute force, wiping her HARD and without realizing her own strength -- JBR passes out and PR can't revive her. OMG, what do I do, what do I DO! "JonBenet, wake up" she says quietly, but JonBenet doesn't respond. She takes her downstairs to hide from anyone in the house hearing what is going on. She forgets to get something to redress her in. The dryer has a blanket and some longjohns. She remembers the panties that were supposed to be a gift. It is not by chance that she retrieves Wednesday. She is freaking out. She decides to just leave JonBenet in the dank room, thinking it's a good hiding place, and writes the ransom note -- that will explain why she's not here. Good. Done. But then there is the possibility her body will be found...what would make the perp leave her? Sexual molestation. Patsy needs to make it look like AEA.... or not. I don't know because I wasn't there. No one knows for sure, but there was no cover up for the head injury, so I don't think she knew about it. I don't think the cover up is three fold at all...just the strangulation and the abuse to JBR's privates. IMO, PR was just as shocked at the head injury discovery as we were. How could she know?

If as you suggest the sexual molestation was staged the night she died. why bother if it is an abduction that you are staging, not an assault by a pedophile, and if you are staging the latter why bother hiding it, beneath all the clothing?

See above

DeeDee249 · Oct 5, 2011

cindysue said:
I am confused about if PR was part of the staging ,why wouldn't she put the right size clothes on JB? It seems that whoever did redress her had no idea what to put on her IMO

This has been discussed before. JB'c clothes WERE the right size. It was her panties that were not the right size. Here are some reasons for it:

IF JB was wearing panties in her right size that said "Wednesday" that became soiled or bloodied (it is an established FACT that JB bled from the vagina), they needed to be replaced with an identical Wednesday pair. The only pair available was the too-big pair bought for an older cousin. They were likely right there in the basement, wrapped up in a gift to be sent to that cousin after the R returned from their holiday vacation.
This also eliminated the need to go back to JB's room/bathroom to get another pair of her own, with her brother in the room right down the hall.
Even if the "wednesday" theory is not a factor, using the panties from the basement gift box still eliminated the need to go back to her room for her own panties.
Personally, I have always maintained that the stagers never thought that the size of the panties would become such an issue. They were put on JB UNDER her longjohns, which were snug-fitting, and it wasn't until the coroner removed her longjohns on the autopsy table that anyone noticed the size of the panties she was wearing.
Whoever redressed her put the panties on her for one of those reasons. They knew what they were doing and why. They just didn't think anyone else would notice.

azwriter · Oct 6, 2011

DeeDee249 said:
This has been discussed before. JB'c clothes WERE the right size. It was her panties that were not the right size. Here are some reasons for it:

IF JB was wearing panties in her right size that said "Wednesday" that became soiled or bloodied (it is an established FACT that JB bled from the vagina), they needed to be replaced with an identical Wednesday pair. The only pair available was the too-big pair bought for an older cousin. They were likely right there in the basement, wrapped up in a gift to be sent to that cousin after the R returned from their holiday vacation.
This also eliminated the need to go back to JB's room/bathroom to get another pair of her own, with her brother in the room right down the hall.
Even if the "wednesday" theory is not a factor, using the panties from the basement gift box still eliminated the need to go back to her room for her own panties.
Personally, I have always maintained that the stagers never thought that the size of the panties would become such an issue. They were put on JB UNDER her longjohns, which were snug-fitting, and it wasn't until the coroner removed her longjohns on the autopsy table that anyone noticed the size of the panties she was wearing.
Whoever redressed her put the panties on her for one of those reasons. They knew what they were doing and why. They just didn't think anyone else would notice.

The size of the panties could very well have not been an issue as you say Dee Dee. But the fact that she be wearing panties was important to someone.

I don't know why the original pair of Wednesday panties were removed, maybe because of the blood. That sounds like a good idea since evidence showed blood was wiped from her legs.

I think the underlying reason for any panties being on her, especially one's that were Wednesdays was necessary because JonBenet had to appear as she did when she was at the party and also how she appear when she got home and as the parents claimed: put straight to bed since she was asleep or zonked out.

It was important that the story being told included that no one in the family had any contact (outside of removing her coat and outer clothes) with JonBenet once she arrived home and was put into bed sound asleep.

Why is that? Why did the person(s) who placed her in the "wine cellar" care what she was wearing? Would a member of a small foreign faction care that this little girl be found wearing a pair of Bloomies with the day of the week Wednesday on them?

Also, since I am on the RDI side of the fence, I would suggest that as the underware was being changed, for whatever reason, a plan was being formed by both or either parent of what to tell officials about JonBenet's arrival at home. It all had to look very innocent and typical.

It appears to me that step-by-step as this unfolded, the parents had to be communicating with each other as to what to tell police that happened. They knew they would need to answer questions. They had to be prepared. They probably went over a mental check list to make sure everything was covered...but one thing they did forget - the pineapple snack. They couldn't include that because the story was that she arrived home zonked out and no one in the immediate family was to have seen her again until her body was recovered or wink, wink until the kidnappers returned her.

I suggest that both parents were quite busy covering their tracks. Which leads me to another question - why was it necessary for JonBenet to appear to have been sexually insulted by someone that night ? Especially if in the final staging of the body it appeared that part of the crime was hidden?

Perhaps it had to do with the idea that she was sexually abused in the commission of the staging in order to hide previous sexual contact that possibly was going on that very night. The person(s) who hid her, prepped her, did the staging, knew about the on-going sexual abuse she had gone through and by staging another molestation, were trying to hide previous abuse.

I think to unravel it all, we have to work backwards and figure out the reason for every little step - all the way back to why if this all began with an accident, why wasn't she taken to the hospital immediately. I suggest it was because of the evidence within her body that this little girl was molested before.

The End. Have fun with my thoughts.

jmo

Nuisanceposter · Oct 6, 2011

azwriter said:
Perhaps it had to do with the idea that she was sexually abused in the commission of the staging in order to hide previous sexual contact that possibly was going on that very night. The person(s) who hid her, prepped her, did the staging, knew about the on-going sexual abuse she had gone through and by staging another molestation, were trying to hide previous abuse.

I agree with this 100%.

IMO, both PR and JR knew that evidence of prior sexual abuse was there to be found, and they attempted to cover it up or make it look like she had only been molested on the night she was murdered. IMO, they did not know that the erosion and lack of intact hymen would be as obvious to the coroner as it was when the autopsy was conducted, but they had some idea that evidence of prior abuse may be detected and did whatever they could to try and cover it up, or make it look different than what it was.

Their reactions when told by police of the evidence of prior abuse seem to me to be the reactions of two people who already knew their daughter had been molested but want to pretend they didn't by acting like they are outright indignant, insulted at the very suggestion, and in abject disbelief that it could have been true.

I know you don't always know how you would react in certain situations, but let me tell you, I do know that if my daughter was killed at age 6 and the detectives investigating the murder informed me that evidence of prior sexual abuse was discovered in addition to my baby having been molested the night she was killed, I would have broken down in tears and begun questioning myself out loud as to WHO could possibly have that kind of access to her, and how I didn't know - had she tried to tell me, and I just didn't understand? Who? When? How?

I would have been near inconsolable that my poor little girl had been put through such suffering and I hadn't been aware, much less able to stop it.

IMO, it certainly sounds like Patsy's mother Nedra Paugh was also aware that JonBenet had been the victim of ongoing sexual abuse with the outrageous "only a little bit molested" comment. ANY bit is TOO MUCH.

I do not even to begin to comprehend what kind of situation was going on where the victim's own family members react as if they all knew but want to give the impression that they didn't by responding with "If you're trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter" (JR), "She was only a little bit molested" (NP), and Patsy's response is to question the findings (from the '98 interviews):

TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
0581
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
16 been violated like that?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
23 did not.
24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
0582
1 see where it says that and who reported that.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
7 photos, but--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
9 that?
10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
11 it's pretty significant?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
20 be fair to my client.
21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
22 reliable medical information that we have at
23 this point, that is a fact.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
0583
1 me here?
2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
6 that she was assaulted?
7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked.
12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
16 you?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --

I don't know about everyone else, but...that "Yeah, prove it" and "find it and show it to me" response does not sound like she's anywhere near as shocked as she would have everyone believe to hear that chronic as well as acute abuse was found in JonBenet's vaginal area.

vlpate · Oct 6, 2011

Nuisanceposter said:
I agree with this 100%.

IMO, both PR and JR knew that evidence of prior sexual abuse was there to be found, and they attempted to cover it up or make it look like she had only been molested on the night she was murdered. IMO, they did not know that the erosion and lack of intact hymen would be as obvious to the coroner as it was when the autopsy was conducted, but they had some idea that evidence of prior abuse may be detected and did whatever they could to try and cover it up, or make it look different than what it was.

Their reactions when told by police of the evidence of prior abuse seem to me to be the reactions of two people who already knew their daughter had been molested but want to pretend they didn't by acting like they are outright indignant, insulted at the very suggestion, and in abject disbelief that it could have been true.

I know you don't always know how you would react in certain situations, but let me tell you, I do know that if my daughter was killed at age 6 and the detectives investigating the murder informed me that evidence of prior sexual abuse was discovered in addition to my baby having been molested the night she was killed, I would have broken down in tears and begun questioning myself out loud as to WHO could possibly have that kind of access to her, and how I didn't know - had she tried to tell me, and I just didn't understand? Who? When? How?

I would have been near inconsolable that my poor little girl had been put through such suffering and I hadn't been aware, much less able to stop it.

IMO, it certainly sounds like Patsy's mother Nedra Paugh was also aware that JonBenet had been the victim of ongoing sexual abuse with the outrageous "only a little bit molested" comment. ANY bit is TOO MUCH.

I do not even to begin to comprehend what kind of situation was going on where the victim's own family members react as if they all knew but want to give the impression that they didn't by responding with "If you're trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter" (JR), "She was only a little bit molested" (NP), and Patsy's response is to question the findings (from the '98 interviews):

TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
0581
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
16 been violated like that?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
23 did not.
24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
0582
1 see where it says that and who reported that.
2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
7 photos, but--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
9 that?
10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
11 it's pretty significant?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
20 be fair to my client.
21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
22 reliable medical information that we have at
23 this point, that is a fact.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
0583
1 me here?
2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
6 that she was assaulted?
7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
11 shocked.
12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
16 you?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --

I don't know about everyone else, but...that "Yeah, prove it" and "find it and show it to me" response does not sound like she's anywhere near as shocked as she would have everyone believe to hear that chronic as well as acute abuse was found in JonBenet's vaginal area.

Hi Nuisance,

I'm still on the fence about prior sexual abuse, and I am NO fan of PR, but this reaction does not surprise me or tell me anything. Think about how many times you've heard a child say they told their parents about sexual abuse and the mother calling them a liar. Mothers do not want to hear there was something so awful going on without their knowledge. Either because a.) That would make them a bad mother, or b) They don't want to hear it about the person abusing the child (Burke or JR...Burke, IMO, if anyone).

I think Patsy would have the same reaction if Haney had said JBR showed signs of neglect because there were signs that her fingernails were chronically filthy.

Patsy was perfect and her life and children were perfect, and thus the staging and cover-up, IMO, of the death of JBR by her hands.

runsdeep · Oct 6, 2011

i'm curious what LA discovered to cause her to mention in her depo about the roles of every member of the family in the incest dynamic...anyone know of further info on that?

UKGuy · Oct 6, 2011

azwriter said:
The size of the panties could very well have not been an issue as you say Dee Dee. But the fact that she be wearing panties was important to someone.

I don't know why the original pair of Wednesday panties were removed, maybe because of the blood. That sounds like a good idea since evidence showed blood was wiped from her legs.

I think the underlying reason for any panties being on her, especially one's that were Wednesdays was necessary because JonBenet had to appear as she did when she was at the party and also how she appear when she got home and as the parents claimed: put straight to bed since she was asleep or zonked out.

It was important that the story being told included that no one in the family had any contact (outside of removing her coat and outer clothes) with JonBenet once she arrived home and was put into bed sound asleep.

Why is that? Why did the person(s) who placed her in the "wine cellar" care what she was wearing? Would a member of a small foreign faction care that this little girl be found wearing a pair of Bloomies with the day of the week Wednesday on them?

Also, since I am on the RDI side of the fence, I would suggest that as the underware was being changed, for whatever reason, a plan was being formed by both or either parent of what to tell officials about JonBenet's arrival at home. It all had to look very innocent and typical.

It appears to me that step-by-step as this unfolded, the parents had to be communicating with each other as to what to tell police that happened. They knew they would need to answer questions. They had to be prepared. They probably went over a mental check list to make sure everything was covered...but one thing they did forget - the pineapple snack. They couldn't include that because the story was that she arrived home zonked out and no one in the immediate family was to have seen her again until her body was recovered or wink, wink until the kidnappers returned her.

I suggest that both parents were quite busy covering their tracks. Which leads me to another question - why was it necessary for JonBenet to appear to have been sexually insulted by someone that night ? Especially if in the final staging of the body it appeared that part of the crime was hidden?

Perhaps it had to do with the idea that she was sexually abused in the commission of the staging in order to hide previous sexual contact that possibly was going on that very night. The person(s) who hid her, prepped her, did the staging, knew about the on-going sexual abuse she had gone through and by staging another molestation, were trying to hide previous abuse.

I think to unravel it all, we have to work backwards and figure out the reason for every little step - all the way back to why if this all began with an accident, why wasn't she taken to the hospital immediately. I suggest it was because of the evidence within her body that this little girl was molested before.

The End. Have fun with my thoughts.

jmo

azwriter,

I think the underlying reason for any panties being on her, especially one's that were Wednesdays was necessary because JonBenet had to appear as she did when she was at the party and also how she appear when she got home and as the parents claimed: put straight to bed since she was asleep or zonked out.

Since the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene and the size-12's form part of it, then you have to consider what might have been the stagers intention?

IMO there are three main possibilities:

1. The size-12's were selected to match the day of the week feature since her size-6 underwear had this feature?

2. The size-12's were selected to match the day of the week feature because the stager wanted the underwear suggest something about the time of JonBenet's death?

3. The size-12's were selected at random since underwear was required, any underwear!

1. seems the obvious choice, but it also includes say John redressing JonBenet with the size-12's, then adding the longjohns hoping if Patsy had a quick look she would see the day of the week feature?

If BPD do not have a pair of size-6 underwear with a Wednesday day of the feature in their evidence cage then I reckon option 1. is the front runner.

.

UKGuy · Oct 6, 2011

vlpate said:
You are a very smart individual, and you know "consistent" is not a throw away word either. It's just a matter of selective throw away words. Many experts found the handwriting "consistent" with Patsy's handwriting...some find that black and white, some find it gray -- interpretation. I know a "digit" is a finger, but it can also, IMO, be representative. He didn't expound, so we do. It's been going on for half my daughter's lifetime

I don't know whether it was the only episode or not, but I believe that night was staged.

I would not be one of those members, although I do respect their opinion.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that PR was oblivious to the head injury being so severe. I think she was extremely pist that JonBenet wet herself -- either in bed or in the car. In a fit of rage she yanked her up by her turtleneck and drug her to the bathroom. She won't yell at her because that would make her look bad in front of JR and Burke. Ohhhh, but she is SO mad. She's tired and just wants to go to bed. She shakes her hard, banging her head against a hard surface in the bathroom, still twisting the turtleneck with brute force, wiping her HARD and without realizing her own strength -- JBR passes out and PR can't revive her. OMG, what do I do, what do I DO! "JonBenet, wake up" she says quietly, but JonBenet doesn't respond. She takes her downstairs to hide from anyone in the house hearing what is going on. She forgets to get something to redress her in. The dryer has a blanket and some longjohns. She remembers the panties that were supposed to be a gift. It is not by chance that she retrieves Wednesday. She is freaking out. She decides to just leave JonBenet in the dank room, thinking it's a good hiding place, and writes the ransom note -- that will explain why she's not here. Good. Done. But then there is the possibility her body will be found...what would make the perp leave her? Sexual molestation. Patsy needs to make it look like AEA.... or not. I don't know because I wasn't there. No one knows for sure, but there was no cover up for the head injury, so I don't think she knew about it. I don't think the cover up is three fold at all...just the strangulation and the abuse to JBR's privates. IMO, PR was just as shocked at the head injury discovery as we were. How could she know?

See above

vplate,

I don't think the cover up is three fold at all...just the strangulation and the abuse to JBR's privates. IMO, PR was just as shocked at the head injury discovery as we were. How could she know?

Because JonBenet was unnaturally enlarged. And the Coroner stated that there had been sexual contact which is not the same as staging a sexual assault. Then if your theory is correct you should explain away the barbie doll and bloodstained nightgown doll found in the wine-cellar. All suggesting either an interrupted staging or evidence from a prior staging.

There is more to this case than what is in Steve Thomas' book.

.

vlpate · Oct 7, 2011

UKGuy said:
vplate,

Because JonBenet was unnaturally enlarged. And the Coroner stated that there had been sexual contact which is not the same as staging a sexual assault. Then if your theory is correct you should explain away the barbie doll and bloodstained nightgown doll found in the wine-cellar. All suggesting either an interrupted staging or evidence from a prior staging.

There is more to this case than what is in Steve Thomas' book.

.

Vastly more UK.

vlpate · Oct 7, 2011

UKGuy said:
vplate,

Because JonBenet was unnaturally enlarged.

I have tried in vain to find a reliable source for this unnaturally enlarged and I cannot. Would you mind providing one for me? Digital penetration, even if by a finger, would not render her vagina twice it's normal size, that is ridiculous. Chronic abuse, maybe, but I've never said I didn't think prior abuse was out of the question, I just lean more toward corporal punishment.

And the Coroner stated that there had been sexual contact which is not the same as staging a sexual assault.

Not the same? Please explain the difference for me? On a six year old, they are most certainly the same, staged or not. As I've said before, I think JonBenet was probably still alive when the sexual assault was staged, but just barely.

Then if your theory is correct you should explain away the barbie doll and bloodstained nightgown doll found in the wine-cellar. All suggesting either an interrupted staging or evidence from a prior staging.

What barbie doll? The one posters think they saw in a picture? The nightgown had blood on it? Who said? Lou Smit? Aphrodite Jones? Judge Carnes? ALL unreliable sources. Hell, Aphrodite Jones said there was "touch dna" found on the nightgown. Carnes said the ONLY place blood was found was on JonBenet and the nightgown. Smit? Where do I begin? Unless you have a better source, this, IMO, is misinformation that's been repeated far too many times.

There is more to this case than what is in Steve Thomas' book.

Yes, this only stands to reason since Steve left the case early on and was not privy to any further evidence or findings.

.[/QUOTE]

ShadyLadySleuth · Oct 7, 2011

My possible scenario which I haven't seen anywhere else: Patsy has suspected John of possibly sexually abusing JBR. Christmas night she catches him in the act. She flies into a rage. She has to turn him in to the authorities, ignore it, or....tells him "either she goes or I turn you in to police." "I will not have you and JBR in this house together ever again." Both Patsy and John, who is being blackmailed by Patsy, kill JBR, and stage the cover-up. They both write the criminally-unsophisticated ransom note. Patsy's problem is solved, no more competition with JBR for John's sexual interest. John saves his good name, million dollar business, and is the poor grieving father. They both win. And so far, they have succeeded.

azwriter · Oct 8, 2011

vlpate said:
I have tried in vain to find a reliable source for this unnaturally enlarged and I cannot. Would you mind providing one for me? Digital penetration, even if by a finger, would not render her vagina twice it's normal size, that is ridiculous. Chronic abuse, maybe, but I've never said I didn't think prior abuse was out of the question, I just lean more toward corporal punishment.

Not the same? Please explain the difference for me? On a six year old, they are most certainly the same, staged or not. As I've said before, I think JonBenet was probably still alive when the sexual assault was staged, but just barely.

What barbie doll? The one posters think they saw in a picture? The nightgown had blood on it? Who said? Lou Smit? Aphrodite Jones? Judge Carnes? ALL unreliable sources. Hell, Aphrodite Jones said there was "touch dna" found on the nightgown. Carnes said the ONLY place blood was found was on JonBenet and the nightgown. Smit? Where do I begin? Unless you have a better source, this, IMO, is misinformation that's been repeated far too many times.

Yes, this only stands to reason since Steve left the case early on and was not privy to any further evidence or findings.

.

[/QUOTE]

Thoughtout the years, evidence takes on a life of its own and is misstated. It wasn't her vagina that was enlarged, but the size of the opening in her hymen that was reported to be larger in comparrison to other girls her age.
jmo

UKGuy · Oct 8, 2011

ShadyLadySleuth said:
My possible scenario which I haven't seen anywhere else: Patsy has suspected John of possibly sexually abusing JBR. Christmas night she catches him in the act. She flies into a rage. She has to turn him in to the authorities, ignore it, or....tells him "either she goes or I turn you in to police." "I will not have you and JBR in this house together ever again." Both Patsy and John, who is being blackmailed by Patsy, kill JBR, and stage the cover-up. They both write the criminally-unsophisticated ransom note. Patsy's problem is solved, no more competition with JBR for John's sexual interest. John saves his good name, million dollar business, and is the poor grieving father. They both win. And so far, they have succeeded.

ShadyLadySleuth,
As others will testify to. Your theory has been already been proposed. The weak point is that Patsy did not need John's co-operation, she only needed to dial 911 and report a case of child abuse.

John would have been arrested and found guilty, even if Patsy had killed JonBenet, she would hve received public sympathy. Also she would inherit John's estate whilst he was imprisoned.

A better theory incorporating John and Patsy is that BDI and they cover for him?

.

DeeDee249 · Oct 8, 2011

Thoughtout the years, evidence takes on a life of its own and is misstated. It wasn't her vagina that was enlarged, but the size of the opening in her hymen that was reported to be larger in comparrison to other girls her age.
jmo[/QUOTE]

From what I have read, it was the vaginal opening itself. The hymen was not present at all- according to the autopsy, it was "represented by a rim of hymenal tissue". NO girls that age would be expected to have an opening in the hymen.

LinasK · Oct 8, 2011

UKGuy said:
ShadyLadySleuth,
As others will testify to. Your theory has been already been proposed. The weak point is that Patsy did not need John's co-operation, she only needed to dial 911 and report a case of child abuse.

John would have been arrested and found guilty, even if Patsy had killed JonBenet, she would hve received public sympathy. Also she would inherit John's estate whilst he was imprisoned.

A better theory incorporating John and Patsy is that BDI and they cover for him?

.

Yes, but that would have been socially unacceptable to Patsy, she was a stand-by-your man kinda gal. That's exactly why I think Patsy covered for John, not Burke.

Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

who molested/abused JB?

JR

BR

JAR

a close family friend

a stranger/stalker a la JMK

PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

she wasn't previously abused/molested

Remembering Little Miss Christmas

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sister Mary Wanna

Remembering Little Miss Christmas

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Sister Mary Wanna

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics