If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[Rain on my Parade]

The *vast* majority of sexual abuse occurs at the hands of father, brother, coach, religious leader, family friend, etc. Sex trafficking is real, of course. But it’s much easier, emotionally, to teach “stranger danger” than it is to teach that a potential abuser may reside in the home, or be a frequent and trusted visitor to it. Parents in 1994 knew this, even if they weren’t vocal about it. JMO.

Shamrock1,
Yes, and the abuser can also, very well be; the mother.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

When LA looked into JR's eyes, he was thinking of catching a flight out of CO.

Proust20,
Great point!

 

[Meara]

The *vast* majority of sexual abuse occurs at the hands of father, brother, coach, religious leader, family friend, etc. Sex trafficking is real, of course. But it’s much easier, emotionally, to teach “stranger danger” than it is to teach that a potential abuser may reside in the home, or be a frequent and trusted visitor to it. Parents in 1994 knew this, even if they weren’t vocal about it. JMO.

You are correct on all points, and I appreciate your posting this. I debated whether to mention family and "trusted others" in my comment at #135 and decided it was too much at once. Known but, for complex reasons, rarely talked about - yes.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

You are correct on all points, and I appreciate your posting this. I debated whether to mention family and "trusted others" in my comment at #135 and decided it was too much at once. Known but, for complex reasons, rarely talked about - yes.

What are the most current statistics on females who SA?

 

[Rain on my Parade]

You are correct on all points, and I appreciate your posting this. I debated whether to mention family and "trusted others" in my comment at #135 and decided it was too much at once. Known but, for complex reasons, rarely talked about - yes.

Now, that I think back on the stranger danger I did play a game with my son when he entered grade school. He could not leave school with anyone except his grandparents and they had to know the password if they weren’t his grandparents. The password was Flintstone which was his grandparents dogs name.

We didn’t have a sex talk per se. That was a talk he needed to have with his dad and I recall telling him that. Longer story made short.

And just for throwing it out there I was a victim of SA from a very early age by a family member. Nobody taught me or addressed stranger danger or SA. When I was a teenager, I finally spoke to my other parent about it. They took me to a psychiatrist (whom had treated the abuser when they were younger). This is all I know from that visit as I asked and was told, “he said there was no way that I wasn’t telling the truth. Duh! That was the outcome. Nothing more was said on the matter. Talk about resolutions.

 

[Meara]

What are the most current statistics on females who SA?

Buckeyes, the information below is from some very rudimentary research and two articles in Psychology Today (PT):

from PT, 1/17/2021:
"...cases of [SA] perpetrated by women are underreported. While official estimates...range around 2.2% of cases, victim-reported rates...range around 12%, and 40% of male victims of [SA] report that they were abused by a woman." (Edited for felony wordiness.)

"Reporting rates for [SA] are low in general, and it is estimated that only about a third (37%) of individuals who were abused report the perpetrator."

"It is estimated that 5-10% of cases of female-perpetrated [SA] involve a female teacher and male student."

from PT, 9/6/2023:
"One research study showed that a majority of female offenders were family members who tended to abuse within their role as caretakers; 25 percent were babysitters, teachers, or daycare workers (Ruden, et al., 1995, p. 969)."

"Female perpetrators molest both male and female children, as well as adolescents. According to...a major U.S. study, 40 percent of men who were [SA'd] in childhood reported that their abuser was female. In comparison, the rate was 6 percent for women."

 

[Meara]

Now, that I think back on the stranger danger I did play a game with my son when he entered grade school. He could not leave school with anyone except his grandparents and they had to know the password if they weren’t his grandparents. The password was Flintstone which was his grandparents dogs name.

We didn’t have a sex talk per se. That was a talk he needed to have with his dad and I recall telling him that. Longer story made short.

And just for throwing it out there I was a victim of SA from a very early age by a family member. Nobody taught me or addressed stranger danger or SA. When I was a teenager, I finally spoke to my other parent about it. They took me to a psychiatrist (whom had treated the abuser when they were younger). This is all I know from that visit as I asked and was told, “he said there was no way that I wasn’t telling the truth. Duh! That was the outcome. Nothing more was said on the matter. Talk about resolutions.

Rain, that is a maddening story. I'm sorry for your suffering and salute you for staying sane.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Buckeyes, the information below is from some very rudimentary research and two articles in Psychology Today (PT):

from PT, 1/17/2021:
"...cases of [SA] perpetrated by women are underreported. While official estimates...range around 2.2% of cases, victim-reported rates...range around 12%, and 40% of male victims of [SA] report that they were abused by a woman." (Edited for felony wordiness.)

"Reporting rates for [SA] are low in general, and it is estimated that only about a third (37%) of individuals who were abused report the perpetrator."

"It is estimated that 5-10% of cases of female-perpetrated [SA] involve a female teacher and male student."

from PT, 9/6/2023:
"One research study showed that a majority of female offenders were family members who tended to abuse within their role as caretakers; 25 percent were babysitters, teachers, or daycare workers (Ruden, et al., 1995, p. 969)."

"Female perpetrators molest both male and female children, as well as adolescents. According to...a major U.S. study, 40 percent of men who were [SA'd] in childhood reported that their abuser was female. In comparison, the rate was 6 percent for women."

Meara,
Thank you!

 

[887sMtreme]

887sMtreme,
I understood that completely. My apologies for sounding off putting. I was merely pointing out what else JB went through during those time periods. How everything ties in together.
What I found highly unusual is that PR would have that talk about no one touching JB where her bathing suit touches but knowingly allow adult men to wipe her.

Yes, that was odd. So much about Patsy — all
of the family, in fact — was odd.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

Rain, that is a maddening story. I'm sorry for your suffering and salute you for staying sane.

Meara,
Thank you for your kindness! It was my parents issues; not mine. It was just handed to me. It was my decision to keep it or let it go. You can’t climb very high, carrying somebody else’s garbage.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Buckeyes, the information below is from some very rudimentary research and two articles in Psychology Today (PT):

from PT, 1/17/2021:
"...cases of [SA] perpetrated by women are underreported. While official estimates...range around 2.2% of cases, victim-reported rates...range around 12%, and 40% of male victims of [SA] report that they were abused by a woman." (Edited for felony wordiness.)

"Reporting rates for [SA] are low in general, and it is estimated that only about a third (37%) of individuals who were abused report the perpetrator."

"It is estimated that 5-10% of cases of female-perpetrated [SA] involve a female teacher and male student."

from PT, 9/6/2023:
"One research study showed that a majority of female offenders were family members who tended to abuse within their role as caretakers; 25 percent were babysitters, teachers, or daycare workers (Ruden, et al., 1995, p. 969)."

"Female perpetrators molest both male and female children, as well as adolescents. According to...a major U.S. study, 40 percent of men who were [SA'd] in childhood reported that their abuser was female. In comparison, the rate was 6 percent for women."

Thank you for this research.

 

[gazing waters]

I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re trying to say here. I think it’s perfectly logical that anyone would try to lead police in a different direction when covering up a crime.

As far as disposing of the body, I think they were up against time constraints. They were due to fly out at 7AM. Their daughter was dead, they were going to have to do something to explain why she was no longer there, hence the kidnapping story. Taking the time to dispose of the body most likely would have meant postponing or cancelling the flight. This would have been questioned by LE when learning of “the kidnapping.” Timeframe of everything that transpired would be examined. How would they account for that time? And again, they were not criminals. It would take some time and thought to determine best place to dispose of a body so as to not have it discovered. How familiar were they with rural areas? They weren’t the put up a tent type camping folks, and they were from Georgia. Finding somewhere they were not familiar with in the dark would have been a challenge, and doing so in daylight would have risked being seen. And again raising the question, what they were doing during that time after finding that their daughter was missing.

It’s presumed that JBR’s death may have occurred where the urine was found because the body expels at the time of death. I have already expressed my opinion as to why I believe JR “found” the body. Hours had passed and I think he just decided there was not going to be an opportunity to remove the body from the house, so his hand was forced. And I don’t think PR would’ve stood for just leaving her there.

Look, what you said on the second paragraph wasn't clear at all. To say that "Their daughter was dead, they were going to have to do something to explain why she was no longer there, hence the kidnapping story. Taking the time to dispose of the body most likely would have meant postponing or cancelling the flight" This doesn't make very much sense at all.
They had already not disposed of the body and went along with the kidnapping story, yes, cool. But to say that they would have had an excuse as to why their daughter was not there and then attempt to get on the plane would prove them to be very suspicious. There would be the most cause for concern if you were to have your daughter "kidnapped" and murdered just for you to try and book it on vacation the day of, yes people deal with grief in their own ways but not by going on vacation.
To say that JBR died outside of the wine cellar may be most likely but I disagree with why you think that. It should be common knowledge that the BFT occurred before she was strangled leading strangulation to be her official cause of death but about the urine found outside the cellar, that may be a different story. By analyzing the crime scene photos I came across a photo of the clothes she was wearing at the time of the murder and her pants were soiled yes, but only with urine. For you to say that the body expels at the time of death would not be entirely true, in most cases from what I have read online it happens days after people die which would make sense as to why you never hear about feces and urine being found at crime scenes. Like I have stated before, I believe that JBR urinated due to her being scared. Perhaps she was knocked out from being hit on the head, or perhaps she was pushed and hit her head but for that to have happened she would have had to fell on her back or at least be pushed while someone was in front and facing her. So, say she was knocked out from the blow to the head, taken to the basement and I say taken to the basement because I believe the blow took place in the kitchen not the basement or her bedroom, in fact I don't think that her bedroom was relevant to the case at all. Anyways, back to the spot on the basement, so she was taken down to the basement supposedly knocked out from the blow, her brain swelling, and she is laid on the floor. Then most likely someone strangles her and she begins to come back and urinates out of fear. I find this theory much more likely than her body expelling.
But I have a question for you, Clouded Truth, who do you believe committed this murder? Because if I knew that information it would be easier to talk about the certain scenario that could have happened based on that. While I do not entirely have a suspicion for anyone in particular in this case, I find that the family must be involved due to all the evidence, now those events leading up to her death I am still working out but I have a good amount of possibilities.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Look, what you said on the second paragraph wasn't clear at all. To say that "Their daughter was dead, they were going to have to do something to explain why she was no longer there, hence the kidnapping story. Taking the time to dispose of the body most likely would have meant postponing or cancelling the flight" This doesn't make very much sense at all.
They had already not disposed of the body and went along with the kidnapping story, yes, cool. But to say that they would have had an excuse as to why their daughter was not there and then attempt to get on the plane would prove them to be very suspicious. There would be the most cause for concern if you were to have your daughter "kidnapped" and murdered just for you to try and book it on vacation the day of, yes people deal with grief in their own ways but not by going on vacation.
To say that JBR died outside of the wine cellar may be most likely but I disagree with why you think that. It should be common knowledge that the BFT occurred before she was strangled leading strangulation to be her official cause of death but about the urine found outside the cellar, that may be a different story. By analyzing the crime scene photos I came across a photo of the clothes she was wearing at the time of the murder and her pants were soiled yes, but only with urine. For you to say that the body expels at the time of death would not be entirely true, in most cases from what I have read online it happens days after people die which would make sense as to why you never hear about feces and urine being found at crime scenes. Like I have stated before, I believe that JBR urinated due to her being scared. Perhaps she was knocked out from being hit on the head, or perhaps she was pushed and hit her head but for that to have happened she would have had to fell on her back or at least be pushed while someone was in front and facing her. So, say she was knocked out from the blow to the head, taken to the basement and I say taken to the basement because I believe the blow took place in the kitchen not the basement or her bedroom, in fact I don't think that her bedroom was relevant to the case at all. Anyways, back to the spot on the basement, so she was taken down to the basement supposedly knocked out from the blow, her brain swelling, and she is laid on the floor. Then most likely someone strangles her and she begins to come back and urinates out of fear. I find this theory much more likely than her body expelling.
But I have a question for you, Clouded Truth, who do you believe committed this murder? Because if I knew that information it would be easier to talk about the certain scenario that could have happened based on that. While I do not entirely have a suspicion for anyone in particular in this case, I find that the family must be involved due to all the evidence, now those events leading up to her death I am still working out but I have a good amount of possibilities.

Sorry if you found my comments unclear. I was responding to another post who was asking why the Ramsey's would have found disposing of the body impossible. In any event, you have misquoted me here: "But to say they would have had an excuse as to why their daughter was not there......". What I said essentially was they needed an excuse to explain why she wasn't there. The timing of everything that morning would have been called into question.

There is still divided opinion as to which occurred first, the blow to the head or the strangulation. Some believe that she was being strangled first and screamed, so was then hit on the head to stop her from screaming. Many are of the opinion that the head blow came first rendering her unconscious and likely the belief by whoever was present that she was actually already dead. My personal opinion is that the head blow came first. Given that this was a catastrophic injury it is highly unlikely that she would have regained consciousness, with blood slowly filling the skull cavity and causing pressure to build in her brain. As the pressure increased, her brain was dying. According to a neuropathologist who was consulted, the strangulation then occurred somewhere between 45 minutes to two hours after the head blow, during which time she was still alive, although barely. I agree that the head blow likely was dealt somewhere upstairs, after which she was carried down to the basement for the staging. Death actually occurred when she was strangled, which most likely was in the basement, in front of the wine cellar. It is a very common occurrence for the body to expel at the time of death, as all the muscles relax. That said, it is also dependent upon how much matter is in the body at the time and the cause of death. For murders and traumatic deaths it almost always occurs. For example, in the Watts murder case, Shanann was strangled by her husband, who has said very specifically in his confession that her body released both urine and fecal matter at the time of death. Why do they not mention it being found at crime scenes? Because it's irrelevant unless it did not come from the deceased. And because it's gross. No one needs to hear those kind of gruesome details. Crime scene cleaners typically wear hazmat suits for this very reason.

Who do I believe committed the murder? I think it was actually a tragic accident, but my opinion is that it was PR. I think she walked in on JR in the act of sexually abusing JBR, she grabbed the flashlight and swung intending to hit him.

 

[gazing waters]

Sorry if you found my comments unclear. I was responding to another post who was asking why the Ramsey's would have found disposing of the body impossible. In any event, you have misquoted me here: "But to say they would have had an excuse as to why their daughter was not there......". What I said essentially was they needed an excuse to explain why she wasn't there. The timing of everything that morning would have been called into question.

There is still divided opinion as to which occurred first, the blow to the head or the strangulation. Some believe that she was being strangled first and screamed, so was then hit on the head to stop her from screaming. Many are of the opinion that the head blow came first rendering her unconscious and likely the belief by whoever was present that she was actually already dead. My personal opinion is that the head blow came first. Given that this was a catastrophic injury it is highly unlikely that she would have regained consciousness, with blood slowly filling the skull cavity and causing pressure to build in her brain. As the pressure increased, her brain was dying. According to a neuropathologist who was consulted, the strangulation then occurred somewhere between 45 minutes to two hours after the head blow, during which time she was still alive, although barely. I agree that the head blow likely was dealt somewhere upstairs, after which she was carried down to the basement for the staging. Death actually occurred when she was strangled, which most likely was in the basement, in front of the wine cellar. It is a very common occurrence for the body to expel at the time of death, as all the muscles relax. That said, it is also dependent upon how much matter is in the body at the time and the cause of death. For murders and traumatic deaths it almost always occurs. For example, in the Watts murder case, Shanann was strangled by her husband, who has said very specifically in his confession that her body released both urine and fecal matter at the time of death. Why do they not mention it being found at crime scenes? Because it's irrelevant unless it did not come from the deceased. And because it's gross. No one needs to hear those kind of gruesome details. Crime scene cleaners typically wear hazmat suits for this very reason.

Who do I believe committed the murder? I think it was actually a tragic accident, but my opinion is that it was PR. I think she walked in on JR in the act of sexually abusing JBR, she grabbed the flashlight and swung intending to hit him.

Clouded Truth,
I find your response very fascinating about the detail and thought that went into the response, while I am not saying you are wrong that the expelling of fecal matter occurs during murders, would it not be in crime scene photos as well? I understand that it may be irrelevant but it is also apart of the scene itself.
While I am slightly disappointed that is your theory I would love to hear more about why you think so, maybe there is something I am not taking into consideration with the evidence I have looked at so far. If you would like to enlighten me, I would love to read about it.
With your theory and opinion on the matter, what would you have to say about the pineapple found in JBR's stomach? With the bowl on the dining room table with only Burke's fingerprints on it as well as the glass cup with the tea bag in it?

 

[CloudedTruth]

Clouded Truth,
I find your response very fascinating about the detail and thought that went into the response, while I am not saying you are wrong that the expelling of fecal matter occurs during murders, would it not be in crime scene photos as well? I understand that it may be irrelevant but it is also apart of the scene itself.
While I am slightly disappointed that is your theory I would love to hear more about why you think so, maybe there is something I am not taking into consideration with the evidence I have looked at so far. If you would like to enlighten me, I would love to read about it.
With your theory and opinion on the matter, what would you have to say about the pineapple found in JBR's stomach? With the bowl on the dining room table with only Burke's fingerprints on it as well as the glass cup with the tea bag in it?

Given differing specifics as to how death occurred and what condition the deceased was when death occurred, when food or drink was last ingested, etc. would dictate what matter is expelled. I also think it's probably likely that pictures that show such things may very well be censored. If it has no importance or impact to the case, why release to the public? It would be an invasion of privacy and further injury to the deceased and family to show such things. I have a friend who got into crime scene photography after getting out of the Navy. Let's just say he saw some really horrific scenes that no one needs or wants to see unless they have to because they're involved in the case.

Again, I will stress that this is only my opinion. And I will admit that at one time or another I have been convinced that JRDI, BRDI, PRDI based upon where different evidence seems to point. As amateurs, they did a good job of muddying the waters enough to cause doubt in every direction. The only theory I have never accepted is that there was an intruder who did it. There is hardly any evidence that points in that direction, despite efforts to lead LE there.

My opinion is rooted in the belief that JBR was being sexually abused, and the many inconsistencies in the R's (including BR) stories about what occurred after leaving the White's on Christmas night. If you believe as I do that PR wrote the RN and that they engaged in a cover up of what happened that night, then it isn't a long stretch to believing that they all lied about many things. And they had help from many well placed, powerful people who circled the wagons so fast it makes your head spin. This in my opinion points not only to a cover up at high levels to hide the truth of what happened, but also to protect someone. Who would need protecting and from what? Out of the 3 remaining family members, my best guess is JR who was President and CEO of a company which had become a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.

The R's told a lot of lies about that night's timeline. The angry and very specific to JR verbiage in the RN. The dictionary with the top of a page eared and pointing to the word "incest". To believe that JR did it means he purposely hit JBR over the head with what was the likely weapon, the Maglite flashlight. Some have speculated that he did it, premeditated in order to stop what he thought might be in process, the discovery that he was molesting her. I do think that he was a pretty cool cucumber, able to be calm and in command under duress, and that he was emotionally distant both as a husband and father. But I just don't see him doing this. And despite the observed and often commented upon oddness of BR, I don't see him doing this either. I think the marriage was strained at this point, described by some as being more like a business arrangement than a romantic relationship. I think they were all awake when they got home. PR was probably continuing to pack, and by admission JR and BR were playing with one of BR's Christmas toys. I think the kids wanted a snack and PR brought out the bowl of pineapple on which both her and BR's prints were found. Not sure why they lied about that, but they did. In an interview with a detective given some time later, BR has a very interesting reaction when shown that picture of the bowl on the counter and the glass with the tea bag in it. He names everything in the picture except the bowl of pineapple. He won't talk about it. As if he was coached to not say anything about it. And he didn't, which is in contrast to his openness in answering other questions. The next morning the always put together for appearance PR is wearing the same clothes as she was the night before, something that friends said she would never do. Could it have been BR in a fit of rage over something? Sure. But I just don't think his demeanor afterwards fits. The actions that next day of both JR and PR are very suspicious. JR's ability to be calm, cool and collected juxtaposed with PR's hysteria and wailing but all the while watching through splayed fingers is just too weird. It's like something out of a movie. Something very dark and sinister occurred that night.

 

[CrimeTheorist]

I believe Patsy killed her in a fit of rage. Most likely it had something to do with the pineapple, that's why she didn't admit to feeding her it when on it's own it seems like a very innocuous thing to lie about. She tried to cover it up by writing the ransom note, changing her writing style slightly but forgetting not to use her pen and notepad. The ransom note served two purposes. 1. trick law enforcement and 2. trick everyone that knew Patsy. She cared what people thought of her so she came up with a scenario that she thought people would believe (that it was someone John had worked with). This would explain all the references to John and his bonus amount. The garrote was part of the staging because she thought she was already dead but mistakenly used her own paint supplies. I don't believe John found out that it was staged until much later when he probably realized that the ransom note looked like her writing. At this point Patsy either told John the truth or said that she was covering for Burke. The latter makes more sense because I'm not sure if John would have stayed with her if he knew it was Patsy that killed Jonbenet. In this scenario, of John not being very involved, it makes sense that he would still be willing and fairly comfortable to go on tv and talk about the crime. Also, why Burke never admitted to killing Jonbenet because if he had killed her I think he would have said so.

If she was sexually abused (because I'm not sure it wasn't a wiping issue) part of covering up the crime might have also had to do with knowing that a family member was sexually abusing her and being worried that they would see that when they examined her body.

 

[proust20]

The sequence of head blow and asphyxiation can bee seen in terms of the motivation for the murder. If it were a moment of rage, the head blow seems likely first. If directly linked with SA, the strangling would come first. Either possibility could have been accidental. When dealing with the issue of the strangulation, there are some who think that JonnBenet was manually strangled, and the ligature was applied after. The red turtleneck is often mentioned in this regard.

My difficulty with the moment of rage theory is that it does not explain the sustained ferocity of the crime. The minimum 45 minute gap between the dual means of lethality is particularly grotesque. Then, there is all the time spent on the lurid staging. These details lead away from the killer being a creature of impulse. Also. when BPD arrived, PR was fully dressed and made up, JR was 'cordial', and Burke slept the sleep of babes. From totally out of control to nothing-to-see-here in a few hours? Patsy was extraordinarily bold in inviting over an audience. No stage fright there. What could go wrong?

I do get that all criminals cannot be said to have criminal backgrounds. Of course, we do not know if JB had been the only victim of the abuser(s). Was JB killed by an abuser? If not, how to explain the final assault? It's interesting that while the SA is part of the WC scene. nothing in the RN refers to this aspect. Choosing terrorists as the purported authors of the RN is taken from movies; but, this choice of the FF necessarily elides guilty knowledge of what JB was undergoing. The Rs never accepted the autopsy results. Their version could not allowed for it. And so. the Rs have never been able to come up with a motive, nor with anything but the sketchiest of scenarios. But hey - it worked!

 

[CloudedTruth]

The sequence of head blow and asphyxiation can bee seen in terms of the motivation for the murder. If it were a moment of rage, the head blow seems likely first. If directly linked with SA, the strangling would come first. Either possibility could have been accidental. When dealing with the issue of the strangulation, there are some who think that JonnBenet was manually strangled, and the ligature was applied after. The red turtleneck is often mentioned in this regard.

My difficulty with the moment of rage theory is that it does not explain the sustained ferocity of the crime. The minimum 45 minute gap between the dual means of lethality is particularly grotesque. Then, there is all the time spent on the lurid staging. These details lead away from the killer being a creature of impulse. Also. when BPD arrived, PR was fully dressed and made up, JR was 'cordial', and Burke slept the sleep of babes. From totally out of control to nothing-to-see-here in a few hours? Patsy was extraordinarily bold in inviting over an audience. No stage fright there. What could go wrong?

I do get that all criminals cannot be said to have criminal backgrounds. Of course, we do not know if JB had been the only victim of the abuser(s). Was JB killed by an abuser? If not, how to explain the final assault? It's interesting that while the SA is part of the WC scene. nothing in the RN refers to this aspect. Choosing terrorists as the purported authors of the RN is taken from movies; but, this choice of the FF necessarily elides guilty knowledge of what JB was undergoing. The Rs never accepted the autopsy results. Their version could not allowed for it. And so. the Rs have never been able to come up with a motive, nor with anything but the sketchiest of scenarios. But hey - it worked!

Your point about the sustained ferocity of the crime is I think spot on, as well as the observation of the demeanor of both parents when police arrived.

I think that the lurid details of the cover up point to needing to hide the fact that there was SA going on. If it were just BR & JBR "playing doctor", I don't think that would've prompted feeling the need to do what was ultimately done to her. In my mind it had to be something much more serious that was felt could be obvious upon examination.

So two of the discussed theories come to mind. It could have been a case of EA gone wrong, with the blow to the head to stop her from screaming, or as I have suspected, PR walking in on the act of SA by JR and taking a swing at him from which he ducked, and hitting JBR by mistake. I do believe that the initial act which caused what was thought to be catastrophic injury was an accident and not deliberate. But what followed they felt needed to be done to cover up the SA aspect.

IMO the RN is clearly a red herring. Someone with the intent to kidnap would have done things differently, and most certainly an actual FF would have methodically executed such an operation. The inference of a FF being involved I think points to JR's job and company, at which of course the R's attempted to capitalize on by claiming it was someone within the company who had a grudge against JR. Someone who wasn't bright enough to realize that a FF would have been after far more than $118,0000 and would not have risked being discovered taking the child to the basement & sexually assaulting her if the intent was a kidnapping for $$$$ from someone with ties to the big pockets of an aerospace and national defense company. There is no doubt in my mind that PR wrote the note, it just doesn't make any sense that anyone else did. And while I believe it points directly to the R's it did accomplish its intent, which was to muddy the waters enough to create confusion which allowed for evidence to be destroyed or tampered with and a crime scene that was not recognized as such for hours, which of course meant contamination.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

I was just wondering if this had been forgotten about in regards to the FF:

The Boulder Police Department failed to investigate, nor did they even know about, a Ramsey family friend who belonged to a suspicious foreign-oriented organization. The friend regularly provided care for JonBenet Ramsey, the six-year-old pageant beauty queen murdered on Christmas night of 1996 in Boulder, Colorado.

The perpetrators of the brutal rape, murder, and possible torture of JonBenet had left a three-page ransom note in the Ramsey house in which they identified themselves as representing a "small foreign faction". The murder has gone unsolved, with no viable suspects.

However, it has been learned that Colorado University student Nathan Inouye, who was a member of what would be considered a "small foreign faction", regularly baby-sat and drove JonBenet to school in 1996. Inouye belonged to the 29-member Asian Pacific American Coalition, called APAC, at Colorado University in Boulder.

APAC at Colorado was a liberal pro-active group of students who suspiciously disbanded their campus organization just weeks after JonBenet was murdered. APAC's stated goals were to advance the social and political well-being of Asian Americans. However, among the organization's concerns was its perception that violence and other serious crimes, including rape and murder, against Asian-American women were going unsolved and unpunished in the U.S.

For example, in reporting its list of activities and accomplishments to the University for the year of 1996, it wrote "Later that year APAC held a day of rememberance for Thingh Minh Lyh, a Vietnamese student in California who was a victim of racial violence. APAC members wore and passed out gray ribbons, and passed out flyers which described the incident."

Nathan Inouye, who in 1996 lived at the home of Glen and Susan Stine, had been hired by the Stines to provide care for their son Doug while the parents worked. The Stines, who were close friends of the Ramseys, were employed at Colorado University -- Glen as vice president, and Susan as a director. Their son Doug and Burke Ramsey, JonBenet's older brother, were also best friends. The Stines and the Ramseys lived five blocks apart in the upscale neighborhood and both houses were within walking distance of the University.

Inouye regularly helped baby-sit the Ramsey children, especially when the parents were out of town. He also regularly drove nine-year-old Doug, nine-year-old Burke, and six-year-old JonBenet to school as part of a carpool which included taking turns driving among the two mothers and himself.

Nevertheless, and despite what it called a thorough investigation of possible suspects not living in the Ramsey's house following the 1996 murder of JonBenet, the Boulder police, at least as of the year 2000, had apparently never even heard of Nathan Inouye nor the Asian Pacific American Coalition. These allegations are substantiated by the questions and responses between the Ramseys and a team of law enforcement investigators sent from Colorado to Georgia to interview the Ramseys in Atlanta in August of 2000. The Ramseys had moved to Atlanta in 1997.

In the offices of Ramsey attorney Lin Wood on August 28 and 29, the following discussion occurred with Patsy Ramsey:

DETECTIVE JANE HARMER (asking about the name "Nathan" mentioned in the Ramseys book "Death of Innocence"): "You mention a kid by the name of Nathan that was living with the Stines. Was he living with them prior to December of '96?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes, he was."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "And at any time did he look after Burke or JonBenet?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He would, on occasion, take them to school in the morning."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Do you know anything more about him, his last name?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Inouye, Nathan Inouye."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Do you know how to spell that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I-N-O-U -- maybe Y-E or E."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Is he a white male?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He is an American, but of Japanese descent, I believe."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "How old is he?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He has graduated now and is doing missionary work, I think. Susan would know exactly where he is, but at that time he was a college junior or senior."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Mr. Wood, can you facilitate getting the information to us so we can contact him?"

ATTORNEY LIN WOOD: "I think we said yesterday, if you all make a hit list for me, so to speak, point by point what you want me to do, and we will do it."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "That is it."

John Ramsey's interview on August 29 immediately followed Patsy Ramsey's interview:

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Mr. Ramsey, your wife told us that there was a college student that was staying with the Stines, I believe, named Nathan Inouye?"

ATTORNEY LIN WOOD: "It was a reference in the book."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Okay. Had you, prior to the murder of your daughter, had you any contact with him?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yeah. We would see him at their house. He would drive the kids to school occasionally in a carpool. Patsy would take them, sometimes Susan would, or Nathan would take them."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Was there anything unusual about his conduct -- and I am asking for your contemporaneous impression, and then I'm going to ask you about the post-murder impression. Your contemporaneous impression of Mr. Inouye I assume was favorable if you let him drive your kids to school?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yes. He was a very, very kind, nice person."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Keeping in mind you told us that you are suspicious of everyone, is there anything in particular about Mr. Inouye, using the power of hindsight, that causes you today to be particularly suspicious of him?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Nothing specifically in terms of his actions or what he said. Have I eliminated him? No, I haven't. I thought about that from time to time, but I don't consider him of strong, strong interest."

When Patsy Ramsey, during her interview, mentioned that Nathan Inouye had graduated and is doing "missionary work", he was actually serving as an "environmental promoter" in Kingston, Jamaica as a member of the Peace Corps. After serving in the Peace Corps from 1999 to 2001, Inouye completed graduate work at UCLA in 2003 to get a secondary science teaching certificate and a masters in education. Inouye is now teaching science at a high school in California, his home state.

JMO

BlueCrab

 

[Officer Dibble]

Now, that I think back on the stranger danger I did play a game with my son when he entered grade school. He could not leave school with anyone except his grandparents and they had to know the password if they weren’t his grandparents. The password was Flintstone which was his grandparents dogs name.

We didn’t have a sex talk per se. That was a talk he needed to have with his dad and I recall telling him that. Longer story made short.

And just for throwing it out there I was a victim of SA from a very early age by a family member. Nobody taught me or addressed stranger danger or SA. When I was a teenager, I finally spoke to my other parent about it. They took me to a psychiatrist (whom had treated the abuser when they were younger). This is all I know from that visit as I asked and was told, “he said there was no way that I wasn’t telling the truth. Duh! That was the outcome. Nothing more was said on the matter. Talk about resolutions.

I'm sorry you experienced that - its like being a victim all over again.
Are you saying that you think PR had similar happen to her?
JMO