My Two Cents

[2 percent]

Chelly,
I guess we do not really know in the provable sense, only in the inferential and probable sense.

The list of items is too long to cite, but the christmas party event is one, other parents saying they intended talking with PR regarding JonBenet and her Mega-JonBenet Thing.

I'm lost.
What does that have to do with BR molesting JB?

LHP walking in on BR and JonBenet allegedly playing doctors with JonBenet screaming at her to get out of the room, like its all normal behaviour?

Now I'm confused.
First, why do you consider screaming for someone to get out to be normal behavior for anyone, much less JB? I would say just the opposite. If LHP left without inquiring into JB's screaming then I would argue it was LHP who saw normal behavior at the time. The chance to highlight and isolate the incident as something different came later.

Then there are the sleepovers with DS and BR along with others at different times, did JonBenet make a pest of herself as PR claims or was she the star of the show? Note how PR always deflects you away from the obvious. Remember PR recounting how JonBenet had a crush on some local boy.

There's not a lot of specifics in this statement so I'm having to infer.
If I understand you correctly you're implying JB not only was sexually suggestive with her brother but his sleepover friends too? If so, where is the proof? And why would PR let this go on?
Mindblowing

Again for completeness, in a behavioural sense, can I ask you to consider why Susan Stine might want to actively inject herself into the case of the century, with the risk it might take her and her family down?

Because she wanted to feel important.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm lost.
What does that have to do with BR molesting JB?



Now I'm confused.
First, why do you consider screaming for someone to get out to be normal behavior for anyone, much less JB? I would say just the opposite. If LHP left without inquiring into JB's screaming then I would argue it was LHP who saw normal behavior at the time. The chance to highlight and isolate the incident as something different came later.



There's not a lot of specifics in this statement so I'm having to infer.
If I understand you correctly you're implying JB not only was sexually suggestive with her brother but his sleepover friends too? If so, where is the proof? And why would PR let this go on?
Mindblowing



Because she wanted to feel important.

2 percent,
Your initial post seemed to hold hope of constructive criticism.

Now I'm confused.
First, why do you consider screaming for someone to get out to be normal behavior for anyone, much less JB?

Your confusion is understandable, it is sometimes cataloged as cognitive dissonance.

LHP is on record as describing JonBenet as a spoilt brat. LHP had to run after both BR and JonBenet hand and foot picking up their dropped clothing and empty plates etc. You should be under no illusion as to LHP's status in the R's household, particularly wrt the children.

And why would PR let this go on?
Mindblowing

PR might not have known much about it until it was too late. She certainly prepared JonBenet via her pageant appearances to project a particular persona.

You must bear in mind what we do not know wrt BR and JonBenet's interactions beneath the bedsheets, also PR never denied such a relationship existed, she strenuously downplayed it. Consider BR and JonBenet shared a bed together on 12/24/96, this is PR's account and she is suggesting this is not unusual, except she does not discount separate beds being mandatory, why so?

Because she wanted to feel important.

She was already important with her link to the case. Injecting herself into the case suggests another motive. Its normally an important behavioural clue in all criminal cases. LEA monitor everyone who attends homicide victim's funerals for this purpose. In staged homicides the killer normally gives the game away by injecting himself into the case, usually with information any killer could not know.

I short I am suggesting what might have been playing doctor at some point went beyond this resulting in the death of JonBenet?

Not unalike the progression you see in serial killers or pedophiles, except that JR or PR never saw it coming, for some reason they were relaxed about it all, or critically, negligent?

 

[2 percent]

2 percent,
Your initial post seemed to hold hope of constructive criticism.

Sorry to disappoint.:rockon:

Your confusion is understandable, it is sometimes cataloged as cognitive dissonance.

And sometimes it's called confusion.
I'm pretty sure I'm the best source for my own feelings.

LHP is on record as describing JonBenet as a spoilt brat. LHP had to run after both BR and JonBenet hand and foot picking up their dropped clothing and empty plates etc. You should be under no illusion as to LHP's status in the R's household, particularly wrt the children.

What is clear is that, regardless of what she claims she saw, neither the scream nor the playing doctor was alarming enough to warrant LHP going to the police much less going to either parent and saying something. No, it was later this all took on a different slant.

Spoilt brat or not, picking up after them or not, status or not doesn't change the fact that the scream and the playing doctor took on a whole 'nother significance after the murder. Fact is, she wasn't worried or alarmed enough to say anything.

PR might not have known much about it until it was too late. She certainly prepared JonBenet via her pageant appearances to project a particular persona.

You must bear in mind what we do not know wrt BR and JonBenet's interactions beneath the bedsheets...

Wait..how can you speculate anything went on under the bedsheets?

also PR never denied such a relationship existed, she strenuously downplayed it.

I'm not really sure how to respond to that, so I'll ask for clarification.
It sounds to me like you're saying that, because PR never denied BR and JB were sexually involved, then it must have been true. Am I right?

Consider BR and JonBenet shared a bed together on 12/24/96, this is PR's account and she is suggesting this is not unusual, except she does not discount separate beds being mandatory, why so?

Again, not really sure how to respond to that, so I'll ask for clarification.
Are you saying that because BR and JB had separate beds that their sleeping in the same bed on Christmas Eve when they're both under 10 means they were sexually involved? And not just randomly sharing a bed as siblings sometimes do.

I short I am suggesting what might have been playing doctor at some point went beyond this resulting in the death of JonBenet?

Not unalike the progression you see in serial killers or pedophiles, except that JR or PR never saw it coming, for some reason they were relaxed about it all, or critically, negligent?

Only thing, serial killers and pedophiles take years to get to the freaks they are. What you are suggesting of BR is very unlikely.
What I'm more intrigued by is how your theory appears to keep shifting. While you are calling BR a 9 year old psychopath who fooled everyone in his life you are placing a lot of behavioral ticks squarely on JB. I'd have to be blind not to see that you are hinting that JB was sexually aggressive herself, implying she instigated the sleeping together, showed off for the sleepover guests etc. I would appreciate a little more clarity on that.

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry to disappoint.:rockon:



And sometimes it's called confusion.
I'm pretty sure I'm the best source for my own feelings.



What is clear is that, regardless of what she claims she saw, neither the scream nor the playing doctor was alarming enough to warrant LHP going to the police much less going to either parent and saying something. No, it was later this all took on a different slant.

Spoilt brat or not, picking up after them or not, status or not doesn't change the fact that the scream and the playing doctor took on a whole 'nother significance after the murder. Fact is, she wasn't worried or alarmed enough to say anything.



Wait..how can you speculate anything went on under the bedsheets?



I'm not really sure how to respond to that, so I'll ask for clarification.
It sounds to me like you're saying that, because PR never denied BR and JB were sexually involved, then it must have been true. Am I right?



Again, not really sure how to respond to that, so I'll ask for clarification.
Are you saying that because BR and JB had separate beds that their sleeping in the same bed on Christmas Eve when they're both under 10 means they were sexually involved? And not just randomly sharing a bed as siblings sometimes do.



Only thing, serial killers and pedophiles take years to get to the freaks they are. What you are suggesting of BR is very unlikely.
What I'm more intrigued by is how your theory appears to keep shifting. While you are calling BR a 9 year old psychopath who fooled everyone in his life you are placing a lot of behavioral ticks squarely on JB. I'd have to be blind not to see that you are hinting that JB was sexually aggressive herself, implying she instigated the sleeping together, showed off for the sleepover guests etc. I would appreciate a little more clarity on that.

2 percent,
Which suggests I might be correct since BR never got there, in terms of years.

All the other stuff you ask for clarification on, not sure which detail you require, but my point regarding them all is that they represent circumstantial evidence which is corroborated by the parents, the housekeeper, and family friends.

Given Kolar's revelations regarding the R's dysfunctional family life, if you wish to consider all the behaviour discussed as normal for that particular age-group, and holds no relevance in the case of JonBenet then patently we interpret the evidence differently.

.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Your confession is accepted: Let that be two hail mary's, twice to evening mass, and a deposit in the collection tray on the way out.

I note your ability to generate inferences whilst upholding DocG's theory appears unimpaired, this should allow you to demonstrate why any of my inferences are invalid, otherwise ignoratio elenchi!



Theoria is essentially the act of seeing, ad fontes Aristotle. From which we derive our modern concept of theory.

You must improve your ability to envisage another's theory, even if its invalid, advertising your blindness discredits your evident intellectual attributes.

.

In other words you can't defend your inferences.

 

[Chrishope]

Interesting point. And it aligns quite well with my assessment of both Ramsey's characters.

I have to say I don't understand why the body wasn't moved outside the house - intruder or Ramsey. But I just assumed it was my personal experience getting in the way. I would never let the body be found in the house if I were in that position.

A lot of people studying this case come to the idea that there was a plan to dump the body. Many (probably most) also feel PR was in on the coverup. Therefore they conclude that the plan was changed. My take is a little different, instead of the plan being changed, I feel that PR was not in on the coverup, therefore she didn't know better than to call the police with the body in the house.

This happened in the Routier case too - mother killed two of her three boys - and one of the biggest points of contention was how involved the father was.

The best reason anyone has ever come up with for an innocent parent helping a murdering one is fear. Fear of being killed by the murderer Fear of losing what they have (status, money, etc) when the child "can't be brought back if we turn on each other".

I can see the "innocent" parent being fearful, but not for months/years. That night/morning, yes.

On a practical note, I've never met a person who was consistently intelligent or stupid in their thoughts or actions. So the combination of mastermind and stupidity isn't surprising to me. Also, I think they had a lot of luck...not luck they were expecting, just lucky.

I guess I have to agree, smart people sometimes do stupid things and stupid people sometimes can figure out things that baffle others.

I agree they had a lot of luck. I think a lot of $ helped too.

My point was the timeframe.
I don't think she was being molested for months. I think there was probably one or two previous molestations and they were at most weeks before (4-5 tops) but more likely days before. Molestation victims show both immediate and long term symptoms of the abuse. The bedwetting, sleeping with Burke was early stage stuff. More long term stuff would be a general fear of men, especially of men touching her. Even casually. They make themselves unattractive with hygiene changes and dressing differently. I know PR mostly controlled the pageant stuff but that doesn't mean JB would have begun to balk at being made pretty.

OK. I don't know much about the behavior patterns, so I'll take your word for it.

Of course there is much, much more to this subject I just don't have the time to continue. Let's just say I've known a few molestation victims, family members and friends, and I've seen up close and first hand the changes wrought by this. JB just doesn't ping for the long term stuff in my opinion. But definitely the short term.

If I've learned anything studying these cases it's that there is no perfect crime scene.

Again, in the Routier case a sock with blood stains was found down the alleyway behind their house. A police dog was brought in the track the supposed intruder in that case. The dog never "hit" on the sock although he passed right by it, a cop found the sock. Now how did this trained police dog miss the scent of blood? Who knows. But the people that believe in her innocence point to it and say "cops planted it because the dog didn't smell it". To me, that's a huge stretch. I don't expect perfection or everything to be explained. I expect common sense.

I agree, there are no perfect crime scenes. Every detail can't be explained.

I see what you are getting at but I don't agree.
I just don't think PR would never have questioned JR's involvement either in private or public. I also don't think she's so stupid as to ignore clear evidence that points to JR.
I think her silence and their continued marriage until she died had to do with sharing dangerous secrets.

I don't think so either. I think once JR managed to be "ruled out" as writer of the RN (Which I consider a huge mistake by detectives - placing far too much weight on unscientific opinion) PR became the primary suspect. Once she was in jeopardy for a crime she didn't commit she had little choice but to play it the way she did.

Thanks for the warning. But don't worry, I'm busy too. I'm peeling wallpaper, painting icky rooms and tearing up bathroom linoleum. I drop in here when I'm in too much pain, too tired or too contrary to work :floorlaugh:

I have a lot of experience with this. PM if you need any tips.

 

[Chelly]

(snipped)
.........My take is a little different, instead of the plan being changed, I feel that PR was not in on the coverup, therefore she didn't know better than to call the police with the body in the house........
(snipped)

.

Chrishope, When do you believe PR learned of the death of JB?

 

[txsvicki]

txsvicki,
Do you think she was not molested that particular night?

.

I suppose there could have been an attempt leading up to the head injury, but my imo has been that the jab was an attempt to cover previous injury earlier in that past week, and would have shown up if/when the body was discovered. Which is what happened. I have never bought the theory that whoever strangled JonBenet really thought she was already dead as Kolar's book is reported to imply.

 

[UKGuy]

In other words you can't defend your inferences.

Chrishope,
One does not defend inferences, the logical form determines if they are valid.

I think most of my inferences are valid, you could demonstrate any conclusions I arrive at which might be inconsistent with the current forensic evidence?

This would help us both, simply disagreeing and telling me that you cannot see, i.e. inferentially or probabilistically what I do, does not move us forward.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I suppose there could have been an attempt leading up to the head injury, but my imo has been that the jab was an attempt to cover previous injury earlier in that past week, and would have shown up if/when the body was discovered. Which is what happened. I have never bought the theory that whoever strangled JonBenet really thought she was already dead as Kolar's book is reported to imply.

txsvicki,
You could be correct, OK, so who would know know about this internal injury? If its going to show up when the body is discovered what does this say?

Presumably the person doing the jabbing is the same person who inflicted the previous injury?

What do you make of Coroner Meyer's remarks regarding JonBenet sustaining sexual contact?

Or do you think he is referring to the jab?

I have never bought the theory that whoever strangled JonBenet really thought she was already dead as Kolar's book is reported to imply.

This does seem to stretch our imagination, although in terms of outcome, i.e. they knew she was alive but still strangled her, does'nt seem to change much.

.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

I do not think Mayer was referring to the jab because he told Det. Arndt that he believed her injuries were consistent with digital penetration. I believe he also was referring to the bruising and eroded hymen.

 

[UKGuy]

I do not think Mayer was referring to the jab because he told Det. Arndt that he believed her injuries were consistent with digital penetration. I believe he also was referring to the bruising and eroded hymen.

DeeDee249,
I agree, although some suggest the digital penetration might be staging? You think Myer factored in the eroded hymen when offering his verbal take on affairs?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
I agree, although some suggest the digital penetration might be staging? You think Myer factored in the eroded hymen when offering his verbal take on affairs?

.

I do not think the digital penetration was staging. There was evidence of HEALED injuries that had occurred previously- some bruising could have been a few days old- coinciding with the R's party on the 23rd perhaps.
He definitely included the eroded hymen in his opinion- if course- how could he not? If there was staging of the vaginal injuries it was the POSSIBLE insertion of the paintbrush. As far as that goes, we have never seen anywhere said by anyone that the paintbrush was either definitely inserted or found inside her. There were some wood splinters (described as cellulose in the autopsy) found i the vagina that were said to match the broken paintbrush. We definitely know that there is a missing piece of the paintbrush- and if it had been inserted (it was the end of the brush- the middle was used to make the garrote and the other end was replaced in the tote) it would probably have been bloodied. That may be the reason why it is missing.
On the other hand, we have been repeatedly told that only about 10% of the evidence has been made public. There is always some evidence kept secret that would be known only to those present at the crime itself. Although I have a hard time believing that some of this "secret" evidence would not have been leaked over the years - or "sold" for the right price.