PR/JR wrote the RN to explain their dead daughter in basement

[Anti-K]

Yes, I tend to think that the ransom note is fake.
...

AK

 

[midwest mama]

Yes, I tend to think that the ransom note is fake.
...

AK

So, would that, in your opinion, make the crime by an intruder a sexually motivated crime with no intent to kidnap JB?

If no intent to kidnap JB, and her killer was an intruder (perhaps even one with a key), can we wonder if the cord and tape, which could have been brought in, was planned for use during a premeditated murder?

If there was no premeditated murder plan, but rather a sexual assault planned, how would the intruder have made an escape after such an encounter and leave a live JB there to show the results?

IMO, if there was an intruder, and the note was a fake, it almost has to be a premeditated sexually motivated crime, in which death was planned to be the end result. Kind of like a pedophile "snuff". Oh, the horror.

 

[Anti-K]

So, would that, in your opinion, make the crime by an intruder a sexually motivated crime with no intent to kidnap JB?

If no intent to kidnap JB, and her killer was an intruder (perhaps even one with a key), can we wonder if the cord and tape, which could have been brought in, was planned for use during a premeditated murder?

If there was no premeditated murder plan, but rather a sexual assault planned, how would the intruder have made an escape after such an encounter and leave a live JB there to show the results?

IMO, if there was an intruder, and the note was a fake, it almost has to be a premeditated sexually motivated crime, in which death was planned to be the end result. Kind of like a pedophile "snuff". Oh, the horror.

I don’t know if this crime was sexually motivated, but it certainly had a sexual component. If it was sexually motivated, then the killer took steps to hide it. The victim was cleaned up, her clothes put back in place, she was covered with a blanket, there was a ransom note; etc. If not for the autopsy the sexual aspect of this crime would never have been known (BTW, this is one of the reasons that I reject all RDI theories that have the Ramseys trying to blame the crime on a sexual predator of some sort).
The note is everything to me. It is the key, I feel.

I think the note must have been very important to the killer because of the considerable and otherwise unnecessary risk involved in writing it in the house. So, why was it important to him? I don’t know. I can hardly imagine. I’m not good at motive.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I don’t know if this crime was sexually motivated, but it certainly had a sexual component. If it was sexually motivated, then the killer took steps to hide it. The victim was cleaned up, her clothes put back in place, she was covered with a blanket, there was a ransom note; etc. If not for the autopsy the sexual aspect of this crime would never have been known (BTW, this is one of the reasons that I reject all RDI theories that have the Ramseys trying to blame the crime on a sexual predator of some sort).

You'll have to explain that logic to me, pilgrim. For my money, that's one of the dead giveaways that it was them.

 

[renah]

I don’t know if this crime was sexually motivated, but it certainly had a sexual component. If it was sexually motivated, then the killer took steps to hide it. The victim was cleaned up, her clothes put back in place, she was covered with a blanket, there was a ransom note; etc. If not for the autopsy the sexual aspect of this crime would never have been known (BTW, this is one of the reasons that I reject all RDI theories that have the Ramseys trying to blame the crime on a sexual predator of some sort).
The note is everything to me. It is the key, I feel.

I think the note must have been very important to the killer because of the considerable and otherwise unnecessary risk involved in writing it in the house. So, why was it important to him? I don’t know. I can hardly imagine. I’m not good at motive.
...

AK

I'm not great with linear logic, but how's this for imagining:

Burke told Patsy it was an essay for school, & asked his mom to help by recopying his horrid handwriting for him....

 

[Anti-K]

You'll have to explain that logic to me, pilgrim. For my money, that's one of the dead giveaways that it was them.

It’s self-explanatory. But, I’ll restate it in another way:
The crime had a sexual component. The killer took steps to hide the sexual component. Therefore, the killer did not want the sexual component known.

If the Ramseys wanted to stage a crime committed by a sexually motivated killer, than they would not have hidden the sexual component.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

It’s self-explanatory. But, I’ll restate it in another way:
The crime had a sexual component. The killer took steps to hide the sexual component. Therefore, the killer did not want the sexual component known.

If the Ramseys wanted to stage a crime committed by a sexually motivated killer, than they would not have hidden the sexual component.
...

AK

I don't think they wanted to stage a crime of a sexual nature. I think they simply wanted to stage a fake kidnapping with the victim murdered because they disobeyed the RN. The RN was written with the "recipe" for her death built right in. Simply talk to people (police, friends, clergy, victims' advocates) invite them over to the house with all the attending hoopla of cars, including marked patrol cars, and people going in and out and there you have it...."oh, so THAT's why she was killed- the parents disobeyed them"...etc.
The sexual component was hidden (so they thought) because they wished to protect the molester. They hadn't thought about what an autopsy might show. JB's injures, including hymenal erosion and bruising, as well as internal bleeding, was not revealed until the autopsy. The parents removed any VISIBLE signs by wiping the blood from her thighs and pubic area. And I think that since they felt she was not raped (in the traditional sense) in other words- she was still a virgin- there would be nothing to be revealed.

 

[renah]

Yes, Im the same person who suggested jbenet wore her mother's excessively-shedding jacket into the (cold dank) basement for warmth,

but I really wasnt joking that BR may have asked his mother's help to draft his "school assignment".. deliberately & knowingly, born out of acute resentment and the knowledge of not just Patsy's refocus onto the newly golden pagent girl but also of his dawning comprehension that his Very much-beloved mother had an illness that was sure to leave only a finite number of days on earth left to spend with him.

That ransom note was written by a bright-though naive- boy of nine. Ask any NON-criminalogist childhood developemental expert!

 

[Anti-K]

I don't think they wanted to stage a crime of a sexual nature. I think they simply wanted to stage a fake kidnapping with the victim murdered because they disobeyed the RN. The RN was written with the "recipe" for her death built right in. Simply talk to people (police, friends, clergy, victims' advocates) invite them over to the house with all the attending hoopla of cars, including marked patrol cars, and people going in and out and there you have it...."oh, so THAT's why she was killed- the parents disobeyed them"...etc.
The sexual component was hidden (so they thought) because they wished to protect the molester. They hadn't thought about what an autopsy might show. JB's injures, including hymenal erosion and bruising, as well as internal bleeding, was not revealed until the autopsy. The parents removed any VISIBLE signs by wiping the blood from her thighs and pubic area. And I think that since they felt she was not raped (in the traditional sense) in other words- she was still a virgin- there would be nothing to be revealed.

Yes, well this would seem more reasonable. But, not that reasonable. Because there was a sexual component to the crime. In your scenario it seems that they created the sexual component (at or near point of death) and then they hid what they just created.
.

Calling the police and everyone else could provide a reason for why the child is dead, except it wouldn’t explain why she was murdered hours before those calls were made and it wouldn’t explain why she is dead in the house.
...

AK

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya AntiK and DeeDee,

Was the sa staging required to obliterate evidence of a sa on the 23rd?

 

[Anti-K]

If it was staged “to obliterate evidence of a sa on the 23rd,” or at any other time, than why would they un-stage what they just staged by wiping and straightening her clothes, and covering her in the blanket, etc?

And, no offence, but I sometimes get cranky when the sexual assault is referred to as being staged. It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death. And, then it was essentially covered up.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

If it was staged “to obliterate evidence of a sa on the 23rd,” or at any other time, than why would they un-stage what they just staged by wiping and straightening her clothes, and covering her in the blanket, etc?

To use your words, I get a little cranky whenever someone says that anything was "un-staged."

And, no offence, but I sometimes get cranky when the sexual assault is referred to as being staged. It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death. And, then it was essentially covered up.

Well, then I hate to spoil your picnic, friend, but if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done, among other reasons.

 

[UKGuy]

If it was staged “to obliterate evidence of a sa on the 23rd,” or at any other time, than why would they un-stage what they just staged by wiping and straightening her clothes, and covering her in the blanket, etc?

And, no offence, but I sometimes get cranky when the sexual assault is referred to as being staged. It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death. And, then it was essentially covered up.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Here is what Coroner Meyer thinks:January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, excerpt

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

So what do you think: do the digital penetration and sexual contact. coincide or are they separate events, you decide?

.

 

[Anti-K]

To use your words, I get a little cranky whenever someone says that anything was "un-staged."



Well, then I hate to spoil your picnic, friend, but if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done, among other reasons.

I share your discontent, but as far as I know RDI are pretty much the only ones who propose such things as un-staging.
.

And, no worries. You haven’t spoiled anything. But, the sexual assault was real and no one outside of a few forum posters dispute this. The sexual assault occurred and it occurred at or near point of death; see here: http://tinyurl.com/o9chnrqthe

Someone inserted a foreign object inside Jonbenet. That constitutes a sexual assault. It is a form of rape. The fact that this occurred disproves your (unfounded and unsupportable) claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done.”

Clearly, the motivation for the sexual assault is up for debate, but the fact of the sexual assault should not be, disputing this is like disputing that her body was found in the WC.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I share your discontent, but as far as I know RDI are pretty much the only ones who propose such things as un-staging.

I guess it depends on which RDI you mean. I'm telling you how I see things. Moreover, I've only ever seen IDIs use the phrase "un-staging."
.

And, no worries. You haven’t spoiled anything.

Oh, damn.

But, the sexual assault was real and no one outside of a few forum posters dispute this.

Well, let's be careful, Anti-K. I don't know anyone who says that it didn't happen. That's not what I mean when I say it was staged.

The sexual assault occurred and it occurred at or near point of death; see here: http://tinyurl.com/o9chnrqthe

Right.

Someone inserted a foreign object inside JonBenet. That constitutes a sexual assault.

If it was done with the intent of gratifying the offender. I don't think it was, for a couple of reasons.

The fact that this occurred disproves your (unfounded and unsupportable) claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done.”

It's neither unfounded nor unsupportable, pilgrim. Indeed, I based it on the findings of the pathologists and FBI experts. Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done, as if they were repulsed by it. Also, using an object allowed them to do it without having to touch JB. It's as if the person took a blind shot and said, "ugh, there, it's done."

Clearly, the motivation for the sexual assault is up for debate, but the fact of the sexual assault should not be, disputing this is like disputing that her body was found in the WC.

Like I said, I don't claim it didn't happen.

 

[Anti-K]

I guess it depends on which RDI you mean. I'm telling you how I see things. Moreover, I've only ever seen IDIs use the phrase "un-staging."
.



Oh, damn.



Well, let's be careful, Anti-K. I don't know anyone who says that it didn't happen. That's not what I mean when I say it was staged.



Right.



If it was done with the intent of gratifying the offender. I don't think it was, for a couple of reasons.



It's neither unfounded nor unsupportable, pilgrim. Indeed, I based it on the findings of the pathologists and FBI experts. Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done, as if they were repulsed by it. Also, using an object allowed them to do it without having to touch JB. It's as if the person took a blind shot and said, "ugh, there, it's done."



Like I said, I don't claim it didn't happen.

In reference to the sexual assault, I wrote, “It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death.” post 231

To which you replied, “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done...” post 232

So, you did indeed say that the sexual assault was not real, and you even offered a reason in support of it not being real: a lot more damage would have been done...

Your claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done...” is indeed unfounded and not supportable. Of course, there could have been more damage. But, there could have been less. There is nothing that says damage below x amount means an assault didn’t happen. And, saying “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done” is saying that it wasn’t real and saying it wasn’t real is saying that it didn’t happen. You said it: post 232

And, claiming that “Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done” does not negate the fact that it was done. Claiming this actually contradicts your position as stated in post 232 – that the sexual assault was not real.

Anyway, I see that you now are posting as if you do accept that the sexual assault was real. Good for you.
.

You didn’t actually say anything about the sexual assault being staged (it wasn’t, it was real. And, it was “hidden&#8221. You simply said, “if it was real, a lot more damage would have been done.”
.

I’ve seen all sides use the phrase un-staging. But, as far as I know IDI use it to describe certain aspects of some RDI theories. Docg and UKGuy are good examples of this sort of thinking. Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging. Etc
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Here is what Coroner Meyer thinks:January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, excerpt

So what do you think: do the digital penetration and sexual contact. coincide or are they separate events, you decide?

.

It seems obvious form the context given that the “digital penetration and sexual contact” are the one and the same. Dr Meyer’s opinion, as stated in the quoted piece, that the “victim had been subjected to sexual contact” was based on his observation that the victim had “received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.”
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

In reference to the sexual assault, I wrote, “It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death.” post 231

To which you replied, “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done...” post 232

So, you did indeed say that the sexual assault was not real, and you even offered a reason in support of it not being real: a lot more damage would have been done...

Your claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done...” is indeed unfounded and not supportable. Of course, there could have been more damage. But, there could have been less. There is nothing that says damage below x amount means an assault didn’t happen. And, saying “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done” is saying that it wasn’t real and saying it wasn’t real is saying that it didn’t happen. You said it: post 232

And, claiming that “Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done” does not negate the fact that it was done. Claiming this actually contradicts your position as stated in post 232 – that the sexual assault was not real.

Anyway, I see that you now are posting as if you do accept that the sexual assault was real. Good for you.
.

You didn’t actually say anything about the sexual assault being staged (it wasn’t, it was real. And, it was “hidden&#8221. You simply said, “if it was real, a lot more damage would have been done.”
.

I’ve seen all sides use the phrase un-staging. But, as far as I know IDI use it to describe certain aspects of some RDI theories. Docg and UKGuy are good examples of this sort of thinking. Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging. Etc
...

AK

I think we got tangled up somewhere. Either that, or you have a knack for twisting things. Not important right now.

The idea that I'm trying to get across is not that it didn't HAPPEN, but that it was not done for sexual gratification. Rather, it was most likely done as an attempt to obscure older injuries and throw suspicion elsewhere at the same time. Thus, STAGING. Ya with me so far?

Also, based on my studies of child murders, in cases of sexual assault, whether with objects or otherwise, much more damage WAS done. Those perps had no qualms about that. There just was not much damage done. From what I know, the FBI analysis was similar to mine, as well.

In fairness to you, there are forms of sexual abuse that leave no marks at all.

Oh, and I HAVE talked about it being staged. Maybe you haven't heard, but my thoughts are widely available and much better than anything I can say here.

Lastly, in response to

Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging.

I would say that it would be un-staging if the attempt was to reveal the truth. In this case, it's more like the "too many cooks" story, if you take my meaning.

 

[UKGuy]

In reference to the sexual assault, I wrote, “It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death.” post 231

To which you replied, “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done...” post 232

So, you did indeed say that the sexual assault was not real, and you even offered a reason in support of it not being real: a lot more damage would have been done...

Your claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done...” is indeed unfounded and not supportable. Of course, there could have been more damage. But, there could have been less. There is nothing that says damage below x amount means an assault didn’t happen. And, saying “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done” is saying that it wasn’t real and saying it wasn’t real is saying that it didn’t happen. You said it: post 232

And, claiming that “Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done” does not negate the fact that it was done. Claiming this actually contradicts your position as stated in post 232 – that the sexual assault was not real.

Anyway, I see that you now are posting as if you do accept that the sexual assault was real. Good for you.
.

You didn’t actually say anything about the sexual assault being staged (it wasn’t, it was real. And, it was “hidden”). You simply said, “if it was real, a lot more damage would have been done.”
.

I’ve seen all sides use the phrase un-staging. But, as far as I know IDI use it to describe certain aspects of some RDI theories. Docg and UKGuy are good examples of this sort of thinking. Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging. Etc
...

AK

Anti-K,

I’ve seen all sides use the phrase un-staging. But, as far as I know IDI use it to describe certain aspects of some RDI theories. Docg and UKGuy are good examples of this sort of thinking. Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging. Etc

Not a phrase I remember using. Re-staging would be more apt. Since prior injuries are masked, particularly through the use of the paintbrush handle. So its not that one scenario was undone and a new one started, more that prior crime-scene objects were incorporated into a revised staging, e.g. pink nightgown and bedroom swapped for the basement?


.

 

[UKGuy]

It seems obvious form the context given that the “digital penetration and sexual contact” are the one and the same. Dr Meyer’s opinion, as stated in the quoted piece, that the “victim had been subjected to sexual contact” was based on his observation that the victim had “received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.”
...

AK

Anti-K,
Well to many its not obvious at all. Some think there might be staging involved, that is JonBenet was injured internally in an attempt to mask some prior sexual assault. The wine-cellar staging might represent a restaging of this scenario?

.