Who was molested on the 23rd?

New Posts

sk716 said:
I agree to a point. I think that Don Paugh was the abuser but I think that the molestation and murder were separate things as weird as it sounds. I think some kind of confrontation broke out at the party on the 23rd and someone attempted to call the police to break up whatever "domestic dispute" had broken out. I think only three or four people who were in the house at that time had any idea what had happened: Patsy, John, and Susan Stein for certain. From what I have read about Fleet White, I don't think he knew what was going on in the house, he doesn't strike me as someone who would actively participate in a cover up. I think he figured it out in the following days.

Stein barred the police from coming in on party night. John and Patsy were unavailable, Patsy probably in hysterics because her abuser was now abusing her favorite child. Clearly, Stein wanted to make sure that the police did not see Patsy and John at that time it would have raised way too many questions. Patsy's obsession with appearances would have kept her from reporting her father as an abuser and wanting to keep it all quiet. I think it's probable that he molested Burke as well but that's a separate conversation. Burke had probably aged up too much to fit his preference anymore. Six and nine year olds aren't in therapy unless some bad stuff went down.

For the record, I think Burke accidentally killed his sister and I don't think he has any memory of having done so. Patsy would have wanted it covered up to keep her father from being outed as a pedophile and herself as a victim that didn't protect her own child. Had anyone other than Burke caused her head injury, they would have insisted that the attacker was the molester. Their son had to be protected. I suspect that it was Patsy that finished the job, though.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also feel BR bashed her in a rage but did not intend to kill her. And his parents covered it up to protect him. When the results of the Grand Jury indictments were finally made public, I believe there were 18 counts (9 for each parent) that the GJ recommended to indict on, and one of them I believe was "failure to prevent abuse leading to death". Neither parent was actually going to be indicted for murder or manslaughter, but obviously this charge would never be mentioned if an intruder was thought to be responsible. Let's face it, after reading James Kolar's book it is pretty obvious that the police and DA knew what happened. Colorado law protecting minors under the age of 10 prevented it from going any further. Those 18 indictments couldn't have been any clearer. AH wouldn't sign them because doing so would have incriminated BR and BR could not be held accountable. No DA wants to prosecute an unwinnable case. Hunter was close to retirement. No way was he going to leave that way.
 
sk716 said:
I agree to a point. I think that Don Paugh was the abuser but I think that the molestation and murder were separate things as weird as it sounds. I think some kind of confrontation broke out at the party on the 23rd and someone attempted to call the police to break up whatever "domestic dispute" had broken out. I think only three or four people who were in the house at that time had any idea what had happened: Patsy, John, and Susan Stein for certain. From what I have read about Fleet White, I don't think he knew what was going on in the house, he doesn't strike me as someone who would actively participate in a cover up. I think he figured it out in the following days.

Stein barred the police from coming in on party night. John and Patsy were unavailable, Patsy probably in hysterics because her abuser was now abusing her favorite child. Clearly, Stein wanted to make sure that the police did not see Patsy and John at that time it would have raised way too many questions. Patsy's obsession with appearances would have kept her from reporting her father as an abuser and wanting to keep it all quiet. I think it's probable that he molested Burke as well but that's a separate conversation. Burke had probably aged up too much to fit his preference anymore. Six and nine year olds aren't in therapy unless some bad stuff went down.

For the record, I think Burke accidentally killed his sister and I don't think he has any memory of having done so. Patsy would have wanted it covered up to keep her father from being outed as a pedophile and herself as a victim that didn't protect her own child. Had anyone other than Burke caused her head injury, they would have insisted that the attacker was the molester. Their son had to be protected. I suspect that it was Patsy that finished the job, though.
Click to expand...

As I'm reading what I wrote, I realize that I strung two thoughts together. I believe she was molested on the 23rd, not at the party, but talked about it at the party. White would NEVER have stayed quiet about it. Unless I'm reading him wrong, I believe he'd have done something about it. I think Paugh should have been looked at more closely.
I believe Patsy did all of it. I think she knew for quite some time JonBenet was being molested, and it ate away at her. I also believed it was planned, but the event at White's moved up the date.
 
It could have also come out it was John Andrew doing the abusing. That might have been why Grandpa flew on standby the next morning to Atlanta. Maybe he went to confront John Andrew.
 
David Rogers said:
It could have also come out it was John Andrew doing the abusing. That might have been why Grandpa flew on standby the next morning to Atlanta. Maybe he went to confront John Andrew.
Click to expand...

There were indications of sexual abuse in Patsy's childhood. The common denominator in this would have been Don Paugh. Now, that could just be the easy answer, but had he been looked at more closely, as I think he should have been, it wouldn't still be an issue. I don't see either Johns as being molesters.
 
MaryNo said:
There were indications of sexual abuse in Patsy's childhood. The common denominator in this would have been Don Paugh. Now, that could just be the easy answer, but had he been looked at more closely, as I think he should have been, it wouldn't still be an issue. I don't see either Johns as being molesters.
Click to expand...
It is very doubtful a teenage boy is going to using a adult Dr Seuss book for enjoyment. It is more likely the Dr Seuss book was to groom a youngster already familiar with Dr Seuss’s children’s books. Remember, the adult Dr Seuss book and a semen stained blanket was found in John Andrews suitcase in the basement.
 
David Rogers said:
It is very doubtful a teenage boy is going to using a adult Dr Seuss book for enjoyment. It is more likely the Dr Seuss book was to groom a youngster already familiar with Dr Seuss’s children’s books. Remember, the adult Dr Seuss book and a semen stained blanket was found in John Andrews suitcase in the basement.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of what was found, yes. The book you're referring to, most likely, wouldn't be a useful grooming tool. What evidence, that you're aware of, connects any of this to this case? What evidence exists that John Andrew molested, or engaged in any sexual behavior with a minor? There's no explanation for these items being in that suitcase. We have no idea where he was when he stained the blanket.
 
MaryNo said:
I'm aware of what was found, yes. The book you're referring to, most likely, wouldn't be a useful grooming tool. What evidence, that you're aware of, connects any of this to this case? What evidence exists that John Andrew molested, or engaged in any sexual behavior with a minor? There's no explanation for these items being in that suitcase. We have no idea where he was when he stained the blanket.
Click to expand...
JonBenét was sexually abused many times before the murder according to some doctors. John Andrew had access. After the hang up 911 call on the 23rd, Grandpa flew standby to Atlanta. John Andrew was in Atlanta. Who got a lawyer after the murder? John Andrew his sister and John Ramseys ex Wife. Why would they need lawyers? What were they hiding?
 
David Rogers said:
JonBenét was sexually abused many times before the murder according to some doctors. John Andrew had access. After the hang up 911 call on the 23rd, Grandpa flew standby to Atlanta. John Andrew was in Atlanta. Who got a lawyer after the murder? John Andrew his sister and John Ramseys ex Wife. Why would they need lawyers? What were they hiding?
Click to expand...
If a child is murdered inside their own home, everyone with access to the home should lawyer up. If you look at the cases that fill this board, you'll see innocent people making mistakes in answering questions that they'd never have answered if they'd had a lawyer. Hiring a lawyer is common sense.
 
Maryno, I agree with this, but to a point. Unless John Andrew were at the home at the time of the murder, I wouldn't think he would feel the need to hire an attorney. (However, I'm also not sure of the timing of his doing so. I'd be more suspicious if he did it immediately. I'll have to go and find out the timing on this.)

Also, I tend to think the blanket with his "DNA" on it and the Dr. Suess book is pretty odd. It's sort of like someone in the house at the time knew what was going on (JA likely doing to JB something on an ongoing basis that he shouldn't have been) and put the blanket inside the suitcase and then the suitcase in proximity to JB. Just in case. Just in case things got dicey and there needed to be a suspect. The blanket that JA usually uses when he's at the house, found next to JB.

And, even if JA weren't involved in the murder of JB, let me ask this: What are the chances that a teenager, staying at times in a house with a sexed-up, beauty queen of a little girl to whom he's not fully a sibling and wasn't raised with like a sibling, would focus some of his physical urges on her? The family's a mess -broken marriage; step-mother totally absorbed in her vicarious life via little comely, beauty queen JB; father focused on career; father and second wife's marriage "over"; most everything about their lives oriented around money and image. It seems really like an empty house, where people live but don't love -they just run into each other and do occasional meals, etc. together.

I wouldn't think there would be much feeling of connectedness to one another, nor any deep values that would create profound, unbreachable boundaries in behavior. Her mother was dressing her up like a tart, teaching her "sexy moves" or whatever the actual phraseology is, for adults to ogle her, for crying out loud! I'd sort of be surprised if the teenage kid weren't molesting her.
 
Last edited:
fridaybaker said:
Maryno, I agree with this, but to a point. Unless John Andrew were at the home at the time of the murder, I wouldn't think he would feel the need to hire an attorney. (However, I'm also not sure of the timing of his doing so. I'd be more suspicious if he did it immediately. I'll have to go and find out the timing on this.)

Also, I tend to think the blanket with his "DNA" on it and the Dr. Suess book is pretty odd. It's sort of like someone in the house at the time knew what was going on (JA likely doing to JB something on an ongoing basis that he shouldn't have been) and put the blanket inside the suitcase and then the suitcase in proximity to JB. Just in case. Just in case things got dicey and there needed to be a suspect. The blanket that JA usually uses when he's at the house, found next to JB.

And, even if JA weren't involved in the murder of JB, let me ask this: What are the chances that a teenager, staying at times in a house with a sexed-up, beauty queen of a little girl to whom he's not fully a sibling and wasn't raised with like a sibling, would focus some of his physical urges on her? The family's a mess -broken marriage; step-mother totally absorbed in her vicarious life via little comely, beauty queen JB; father focused on career; father and second wife's marriage "over"; most everything about their lives oriented around money and image. It seems really like an empty house, where people live but don't love -they just run into each other and do occasional meals, etc. together.

I wouldn't think there would be much feeling of connectedness to one another, nor any deep values that would create profound, unbreachable boundaries in behavior. Her mother was dressing her up like a tart, teaching her "sexy moves" or whatever the actual phraseology is, for adults to ogle her, for crying out loud! I'd sort of be surprised if the teenage kid weren't molesting her.
Click to expand...

John lawyered up the family, unless my memory is failing me. He was protecting his family, and keeping his wife out of jail. Throughout the years there have been comments theorizing JA might have come home, and then left again after killing JonBenet. The police were tasked with ruling out everyone, but the killer. JA needed a lawyer for questioning about his family. Everyone, in my opinion, should do this, if they have the resources.

Yes, the book and the blanket are strange, but again, we don't have anything connecting them to JB. I haven't seen anything connecting these items to the events on the night of the murder, or the murder itself.
 
David Rogers said:
It is very doubtful a teenage boy is going to using a adult Dr Seuss book for enjoyment. It is more likely the Dr Seuss book was to groom a youngster already familiar with Dr Seuss’s children’s books. Remember, the adult Dr Seuss book and a semen stained blanket was found in John Andrews suitcase in the basement.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it an adult Dr. Seuss book? The one about the seven lady Godivas or something like that?
 
MaryNo said:
If a child is murdered inside their own home, everyone with access to the home should lawyer up. If you look at the cases that fill this board, you'll see innocent people making mistakes in answering questions that they'd never have answered if they'd had a lawyer. Hiring a lawyer is common sense.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, thanks for this. A lot of wrongful convictions come from people being too helpful to LE, usually to avoid people thinking they are guilty. Never consider that, think of yourself, lawyer up don't say anything and don't give LE anything unless you're compelled to do so even if you're completely innocent. That's why people who become suspicious of people who lawyer up or reject polygraphs or whatever are indirectly contributing to wrongful convictions by creating a culture where protecting yourself is something to be suspicious of. I understand the mentality but everyone should stop thinking that way IMO.

This is not about the Ramsey's ftr, i think there's plenty of reasons to suspect them beyond that so that's fine just don't accuse them for exorcising their rights and protecting themselves.

Here's part 1 of an interesting lecture if anyone is interested that explains a lot of this stuff, it's from a Law Professor and former defence attorney, he straight up says never talk to the police without a lawyer and cites various examples of doing so going very wrong for innocent people. He even points out he'd never talk to the police himself without his own lawyer despite being a Law Professor and former Attorney -
 
FY1234 said:
Yes it was a hangup call and the police rang the bell. Susan Stine answered through the intercom saying everything was fine and sent them away. In their book the Ramsey's claimed it was a misdialed call by Fleet who was trying to call to get his mother some medicine.

I think Fleet did call 911 but not by mistake and that there was more to the story.
Click to expand...

Hello Everyone,

I'm very brand new here and have been trying to educate myself on this whole topic, but there is so much information. I am sorry I this has been covered. How many people order medicine during a party, nevermind a Christmas party? Yes, in case of emergency. But if there was an emergency, I personally, would be there with whoever it was that needed something urgently. IMHO, this excuse is pretty lame.

Again, I am so sorry if this has already been covered.
 
UKGuy said:
David Roger,

My take is young male guests abused JonBenet or/and other female guests to which FW responded by dialling 911, during which he was talked out of carrying it through and an alternative course of action was planned?

The parents of JonBenet were not the only parents to know JonBenet was being abused, to this day nobody in Boulder wants to discuss this topic much !

.
Click to expand...
This might be extremely sick, but this case is as well. I apologize.

I wonder if said young male guests regularly abused JonBenet and her mother, an alleged victim of abuse herself, thought this was love toward her daughter. If this child had been habitually abused, she may have become hypersexual, for want of a better word. Then someone saw something they should not have and the jig was up, so to speak. I feel that victims that have been abused at a very young age have very confused ideas regarding attention and love and what they truly mean. I also feel that they often can carry this into adulthood when unaddressed.

Again, speculation on all counts. With the exception of the sexual abuse of this child.
 
David Rogers said:
It has been suggested that Fleet White started to call 911 on the 23rd because someone was being molested at the party. I’ve never seen where Fleet said he misdialed the phone. It’s always been someone else who said he misdialed. Is this the info he has been hiding? Was this the beginning? Maybe it resurfaced at the Whites party and ended at the Ramseys house with the murder. I hope he puts any info in his will.
Click to expand...

"MISDIALED"

Noone exactly knew what happened during that call.. the only reference we have is the report from the BPD.

here

Jan. 10, 1997 - Ramsey Update #15
 
"Boulder Police have reviewed records detailing the 9-1-1 hang-up call from the Ramsey house, 755 15th St., on Dec. 23, 1996 at 6:47 p.m. (a copy of the call report is included with this news release) A Boulder Police officer was dispatched to the location and confirmed the following information: It appears that during a party at the home a telephone user mis-dialed while making a long distance call."
 
MaryNo said:
What section of this book do you believe falls in the category of "grooming"?
Click to expand...
First of all is the Dr Seuss name on the book. That makes it ok for a kid. Parents read and give kids Dr Seuss books so they are OK. Secondly there are naked girls in the book in public, So naked girls is front of other people must be OK. It is a way to groom a young girl to take off her clothes.
 
I wondered who buys this book.
It's advertised for up to a hundred dollar in some articles.
Then I wonder is the book itself is a kind of Voight-Kampff test.

https://www.amazon.ca/Seven-Lady-Godivas-Concerning-Historys/dp/0394562690

"verified purchaser
A story that is not geared to kids as most Dr. Seuss stories are.While the story's intended readers are adults the content is not sexual or pornagraphic.He presents the nudity in a normal and non sexual way.In fact with parental guidance some children may be interested in this book.For its time it was clearly a forward thinking attitude towards normalizing nudity.A pleasant surprise indeed"

IMO The book could be used as a grooming tool or in ritualized repetitive play among children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 3,892 (members: 209, guests: 3,683)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
3,683
Total visitors
3,892
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,256
Messages
17,966,295
Members
228,734
Latest member
TexasCuriousMynd
Back
Top