Premeditated?

[chlban]

Exactly. What's even more damning to me, is not that they sought out legal advice, but rather the speed in which they did it. The very evening of the murder....and who is the 1st person his lawyer wants to chat with. None other than FW. And low and behold, who is one of the 1st to have been thrown under the bus?

Well, let's review. Can anyone think of a case where the parents were ultimately proven innocent, where they hired attorney's immediately, refused to grant interviews and tried to prevent their other children from speaking directly to the police?

People can babble on all they want about the right to representation. I get it. But I can tell you, without a doubt, if my child was missing and/or found dead in my house contacting an attorney would not even cross my mind. I would also be demanding a Polygraph, so they could move on.

Maybe days or weeks later, if it became apparent I was a suspect I would think of it. But not immediately. MY BIL is an attorney and if he suggested it, I would say no, because I would be concerned that it would make the police focus on me instead of finding the killer. And that would be my priorty. But then, of course, I would be innocent.

I also would not, ever, under any circumstances, allow my remaining child/children out of my sight if I thought one of my children had just been kidnapped. I might allow them to be taken to another room, under the immediate sight of my sister or a very close friend to spare them from the details, but they would most certainly not leave my home where I could check on them every 2 minutes.

 

[Nom de plume]

Well, let's review. Can anyone think of a case where the parents were ultimately proven innocent, where they hired attorney's immediately, refused to grant interviews and tried to prevent their other children from speaking directly to the police?

People can babble on all they want about the right to representation. I get it. But I can tell you, without a doubt, if my child was missing and/or found dead in my house contacting an attorney would not even cross my mind. I would also be demanding a Polygraph, so they could move on.

Maybe days or weeks later, if it became apparent I was a suspect I would think of it. But not immediately. MY BIL is an attorney and if he suggested it, I would say no, because I would be concerned that it would make the police focus on me instead of finding the killer. And that would be my priorty. But then, of course, I would be innocent.

I also would not, ever, under any circumstances, allow my remaining child/children out of my sight if I thought one of my children had just been kidnapped. I might allow them to be taken to another room, under the immediate sight of my sister or a very close friend to spare them from the details, but they would most certainly not leave my home where I could check on them every 2 minutes.

ITA! I'd be demanding a LDT immediately! Clear me now so you can quit wasting time on me and can start looking for her killer! That's how any innocent parent would feel, and behave IMO.

The R's, especially JR's actions from the first second of the 911 call have made them look more guilty than the personal items from the house being used in the murder. If they had behaved exactly the opposite of the way they did, I might have considered the slightest possibility that they are innocent. If they would have talked to LE right away, taken LDT tests, cooperated with the investigation, and frankly just shown some anger towards the killer they would have faired far better in the court of public opinion.

JR should write another book 101 Ways To Look Guilty, after all, he's an expert.

:moo:

 

[Scandigirl]

Does anyone think that maybe it could be quite significant in some way that John immediately lawyered up his side of the family, but not Patsy's?

What possible things could this mean? One thing that enters my head (not saying I'm right- just a thought) is that if John and Patsy were both conspiring together to cover up for Burke, why only lawyer up one side of the family? If they wanted to prevent other family members from being questioned about Burke, and/or prevent them from letting slip anything that might look bad for him, wouldn't that apply equally to anyone on Patsy's side of the family who were also close to Burke, such as Don and Nedra Paugh, for example? Maybe this implies that BDI isn't what happened, I don't know? Certainly interesting in that regard, though?

Can anyone else think what else could be implied by only one side of the family being lawyered up? The other other obvious things I can think of, for instance, is that John had more to hide about himself than Patsy? Or, maybe, only JDI, and Patsy didn't need lawyers because she was innocent? (I have a hard time believing that explanation!) Or, maybe John was afraid of anything Patsy and/or her family could potentially say about him, if things turned sour, and he felt he needed to protect himself, just in case?

I'm sure there must be other possible implications I can't think of! Food for thought, though....

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yeah everyone needs attorneys. But should a parent of a child found murdered in her own house use attorneys to hide behind and finesse on how they are to be treated, get out of formal interviews for months, among other things? Nope. But that's my opinion.

They didn't hide. They talked to police. They gave info and samples. The police treated them like suspects day one. Everyone has a right to one and how the lawyer counsels them should not be astride against anyone.
You hire a lawyer you take their advice. Otherwise there is no point. There are things to discuss in this case but this one should be put to bed. He had an atty because he was entitled to him. That should have no bearing on the case or discussion IMO


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry double post.

 

[DeDee]

The Whites were living @ 743 15th street when the Ramsey's moved into their home, just two doors down; late Summer of '94.

This could explain why FW was one of the first people to befriend JR when he moved to Boulder.

Online research indicates Fleet Oil in Boulder currently claims four employees with FW as Chairman.

If FW continues to maintain an office at 743 15th Street, then he was working 2 doors down from the Ramsey's albeit PR referred to FW as Mr. Mom.

When did the FW's move two miles away to Comanche Drive?

 

[DeDee]

Does anyone think that maybe it could be quite significant in some way that John immediately lawyered up his side of the family, but not Patsy's?

What possible things could this mean? One thing that enters my head (not saying I'm right- just a thought) is that if John and Patsy were both conspiring together to cover up for Burke, why only lawyer up one side of the family? If they wanted to prevent other family members from being questioned about Burke, and/or prevent them from letting slip anything that might look bad for him, wouldn't that apply equally to anyone on Patsy's side of the family who were also close to Burke, such as Don and Nedra Paugh, for example? Maybe this implies that BDI isn't what happened, I don't know? Certainly interesting in that regard, though?

Can anyone else think what else could be implied by only one side of the family being lawyered up? The other other obvious things I can think of, for instance, is that John had more to hide about himself than Patsy? Or, maybe, only JDI, and Patsy didn't need lawyers because she was innocent? (I have a hard time believing that explanation!) Or, maybe John was afraid of anything Patsy and/or her family could potentially say about him, if things turned sour, and he felt he needed to protect himself, just in case?

I'm sure there must be other possible implications I can't think of! Food for thought, though....

JR hired lawyers for his ex-wife, Lucinda, and their adult children, JAR and Melinda, to possibly prevent them from discussing anything in JRs past including, but not limited to, JARs blue suitcase.

JR was known to have extramarital affairs including the one that ended his first marriage. A female Tucson resident, KB, was interviewed by BPD who claimed she met JR after he responded to her ad placed in the USA Today. Subsequently, they saw one another from Aug 1994 - April 1995.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You completely misunderstood my statement. While everyone has a right to hire an attorney, if JR is really innocent then he has no need to hire a whole team of high priced attorneys because the evidence will bear out his innocence (unless you believe LE would manufacture false evidence or would grossly misinterpret evidence as to put the onus of guilt upon him, a completely innocent man). You see, Scarlett, a truly innocent person knows that the police can do all the investigation they want and the investigation will actually clear them. In this case, JR did the opposite, he lawyered up to the max and obstructed the LE investigation at every turn. While that behavior does not necessarily prove his guilt, it indicates he is not cooperating with LE and has something to hide. These are not the acts of an innocent person. If you were not so obsessed with an imaginary intruder this would not have to be explained to you.

Again, It does not matter if he hires one or a basketball team of attys if he can afford that. It matters only that it is his right to do so and that there is no reason she should not. Especially when we have seen wrongfully convicted people before who have gone willingly along with police and then found innocent later. A truly innocent person gets a lawyer to protect them from injustice and to help them navigate the legal system. Innocence is not denoted but the use of a legal team or not.

They did cooperate with LE. They did give statements and samples. They did not do anything to hinder the investigation. The police did that all on their own.. IMO

 

[Mama2JML]

This could explain why FW was one of the first people to befriend JR when he moved to Boulder.

Online research indicates Fleet Oil in Boulder currently claims four employees with FW as Chairman.

If FW continues to maintain an office at 743 15th Street, then he was working 2 doors down from the Ramsey's albeit PR referred to FW as Mr. Mom.

When did the FW's move two miles away to Comanche Drive?

Later, much later, I believe. They moved from 15th street around '95, though.

 

[Anti-K]

I do see what you are saying and this is a mystery to me that I cannot explain. It is completely illogical why the Ramsey's would call LE over to the house before they had cleaned up some of the evidence pointing to them.

RDI is full of mysteries like that.

It is “completely illogical that the Ramseys would call LE over to the house before they had cleaned up some of the evidence pointing to them.”

And, let’s not forget that some of that evidence included a body, and it is “completely illogical that the Ramseys would call LE over to the house before they had disposed of the body.”

Just as it is “completely illogical that the Ramseys would fake a kidnapping unless they did in fact intend to dispose of the body.

Some items were disposed of. Some items were left behind. Who do the items left behind point to? The Ramseys. Who do the items removed point to? We don’t know. Maybe the Ramseys, maybe someone else. Evidence that could point to the Ramseys was left behind and evidence that could MAYBE be traced to someone else was removed.

I know that you are RDI and I’m not going to bother trying to change your mind on that, but wouldn’t it be completely logical for an intruder to remove items that could point to him while leaving the evidence that wouldn’t point to him?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Exactly. What's even more damning to me, is not that they sought out legal advice, but rather the speed in which they did it. The very evening of the murder....and who is the 1st person his lawyer wants to chat with. None other than FW. And low and behold, who is one of the 1st to have been thrown under the bus?

I think this is not an accurate description of how the Ramseys came to hire lawyers, and it does not take into account the unique circumstances. The lawyer initially hired was a personal friend who came to them, as far as is known, unbidden and out of concern. Bynum was present when BPD came to chat, and Bynum (unless he is lying, and we have no evidence of that) was the one who suggested to Ramsey that he should have representation.

This explains how the lawyers were hired so fast. If Bynum was not their friend, and if he had not came to see them and if he had not been there when BPD came calling, than maybe the lawyering up would not have happened so fast.

Of course, one could claim that all this was orchestrated by the Ramseys, but, just as there is no evidence to show that Bynum is a liar.
I think the first to be, as you say, “thrown under the bus” was LHP. White would have come much, much later. Regardless, doesn’t it make sense that White would be one of the first people (after the Ramseys) that ANYONE would want to talk to?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You completely misunderstood my statement. While everyone has a right to hire an attorney, if JR is really innocent then he has no need to hire a whole team of high priced attorneys because the evidence will bear out his innocence (unless you believe LE would manufacture false evidence or would grossly misinterpret evidence as to put the onus of guilt upon him, a completely innocent man). You see, Scarlett, a truly innocent person knows that the police can do all the investigation they want and the investigation will actually clear them. In this case, JR did the opposite, he lawyered up to the max and obstructed the LE investigation at every turn. While that behavior does not necessarily prove his guilt, it indicates he is not cooperating with LE and has something to hide. These are not the acts of an innocent person. If you were not so obsessed with an imaginary intruder this would not have to be explained to you.

Your claim that “a truly innocent person knows that the police can do all the investigation they want and the investigation will actually clear them” is NOT TRUE. It is not true that “a truly innocent person” knows this, and, it is not true that “police can do all the investigation they want and the investigation will actually clear them.”
This shouldn’t even be debatable. It is simply a fact that persons can be, and have been and are, wrongly targeted, wrongly arrested, wrongly tried and wrongly convicted. More often than we know.
If the police have targeted you, if the police think that you are guilty or involved in a crime, and if you are innocent than you better get a lawyer and get one fast, and make sure it is a good one.
...
AK
Your claim that “a truly innocent person knows that the police can do all the investigation they want and the investigation will actually clear them” is NOT TRUE. It is not true that “a truly innocent person” knows this, and, it is not true that “police can do all the investigation they want and the investigation will actually clear them.”

This shouldn’t even be debatable. It is simply a fact that persons can be, and have been and are, wrongly targeted, wrongly arrested, wrongly tried and wrongly convicted. More often than we know.

If the police have targeted you, if the police think that you are guilty or involved in a crime, and if you are innocent than you better get a lawyer and get one fast, and make sure it is a good one.
...

AK

 

[5x5]

I've heard this discussed, and the theory that "another child" refers to BR. I've started to wonder if this couldn't mean something else though. What if PR is saying that what ever adult murdered JB had done this to ANOTHER, different child previously?

that thought crossed my mind but how would she possibly know that, unless she knew the killer and knew that person had killed a child before. It's an accusation against a "supposedly" unknown person... right - an intruder. So to me that phrasing wouldn't just pop out of my mouth even in grief. It's very revealing the way she stated that. MOO

 

[Scandigirl]

that thought crossed my mind but how would she possibly know that, unless she knew the killer and knew that person had killed a child before. It's an accusation against a "supposedly" unknown person... right - an intruder. So to me that phrasing wouldn't just pop out of my mouth even in grief. It's very revealing the way she stated that. MOO

I totally agree- that phrase has always stood out for me as well, for the same reasons- I also don't think it was just said by accident, or can be explained by grief, etc. I know most people have always assumed it's a reference to Burke, but I've never felt convinced of this,for many reasons, but mainly because if Patsy (and/or John) had gone to so much extreme risk and effort to cover up for Burke in the first place, why would Patsy then make such a remark in public, when she must have known it would throw suspicion on him?

If not Burke, who could Patsy have been referring to? John, or someone else?

I've read many times that JB very likely knew her killer, but what if John and/or Patsy knew, or at least suspected themselves, who the killer was, and it wasn't them? Purely my own personal opinion, but I've always picked up a general feeling that John and Patsy may have been covering for someone other than themselves? For various reasons, I don't personally believe in BDI or IDI , although I respect other people's opinions, and I can see Burke having possibly molested JB, but not being her killer.

This other person(s) may not be a family member? This could also still fit with the comments about the killer deserving forgiveness and the Ramsey's saying that they weren't angry, etc. If they had conspired to protect someone else that night, were they also protecting themselves, and that was why they didn't seem to want to help find the killer, and were angry at the media for poking around? Could the Ramsey's even have "merely" been involved in the staging/cover-up afterwards, but not the murder themselves? This could all be completely wrong and a total red herring, or possibly worth exploring?

Is there any way at all that someone could have had their own key or simply entered and left through the open front door that night, with or without a Ramsey's knowledge, who has somehow not been identified/investigated/eliminated already? So, not a stranger/intruder who has to break in? I've wondered before myself, was the presence of someone else in the house that night a reason why Patsy remained fully dressed and made-up? Or could someone have been in their house that night, and they only realised later on? Apologies if not, and every avenue for this possibility has already been thoroughly looked into.

If this type of scenario could be at all possible, it could be a sort of middle path between a RDI and IDI theory- neither of which seem to necessarily fit on their own? People here with much more knowledge than me might say immediately that this couldn't have been possible, for various reasons, and it's not even worth considering- if so, apologies in advance, and fair enough. This could make things even more complicated, but then again this case doesn't seem to have a straightforward answer to it. Only sharing my own (confused!) thoughts, of course! :fence:

 

[DeeDee249]

that thought crossed my mind but how would she possibly know that, unless she knew the killer and knew that person had killed a child before. It's an accusation against a "supposedly" unknown person... right - an intruder. So to me that phrasing wouldn't just pop out of my mouth even in grief. It's very revealing the way she stated that. MOO

To me, her comment just reinforces what Kolar intimates in his book, and what is inferred by the GJ indictments. And of course, what can also be inferred by the case seemingly being un-prosecutable from the start.

It was "another child" that was responsible.

 

[Scandigirl]

I tried to start a new thread about this that never got posted, so let me just ask it here. In my opinion after everything I have ever read about this case, what happened to JB could not have happened in a normal family. I realize the word "normal" is a subjective term, but we all have a general sense of what it means. Since the Ramsey's appeared to be a normal family from the outside, it is my opinion that this was a deception. Just as a person can live a double life, a family can also live a double life. On the outside they appear just like you would expect them to be, but privately, among the family members and also perhaps with very close friends, they are something else. I think the Ramsey family was like that, and one reason we have such difficulty solving the crime is because a lot of us believe the Ramsey lie of who they projected themselves to be. We have not been allowed to see the private Ramsey's. JB's murder concerns the private Ramsey family, the one we really don't know much about. The big question is: What secret(s) do you think the Ramsey's were keeping before the murder that led to the murder? Sexual abuse of JB is something we can all think of, but what else outside of sexual abuse? Feel free to think outside the box when you answer that question.

This was posted earlier on in this thread, and just wanted to say that it sums up exactly what I'm personally starting to believe about this case, but Anyhoo puts it so much better than me (if we're both thinking, as I believe we are!) along the same lines...

 

[Scandigirl]

Expanding upon what I said here, one would think that the secrets of the family's private life would not be able to be maintained under the scrutiny of an extensive LE investigation and that would normally be true, unless the family had help from outside the family to maintain those secrets. In this case, we have seen multiple examples where the efforts of LE to get access to information was hindered and obstructed. The Boulder DA's office did this repeatedly, among others. This suggests a conspiracy to keep certain activities hidden which involved not only the Ramsey family but also others in the community who would be exposed if the these secrets were revealed. JB's murder may have happened during a hidden activity that could not be publicly exposed, an activity that involved not only the Ramsey family but others. Some of those people who were called over early on the morning of 12-26 would be some to be looked at very closely, but not only them. The amount of obstruction seen in this case suggests a much larger cover up.

Sorry to post twice, but this follow up post to the one above, also sums up what I'm starting to feel is my own personal view. :twocents:

 

[5x5]

I totally agree- that phrase has always stood out for me as well, for the same reasons- I also don't think it was just said by accident, or can be explained by grief, etc. I know most people have always assumed it's a reference to Burke, but I've never felt convinced of this,for many reasons, but mainly because if Patsy (and/or John) had gone to so much extreme risk and effort to cover up for Burke in the first place, why would Patsy then make such a remark in public, when she must have known it would throw suspicion on him?

If not Burke, who could Patsy have been referring to? John, or someone else?

I've read many times that JB very likely knew her killer, but what if John and/or Patsy knew, or at least suspected themselves, who the killer was, and it wasn't them? Purely my own personal opinion, but I've always picked up a general feeling that John and Patsy may have been covering for someone other than themselves? For various reasons, I don't personally believe in BDI or IDI , although I respect other people's opinions, and I can see Burke having possibly molested JB, but not being her killer.

This other person(s) may not be a family member? This could also still fit with the comments about the killer deserving forgiveness and the Ramsey's saying that they weren't angry, etc. If they had conspired to protect someone else that night, were they also protecting themselves, and that was why they didn't seem to want to help find the killer, and were angry at the media for poking around? Could the Ramsey's even have "merely" been involved in the staging/cover-up afterwards, but not the murder themselves? This could all be completely wrong and a total red herring, or possibly worth exploring?

Is there any way at all that someone could have had their own key or simply entered and left through the open front door that night, with or without a Ramsey's knowledge, who has somehow not been identified/investigated/eliminated already? So, not a stranger/intruder who has to break in? I've wondered before myself, was the presence of someone else in the house that night a reason why Patsy remained fully dressed and made-up? Or could someone have been in their house that night, and they only realised later on? Apologies if not, and every avenue for this possibility has already been thoroughly looked into.

If this type of scenario could be at all possible, it could be a sort of middle path between a RDI and IDI theory- neither of which seem to necessarily fit on their own? People here with much more knowledge than me might say immediately that this couldn't have been possible, for various reasons, and it's not even worth considering- if so, apologies in advance, and fair enough. This could make things even more complicated, but then again this case doesn't seem to have a straightforward answer to it. Only sharing my own (confused!) thoughts, of course! :fence:

some good food for thought Scandi,
I think Patsy's emotion and sometimes her anger resulted in her speaking often before she thought it through, that this was a definite slip in my opinion. She had more than one if I recall correctly.

I could see them covering for a family member definitely, someone outside the family, only in a scenario which would slander the Ramseys. (complicity in inappropriate visits or photos, etc). Obviously the molestation plays a huge role in that if anyone outside the family knew or was the perp (with parental knowledge), I think the Ramseys would cover for that person(s) to save themselves from being exposed. So yes, that is plausible to me, that slip by JR about alot of people being here at 3 (or 1??)AM this morning -to Melinda is very very supportive of this line of thought.


To clarify my BDI statement; I do not believe he staged this scene or even strangled her for that matter. I feel both PR and JR are responsible for that.
I can definitely see JBR an BR playing kitty or doctor and it got out of hand, I can see BR using that kitty leash to swing her head into an object or wall, then panicking and getting his mom. I could also believe it was a deliberate act on his part, there is just too much abnormality in that house.

I personally see absolutely no evidence of IDI or acquaintance with a key that the Ramsey's would not immediately name, provided they had nothing to do with any aspect of this precious child's murder. To me PR and JR are involved either in pre / post or in it's entirety. But my gut says, BR was what set off this chain of events.

Even though the crime scene is staged, somewhat sloppy, they actually did a pretty good job of confusing all the evidence didn't they, well with a little help from the Boulder DA's office. all this is MOO

 

[midwest mama]

I too can see the possibility of PR doing the garrote, I just don't see her being as likely to do it as JR. Even if JR did it, PR's jacket fibers were still in that knot, so I believe she was close by.

Being the ruthless business man that he's been reported to be, I can see him being the type to always have a Plan B. He's a control freak, but also smart enough to know that things don't always work out as planned, "hence" a back up plan. He'd be glad to pay for the best attys to represent them both (although he got the heavy hitters & PR got the 2nd rate attys), but if it came down to RDI, he was going to make sure she took the fall for it. After all, she had stage IV ovarian cancer, so she wouldn't be around that long anyway. He on the other hand has the rest of his life to live. I can really picture him thinking this way. JMO

"Patsy the Patsy". LOL Exactly!! :floorlaugh:

The blow to JB's head has been overwhelmingly declared by top forensic specialists to have been done with extreme force. Add to that the fact that the blow landed as it did, and I have to imagine seeing someone taking good aim with great intent. And I have to imagine JB being in a position facing away from the perp, as others have also speculated on this forum.

Given the type of wrist ligatures that were found on JB, I think it very possible she could have been initially gagged, then bound somehow to something by her wrists for a period of time long enough to stabilize her and execute the head blow. The loop ties on the wrist ligature would have allowed for her wrists to be quickly released once she was struck, and a gag could have quickly been removed, leaving no marks of any kind. A cloth gag of some sort could have accounted for some of the unsourced fibers.

I need to think about this for a while, but the 911 call from the party on the 23rd sticks in my craw as a reason why someone might have come to the decision that JB would have to be silenced.

And the clues which point directly to Patsy could have easily been part of a setup for her to be the one to take the fall in the event that the killer could not succeed in following plan A, which I think included being able to get the body out of the house as soon as the police could be deflected on a hunt away from the house for a bogus kidnapper.

Would it have been unthinkable that someone could have been hired to do the deed by ONE of the parents, with the plan to fool the other? And in case that went awry, the other parent would have to be set up st the killer?? JMO

 

[UKGuy]

The blow to JB's head has been overwhelmingly declared by top forensic specialists to have been done with extreme force. Add to that the fact that the blow landed as it did, and I have to imagine seeing someone taking good aim with great intent. And I have to imagine JB being in a position facing away from the perp, as others have also speculated on this forum.

Given the type of wrist ligatures that were found on JB, I think it very possible she could have been initially gagged, then bound somehow to something by her wrists for a period of time long enough to stabilize her and execute the head blow. The loop ties on the wrist ligature would have allowed for her wrists to be quickly released once she was struck, and a gag could have quickly been removed, leaving no marks of any kind. A cloth gag of some sort could have accounted for some of the unsourced fibers.

I need to think about this for a while, but the 911 call from the party on the 23rd sticks in my craw as a reason why someone might have come to the decision that JB would have to be silenced.

And the clues which point directly to Patsy could have easily been part of a setup for her to be the one to take the fall in the event that the killer could not succeed in following plan A, which I think included being able to get the body out of the house as soon as the police could be deflected on a hunt away from the house for a bogus kidnapper.

Would it have been unthinkable that someone could have been hired to do the deed by ONE of the parents, with the plan to fool the other? And in case that went awry, the other parent would have to be set up st the killer?? JMO

midwest mama,
Certainly not unthinkable. This scenario reminds me of another theory where JR sets PR up, she finds the RN and dials 911, despite him carefully planning every step, except PR ignoring the conditions outlined in the RN!

Its more likely an R molested and killed JonBenet then staged it all with another R in mind to become the main suspect.


Anyway your suggested Hiree, is that a word, would also have to molest JonBenet as part of the plan to fool the other, just where do you find such wicked Hiree's?

Someone undoubtedly seriously physically assaulted JonBenet, her body bears the contusions and abrasions as evidence of this, along with her sexual asault as related by Coroner Myers.

So one question might be: was she physically assaulted first, then sexually assaulted or the other way round? I reckon its the latter option.

Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet she complained, attempted to resist, so her abuser physically attacked her, enraged that she would decline his attention?

Does the feces in JonBenet's bedroom belong to her, did it result from an autonomic response to anal penetration, did her assailant lose it at being soiled, so wiped it where ever?

Since all three R's convened for the 911 call, as agreed later by the R's themselves, but which was not part of the original version of events, this tells you all three R's colluded in that version of events, i.e. they all know what happened!

For me the sexual assault strongly suggest a male R was initially involved. He sexually assaulted JonBenet, either in his bedroom or JonBenet's then physically assaulted her once resistance was offered, or the feces caused an explosion of rage, either way she was assaulted, possibly being held by the neck to prevent her leaving, resulting in her becoming unconcious? The same male may have also whacked her on the head, or one of the remaining two R's might have done this as a first attempt at staging her death, when this failed, with a noticable interval of time, she was then ligature asphyxiated.

The rest is simply staging, this is why she is in the basement and not left lying naked on a bed upstairs, posed as the victim of a psychopathic pedophile. Each R likely had input into the staging, possibly the first R dressed her in the pink barbie nightgown, maybe another R said use the whittling knife to cut the ligature to size, another R suggested lets dress her in Wednesday day of the Week size-12's, all this input allows everyone to consider their favorite RDI theory to be the one?

If its not BDI why would the GJ not indict the obvious R?

The thing about the truth, is that its usually stranger than fiction.

.