CASCU Analysis of Crime

[DeeDee249]

Remember as sharp as those two are, they are not forensic experts, nor are they crime scene experts. This was not a planned murder. This was abuse gone horribly wrong. I don't believe the Rs ever intended to remove JBR from the home- I think JR planned a quick getaway and intended they'd be out of state when LE eventually did find a body. This was thwarted when LE informed JR that he couldn't leave Boulder.
And I think neither parent could have tolerated leaving their daughter and risk her not being found for days. Who knows when LE would have gotten around to figuring out how to open that wineceller door? Especially if they were focusing outside the home at that point for a kidnapped child. LE for some reason wouldn't allow tracking dogs to be used, and in winter the smell might not have alerted neighbors for weeks, with windows closed and all. I don't think you'd have to be a forensics expert to understand what condition JBR would have been in by then. And that would mean no open casket dressed in a frothy pink pageant dress and tiara. PR's comment to her son at the funeral "See, she looks perfect, doesn't she?" PR would have not had it any other way.
No, JR had to "find" that body.

 

[Ames]

Remember as sharp as those two are, they are not forensic experts, nor are they crime scene experts. This was not a planned murder. This was abuse gone horribly wrong. I don't believe the Rs ever intended to remove JBR from the home- I think JR planned a quick getaway and intended they'd be out of state when LE eventually did find a body. This was thwarted when LE informed JR that he couldn't leave Boulder.
And I think neither parent could have tolerated leaving their daughter and risk her not being found for days. Who knows when LE would have gotten around to figuring out how to open that wineceller door? Especially if they were focusing outside the home at that point for a kidnapped child. LE for some reason wouldn't allow tracking dogs to be used, and in winter the smell might not have alerted neighbors for weeks, with windows closed and all. I don't think you'd have to be a forensics expert to understand what condition JBR would have been in by then. And that would mean no open casket dressed in a frothy pink pageant dress and tiara. PR's comment to her son at the funeral "See, she looks perfect, doesn't she?" PR would have not had it any other way.
No, JR had to "find" that body.

Good point....I never knew that she said that.

 

[JMO8778]

One of the reasons they knew she was already dead b/f she was found (someone from the FBI said 'you're going to be finding her body' when he first read the RN) ..was b/c of that line..'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel'.Someone was already thinking ahead...and the RN doesn't quite match the staged scene...it was obv. written for the first plan they had in place...but...they decided getting her out was too risky..and no time to write a new note,that one must stand.So JB was wiped down,redressed and covered,in order to hide the staged assault,giving JR time to make his getaway out of state bf it's found.Only he didn't get to do that,so the next plan was to get Pammy into the house under the guise of 'funeral clothes',and retrieve their passports and mementos..so they could leave the country,if necessary.I do think they were giving it serious thought ! Which,btw,I don't think JR would have considered leaving the country if he was just covering for Patsy..his job,his first family..everything was here..I think he would have turned Patsy in bf considering leaving the country,if he wasn't guilty of something,the least of which likely being sexual abuse.

In a moment of panic,ppl can do strange things;they can consider strange things,perhaps just like the murder itself?

 

[DeeDee249]

And remember, JR was VERY anxious to get his golf clubs back. It amazes me why the Rs, who could have easily afforded to buy a replacent for ANYTHING needed Pammy to get things like that. And I recall that a local shop sent over new clothes for the funeral.
Realistically, it's not unusual that people in that circumstance ask for things from home. BUT anyone going in to retrieve it should be accompanied by LE every moment. Not just someone who waits outside in the patrol car.

 

[Ames]

And remember, JR was VERY anxious to get his golf clubs back. It amazes me why the Rs, who could have easily afforded to buy a replacent for ANYTHING needed Pammy to get things like that. And I recall that a local shop sent over new clothes for the funeral.
Realistically, it's not unusual that people in that circumstance ask for things from home. BUT anyone going in to retrieve it should be accompanied by LE every moment. Not just someone who waits outside in the patrol car.

And in Patsy's interview...I will see if I can find it...she says that John doesn't play much golf, and that she cannot remember the last time he played, because it had been so long.

 

[Solace]

One of the reasons they knew she was already dead b/f she was found (someone from the FBI said 'you're going to be finding her body' when he first read the RN) ..was b/c of that line..'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel'.Someone was already thinking ahead...and the RN doesn't quite match the staged scene...it was obv. written for the first plan they had in place...but...they decided getting her out was too risky..and no time to write a new note,that one must stand.So JB was wiped down,redressed and covered,in order to hide the staged assault,giving JR time to make his getaway out of state bf it's found.Only he didn't get to do that,so the next plan was to get Pammy into the house under the guise of 'funeral clothes',and retrieve their passports and mementos..so they could leave the country,if necessary.I do think they were giving it serious thought ! Which,btw,I don't think JR would have considered leaving the country if he was just covering for Patsy..his job,his first family..everything was here..I think he would have turned Patsy in bf considering leaving the country,if he wasn't guilty of something,the least of which likely being sexual abuse.

In a moment of panic,ppl can do strange things;they can consider strange things,perhaps just like the murder itself?

JMO,

I promise I am being serious. Why would wiping her down give John time to make her getaway. Why would an assault make him any more suspect than the body being there. If they find JonBenet, they are going to hold the parents there. John knows this. Once she is reported missing, no one goes anwhere. What has wiping her down have to do with anything. It really baffles me what you are saying. So please help me out, I am trying to understand this case.

I just don't understand why you would think John would think, okay we are not leaving her outside but we have to clean up the assault staging because if they see that we are in trouble. What are you saying???? Why would he even think that way. They find JB and she is dead, that is it. Everyone is a suspect. He is of course going to say she has been sexually assaulted. It is done intentionally. He wants them to find that.

 

[Toltec]

But why would they have had to wipe her down if they were going to leave her in the basement. Why not just leave it the way it was - that is what they claim anyway, a pedo did it. So why did they have to wipe her down just because they decided to leave her n the basement?

I just do not understand why they would have to do that - it would seem it would not matter if she were in the basement or outside, a pedofile is a pedofile. He will do the same thing inside the house or outside. I am not following your reasoning.

There was no reasoning....the Ramseys were throwing everything possible into this kidnapping....everything but the kitchen sink.

Experts have said that these were amateurs...putting together a crime they have seen only in movies.

 

[Solace]

There was no reasoning....the Ramseys were throwing everything possible into this kidnapping....everything but the kitchen sink.

Experts have said that these were amateurs...putting together a crime they have seen only in movies.

I agree Toltec, but JMO seems to think the wiping down of JonBenet has meaning in that they were covering up the assault.

 

[UKGuy]

There was no reasoning....the Ramseys were throwing everything possible into this kidnapping....everything but the kitchen sink.

Experts have said that these were amateurs...putting together a crime they have seen only in movies.

Toltec,

Wiping JonBenet down would serve to remove any evidence linking someone to her assault.

Redressing JonBenet in size-12 underwear serves to hide any visible signs of sexual assault, as does wrapping her in blankets.

Some see this as a change of tactics, with the ransom note stating kidnap as a motive, a sexual assault is particularly incongruous.

So to gain time, the sexual assault is hidden, and a kidnap staged, in the hope by the time anything implicating them is discovered they might be in another state?


.

 

[Solace]

Toltec,

Wiping JonBenet down would serve to remove any evidence linking someone to her assault. I don't know how, but maybe you can tell us. They John Douglas' book, John is not a complete idiot.

Redressing JonBenet in size-12 underwear serves to hide any visible signs of sexual assault, as does wrapping her in blankets. So the Ramseys assume, like a child wood, that because she has size 12 underwear the police would not notice a sexual assault? You are kidding right?

Some see this as a change of tactics, with the ransom note stating kidnap as a motive, a sexual assault is particularly incongruous.

So to gain time, the sexual assault is hidden, and a kidnap staged, in the hope by the time anything implicating them is discovered they might be in another state? Right, and John thinks this will work? Is John smoking crack at this time?


.

Toltec,

I ask you. Does that seem like something the Ramseys would be planning. Then why do they leave her arms tied up?

I have heard that theory before and it didn't work then and it doesn 't work today.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think the Rs thought a sexual assault wouldn't be noticed because she was wearing size 12 panties...
I think they removed the original panties because they likely had significantly more blood on them. The coroner's flourencence test showed evidence of blood having been wiped from her thighs. That's why the panties were changed. She was wiped down and had her underwear replaced to hide a sexual assault. That was the only reason for it. Now, you might ask why put another pair of panties back on her at all? Well, again, the Rs knew they had a murdered child to explain away- that's one thing. But a sexually assaulted murdered child, especially if there was anything there that could point to them as being involved in that- that's quite a bit more. I really think they did not realize what an autopsy of a child would entail- if the body showed no evidence of a sexual assault- then no one would look for it. I just don't think they thought anyone would examine a 6-year old corpse in such a way as to see an eroded hymen/bruising/beeding in the vaginal area unless the body showed OBVIOUS signs of a sexual assault.

 

[Ames]

I don't think the Rs thought a sexual assault wouldn't be noticed because she was wearing size 12 panties...
I think they removed the original panties because they likely had significantly more blood on them. The coroner's flourencence test showed evidence of blood having been wiped from her thighs. That's why the panties were changed. She was wiped down and had her underwear replaced to hide a sexual assault. That was the only reason for it. Now, you might ask why put another pair of panties back on her at all? Well, again, the Rs knew they had a murdered child to explain away- that's one thing. But a sexually assaulted murdered child, especially if there was anything there that could point to them as being involved in that- that's quite a bit more. I really think they did not realize what an autopsy of a child would entail- if the body showed no evidence of a sexual assault- then no one would look for it. I just don't think they thought anyone would examine a 6-year old corpse in such a way as to see an eroded hymen/bruising/beeding in the vaginal area unless the body showed OBVIOUS signs of a sexual assault.

I agree with you. I believe that AT FIRST...PLAN A...was to make it look like an intruder did the sexual assault. But, after careful consideration...they realized that they were making the crimescene more difficult than it needed to be...and that it was leaving even more evidence that could possibly be linked back to them...so I believe that they changed their minds...(the sexual assault didn't really mesh with the small foreign faction out to get John because they hated him and because he was a fat cat, and they were jealous. A straight out killing out of rage...because of hatred....would have made more sense if a SFF really did this.) I believe that they had second thoughts about it..and decided to wipe her down, change her panties...re-dress her, and wrap her "lovingly" like a "papoose" (John's words...not mine). I believe that in THEIR frantic minds, they were undoing the sexual assault, but doing these things. Why else would they have done them?? Surely, they didn't think that a SFF would have sexually assaulted someone and then, changed their underwear (how kind of them), redressed her and then wrapped her in a blanket. No, I believe that they did this as a way of trying...in their own crazy minds...(at the time)....to "disquise" the sexual assault. I know that this sounds far fetched...but, its the only thing that makes sense....as to why they would wipe her down, re-dress her...and wrap her like a "papoose".

 

[Dru]

The 'sexual assault' thing is the reason I think JR is the one responsible for JBR's death, and that PR is his accomplice after the fact, which I know is the exact opposite of how everyone else looks at this.

I think that wound was inflicted, not to stage a pedophile intruder scene, but to cover up prior abuse. As I've said before, it was inflicted on a still-living child within, at most, an hour of the head blow, and before the strangulation. So who could have inflicted it, if not her killer? And why would her killer inflict it, if not to compromise evidence of prior abuse?

So, if PR is the killer, then PR inflicts the head blow, inflicts the vaginal wound, completes the murder by strangulation, cleans up evidence of the vaginal wound to hide it from JR, and then gets JR involved in the cover up.

Or, if JR is the killer, then JR inflicts the head blow, inflicts the vaginal wound, completes the murder by strangulation, cleans up evidence of the vaginal wound to hide it from PR, and then gets PR involved in the cover up.

The only reason to clean up the vaginal wound is NOT a change in staging; neither JR nor PR is stupid enough to believe that the wound won't be discovered during the autopsy. The only reason to clean up the vaginal wound is to hide that, and that alone, from the person who is going to help you cover up this crime.

Everyone thinks JR would automatically cover up for PR, so as not to lose her, his lifestyle, his status in the community, etc. But any or all of those reasons could be reasons for PR to cover up for JR as well, especially if JR managed to make her believe that BR might have committed the crime.

I know it could be either way, here. PR might have been molesting her daughter, and might have needed to cover the evidence, necessitating the vaginal wound. But to me, the key piece of evidence is the size-12 underwear, for two reasons: one, PR would have known right away how ridiculously large those were, so it's hard to imagine her using them (why put underwear on JBR at all, in fact? The long johns would suffice), and two, unless I'm wrong, the fibers from JR's shirt were found in the crotch of the size-12 panties, which is a pretty strong indication that either he handled them, or else PR deliberately placed the fibers there to implicate him.

I think we can reject that second option, btw. If PR knew that much about fiber evidence she'd have taken more care of her own fibers, particularly her sweater fibers which I believe were transferred as she helped in the staging. (The tape, for instance, and I think at some point she hugged JBR when the rope was just a rope, before it became a garrote, which was how her fibers ended up being twisted into the knot.)

But if we reject that second option, that means that JR did handle the size-12 underwear, and did help clean up the vaginal wound--which, by my way of looking at things, means that he was the one who inflicted it, since the clean-up ONLY makes sense if it's seen as an act designed to hide that wound from the accessory after the fact.

But if he was the one who inflicted it, between the head blow and the strangulation, then there's pretty good reason to believe that he is the killer...

 

[UKGuy]

The 'sexual assault' thing is the reason I think JR is the one responsible for JBR's death, and that PR is his accomplice after the fact, which I know is the exact opposite of how everyone else looks at this.

I think that wound was inflicted, not to stage a pedophile intruder scene, but to cover up prior abuse. As I've said before, it was inflicted on a still-living child within, at most, an hour of the head blow, and before the strangulation. So who could have inflicted it, if not her killer? And why would her killer inflict it, if not to compromise evidence of prior abuse?

So, if PR is the killer, then PR inflicts the head blow, inflicts the vaginal wound, completes the murder by strangulation, cleans up evidence of the vaginal wound to hide it from JR, and then gets JR involved in the cover up.

Or, if JR is the killer, then JR inflicts the head blow, inflicts the vaginal wound, completes the murder by strangulation, cleans up evidence of the vaginal wound to hide it from PR, and then gets PR involved in the cover up.

The only reason to clean up the vaginal wound is NOT a change in staging; neither JR nor PR is stupid enough to believe that the wound won't be discovered during the autopsy. The only reason to clean up the vaginal wound is to hide that, and that alone, from the person who is going to help you cover up this crime.

Everyone thinks JR would automatically cover up for PR, so as not to lose her, his lifestyle, his status in the community, etc. But any or all of those reasons could be reasons for PR to cover up for JR as well, especially if JR managed to make her believe that BR might have committed the crime.

I know it could be either way, here. PR might have been molesting her daughter, and might have needed to cover the evidence, necessitating the vaginal wound. But to me, the key piece of evidence is the size-12 underwear, for two reasons: one, PR would have known right away how ridiculously large those were, so it's hard to imagine her using them (why put underwear on JBR at all, in fact? The long johns would suffice), and two, unless I'm wrong, the fibers from JR's shirt were found in the crotch of the size-12 panties, which is a pretty strong indication that either he handled them, or else PR deliberately placed the fibers there to implicate him.

I think we can reject that second option, btw. If PR knew that much about fiber evidence she'd have taken more care of her own fibers, particularly her sweater fibers which I believe were transferred as she helped in the staging. (The tape, for instance, and I think at some point she hugged JBR when the rope was just a rope, before it became a garrote, which was how her fibers ended up being twisted into the knot.)

But if we reject that second option, that means that JR did handle the size-12 underwear, and did help clean up the vaginal wound--which, by my way of looking at things, means that he was the one who inflicted it, since the clean-up ONLY makes sense if it's seen as an act designed to hide that wound from the accessory after the fact.

But if he was the one who inflicted it, between the head blow and the strangulation, then there's pretty good reason to believe that he is the killer...

Dru,

I think that wound was inflicted, not to stage a pedophile intruder scene, but to cover up prior abuse. As I've said before, it was inflicted on a still-living child within, at most, an hour of the head blow, and before the strangulation. So who could have inflicted it, if not her killer? And why would her killer inflict it, if not to compromise evidence of prior abuse?

Is this not a redundant exercise? If JonBenet is dead, and there is evidence of prior sexual abuse, why add to it, why not simply blame it on an intruder? After all JonBenet is dead, she cannot point a finger at her accuser.

The sexual wound may have occurred prior to her being strangled or hit on the head, it may be the result of a sexual assault that results in JonBenet's failed asphyxiation, and head injury? This is imo the most credible theory implicating John Ramsey. The rest is staging and re-staging.

The other option is that Patsy was sexually abusing JonBenet which led to the same outcome, this theory is actually more consistent with the the forensic evidence, than JDI.

Another option is both were involved in the sexual abuse of JonBenet, so both were comfortable with the staging?

imo it is the sexual assault not the underwear which is important, no ransom kidnapper is motivated by sexual assault, you do not stage a sexual assault to mask a prior one then revise and hide it all hoping nobody will ever notice, that is trully inconsistent.


.

 

[Solace]

I don't think the Rs thought a sexual assault wouldn't be noticed because she was wearing size 12 panties...
I think they removed the original panties because they likely had significantly more blood on them. The coroner's flourencence test showed evidence of blood having been wiped from her thighs. That's why the panties were changed. She was wiped down and had her underwear replaced to hide a sexual assault. That was the only reason for it. Now, you might ask why put another pair of panties back on her at all? Well, again, the Rs knew they had a murdered child to explain away- that's one thing. But a sexually assaulted murdered child, especially if there was anything there that could point to them as being involved in that- that's quite a bit more. I really think they did not realize what an autopsy of a child would entail- if the body showed no evidence of a sexual assault- then no one would look for it. I just don't think they thought anyone would examine a 6-year old corpse in such a way as to see an eroded hymen/bruising/beeding in the vaginal area unless the body showed OBVIOUS signs of a sexual assault.

DEE DEE,

John had been reading Douglas' book. He would certainly be aware of what an autopsy would entail on a child. He would know that an autopsy is complete and they will check everything, especially since they are going to report that their child has been kidnapped. Anyone who kidnaps a child is either a pedofile or just in it for the money. If the child is found, they are going to check everything autopsy wise to see if their was a sexual assault. To say he did not think this, in my opinion, is being naive. Absolutely no offense intended. This is an intelligent man, he would know that the autopsy would include "everything" and especially vaginal trauma.

Another thing, they tie JB's hands. The only reason someone would stage that would be to look like a sexual assault had taken place. Everything about JB screams sexual assault. They know, they know it will look like this. IMO

 

[Toltec]

Dru,


Is this not a redundant exercise? If JonBenet is dead, and there is evidence of prior sexual abuse, why add to it, why not simply blame it on an intruder? After all JonBenet is dead, she cannot point a finger at her accuser.

The sexual wound may have occurred prior to her being strangled or hit on the head, it may be the result of a sexual assault that results in JonBenet's failed asphyxiation, and head injury? This is imo the most credible theory implicating John Ramsey. The rest is staging and re-staging.

The other option is that Patsy was sexually abusing JonBenet which led to the same outcome, this theory is actually more consistent with the the forensic evidence, than JDI.

Another option is both were involved in the sexual abuse of JonBenet, so both were comfortable with the staging?

imo it is the sexual assault not the underwear which is important, no ransom kidnapper is motivated by sexual assault, you do not stage a sexual assault to mask a prior one then revise and hide it all hoping nobody will ever notice, that is trully inconsistent.


.

This scenario has been talked about ad nauseum...John is caught molesting JonBenet by Patsy and Patsy's reaction is to hit John with the flashlight that she carried into JonBenet's room. Instead, she misses John and strikes Jonbenet.

If this scenario is true....IF John was caught molesting JonBenet, than it could have started in the den. Johns bathrobe was found in the den and it bothers me. Reason being is that John is a neat freak and would not think to leave his bathrobe in the den.

Secondly, we know John showered so as to wash evidence away?

Personally, I don't believe John molested JonBenet....sometimes I backtrack and consider it a possibility but in my heart of hearts....John is innocent of molesting JonBenet.

 

[UKGuy]

This scenario has been talked about ad nauseum...John is caught molesting JonBenet by Patsy and Patsy's reaction is to hit John with the flashlight that she carried into JonBenet's room. Instead, she misses John and strikes Jonbenet.

If this scenario is true....IF John was caught molesting JonBenet, than it could have started in the den. Johns bathrobe was found in the den and it bothers me. Reason being is that John is a neat freak and would not think to leave his bathrobe in the den.

Secondly, we know John showered so as to wash evidence away?

Personally, I don't believe John molested JonBenet....sometimes I backtrack and consider it a possibility but in my heart of hearts....John is innocent of molesting JonBenet.

Toltec,
The forensic evidence links both John and Patsy to the crime-scene, so one or both may have killed JonBenet?

Somebody was molesting JonBenet, and somebody sexually assaulted JonBenet prior to her death. Coroner Meyer described this as digital penetration, he was there, he is a pathologist, so it seems safe enough to accept it.

Currently there are only three main suspects, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest JonBenet's death was a staged domestic homicide.

So one of John, Patsy or Burke, either collectively or individually, at or about the same time period sexually assaulted JonBenet , whacked her over the head and asphyxiated her.

It is entirely possible that:

John is innocent of molesting JonBenet.

, then if so, who do you think did molest JonBenet?

.

 

[Ames]

This scenario has been talked about ad nauseum...John is caught molesting JonBenet by Patsy and Patsy's reaction is to hit John with the flashlight that she carried into JonBenet's room. Instead, she misses John and strikes Jonbenet.

If this scenario is true....IF John was caught molesting JonBenet, than it could have started in the den. Johns bathrobe was found in the den and it bothers me. Reason being is that John is a neat freak and would not think to leave his bathrobe in the den.

Secondly, we know John showered so as to wash evidence away?

Personally, I don't believe John molested JonBenet....sometimes I backtrack and consider it a possibility but in my heart of hearts....John is innocent of molesting JonBenet.

Actually the robe was found in John's study....(still on the first floor though, as the den). Patsy is shown a picture of it, and get this....she says that John may have been putting it on when he got out of the shower, and that he dropped it when he heard her screaming for him. Nevermind that the bathroom that John was getting ready in, is on the THIRD floor, and the robe was found on the FIRST floor. Something is rotten in Denmark.... I posted this major slip up on another thread...(this portion of her interview)....and why Haney did NOT catch it...is beyond me.

 

[Dru]

Dru,


Is this not a redundant exercise? If JonBenet is dead, and there is evidence of prior sexual abuse, why add to it, why not simply blame it on an intruder? After all JonBenet is dead, she cannot point a finger at her accuser.

The sexual wound may have occurred prior to her being strangled or hit on the head, it may be the result of a sexual assault that results in JonBenet's failed asphyxiation, and head injury? This is imo the most credible theory implicating John Ramsey. The rest is staging and re-staging.

The other option is that Patsy was sexually abusing JonBenet which led to the same outcome, this theory is actually more consistent with the the forensic evidence, than JDI.

Another option is both were involved in the sexual abuse of JonBenet, so both were comfortable with the staging?

imo it is the sexual assault not the underwear which is important, no ransom kidnapper is motivated by sexual assault, you do not stage a sexual assault to mask a prior one then revise and hide it all hoping nobody will ever notice, that is trully inconsistent.


.

All due respect, UKGuy, but I think you're missing my point.

Why add to the sexual abuse? Because it was chronic, not acute. Because it would show that abuse had been occurring in the past, not necessarily in the very recent past. Because once the police find evidence of chronic abuse they're probably going to arrest one or both parents.

Change that to a violent, acute injury that is inflicted the same night as the murder, and you change the whole complexion of the crime. Suddenly, we can blame any vaginal abnormalities on the murdering pedophile intruder, not on JR or PR or BR or anyone else who had regular access to the child.

Even today some of the experts disagree about the chronic abuse, though most do seem to believe it did happen. But the acute injury inflicted the night of the murder did exactly what it was supposed to do: hopelessly confuse the physical evidence of chronic abuse.

So the real question then becomes, why not stage JBR to look like she was the victim of a sex crime?

Because that is the one thing the perpetrator simply cannot afford to do.

In order to do everything that must be done by morning, the perp needs help. The non-murdering R must be convinced to give that help, and there's simply no way that will happen if the n.m.R believes that the other R adult is a murder and/or an abuser.

So stage the crime to look like JBR might have been the victim of a sibling rage attack, carefully conceal ALL evidence suggesting a sex crime, and you've got a pretty good chance of getting the n.m.R. to believe you and agree to help in the cover-up.

Then, re-stage the crime, but be careful even in the RN to make it sound like a kidnapping gone bad.

Look at it this way: no one who first saw JBR's body on the 26th seems to have thought that she looked like the victim of a pedophile. The body wrapped in the blankets looked more like a child snatched from her bed than a pedo's victim: only when the blankets fall away does the first incongruous note of those 'tied' hands start to register.

And it will take a full autopsy before anyone even starts to think "sex crime."

And somebody wanted it that way.

 

[Ames]

All due respect, UKGuy, but I think you're missing my point.

Why add to the sexual abuse? Because it was chronic, not acute. Because it would show that abuse had been occurring in the past, not necessarily in the very recent past. Because once the police find evidence of chronic abuse they're probably going to arrest one or both parents.

Change that to a violent, acute injury that is inflicted the same night as the murder, and you change the whole complexion of the crime. Suddenly, we can blame any vaginal abnormalities on the murdering pedophile intruder, not on JR or PR or BR or anyone else who had regular access to the child.

Even today some of the experts disagree about the chronic abuse, though most do seem to believe it did happen. But the acute injury inflicted the night of the murder did exactly what it was supposed to do: hopelessly confuse the physical evidence of chronic abuse.

So the real question then becomes, why not stage JBR to look like she was the victim of a sex crime?

Because that is the one thing the perpetrator simply cannot afford to do.

In order to do everything that must be done by morning, the perp needs help. The non-murdering R must be convinced to give that help, and there's simply no way that will happen if the n.m.R believes that the other R adult is a murder and/or an abuser.

So stage the crime to look like JBR might have been the victim of a sibling rage attack, carefully conceal ALL evidence suggesting a sex crime, and you've got a pretty good chance of getting the n.m.R. to believe you and agree to help in the cover-up.

Then, re-stage the crime, but be careful even in the RN to make it sound like a kidnapping gone bad.

Look at it this way: no one who first saw JBR's body on the 26th seems to have thought that she looked like the victim of a pedophile. The body wrapped in the blankets looked more like a child snatched from her bed than a pedo's victim: only when the blankets fall away does the first incongruous note of those 'tied' hands start to register.

And it will take a full autopsy before anyone even starts to think "sex crime."

And somebody wanted it that way.

John says that when he "found" her, that she was wrapped like a "papoose", in that blanket. It is in his interview...I posted it over at FFJ, but will bring it here, if needed. His exact words..."she was wrapped like a papoose". He says that several times...because the interviewer wants to make sure of what he is saying. Anyway...I beleive that they were trying to "mask" the sexual assault (done with the paintbrush)...and in their frantic minds, they thought that wrapping her like a "papoose" ...would distract from that. They had probably all planned to skip the country, before the autopsy was done...that is why John was on the phone, that morning..making plans for the "remaining family members'...and why Pam P. grabbed everybody's passports.