Undoing

[lilywhite]

lilywhite,

Sure, but I'm only restating what the coroner said, and the average male finger is larger than the average female finger so includes both, it does not have to be male, and that it is a finger is from Coroner Meyer's remark e.g. digital penetration!

Digital means finger, and not paintbrush, so unless you have evidence that the coroner never witnessed, I simply accept his opinion, since he was present, and he is qualified, neither of which apply to me.

.

Sorry I was snippy. It was early. I gotta stop doing that!

 

[lilywhite]

Family collusion = family secret. In essence, the cover-up is to protect the family secret and not the homicide in and of itself. Pursuing the homicide would reveal the family secret, thus the plan of protection was initiated to provide an obstacle to slow down or stop this.

Yup, yup. One of them was abusing her sexually and one of them killed her (probably accidentally). Person A covered for person B because to do otherwise would implicate them in the abuse.

If ONE person were abusing her AND killed her, what's the motive for the other to help cover it up? I can't think of anything.

 

[JMO8778]

It's common for the perp to blame the victim; I read that in a psych book recently...that ppl tend to hate others more after doing them harm...so in order to not think poorly of themselves..INSTEAD of thinking poorly of themselves,they place the blame on the victim and justify it by thinking they must have done something to deserve it.

 

[docwho3]

. . .I had a stroke, 3 actually with two bleeds into my brain only a few months ago, . . .

I hope your recovery goes as smoothly as possible.

. . .Perhaps its time for me to go lurking if I cannot put my thoughts into more understandable wording. I am trying not to let what was posted get twisted into something it was not, intentionally or not. Thats all. I was trying to clarify not be all defensive etc. CK

Personally, I did not read your post as being badly worded. Communication between people can be difficult at the best of times and even in the best of circumstances. Even when you correctly say what you mean someone can still read a different meaning into it just by giving different weight to some words in the sentence. I look forward to reading everyones posts and would hate to not read yours too.

 

[DeeDee249]

It'll be a slow but steady road to recovery, Coloradokares. Just do the best you can, we understand. Don't lurk, you have as valuable opinions as anyone else.

 

[Invisible]

Whatever you do, don't type in "Pandora's Box" It wasn't what I was looking for.

 

[eleven]

First let me apologize I was not trying to be defensive. I was trying to be concise. I had a stroke, 3 actually with two bleeds into my brain only a few months ago, I was trying to convey that no one unless they were present could swear to the douching, I was told that info by a very credible sources as to what corporal cleaning could have meant. Actually some one else voiced that before me and I said that they were pretty close to right on the money from what I had heard from a very creidible source as well . Perhaps its time for me to go lurking if I cannot put my thoughts into more understandable wording. I am trying not to let what was posted get twisted into something it was not, intentionally or not. Thats all. I was trying to clarify not be all defensive etc. CK

Thank you and the one drawback to the internet is not being able to see people face to face (I guess that's good too, though) so it's hard to read the tone of a post, if that makes any sense, so it's easy to misunderstand or misinterpret something. I understand what you meant and please don't take my misunderstanding as a reason for you to stop lurking. I understand your need for clarification. Hey I think I was being defensive myself in thinking that you were being defensive, LOL if that makes any sense. No worries, CK. Thank you for your kind reply.:blowkiss:

By the way, you DID clarify my original question, so thank you.:blowkiss:

P.S. Prayers to you for a full and speedy recovery. Reading and posting are good "brain exercise" so continue...it's good for you

 

[Ames]

That is when the person who has murdered the victim in a possible rage realizes what they have done and tries to undo, by wiping down the victim. This is explained more by John Douglas and the link follows: I just happen to believe this is why JonBenet was wiped down. I know there was a lot of discussion here about the wiping down of JonBenet, but little was attributed to the "undoing". Here is a link for anyone's info.

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com...les/030211.php

When a parent kills a child

Or it could be that a close relationship existed between the killer and the victim. Let's say a parent kills a child and then buries the body. You may find that the child was carefully wrapped or the face covered to keep dirt from getting in the mouth. In essence, someone is caring for the child after death.

There's a word we use: "undoing." That's when someone tries to somehow lessen the damage after committing the crime, maybe by cleansing and bandaging the wounds. The killer may try softening the appearance of the crime by making the body's position restful and clasping the hands, almost like the victim is laid out. It's a way of symbolically erasing or reversing the crime, and it suggests remorse. Doing this gives the subject away. It's a personal crime -- strangers wouldn't likely do this.

Solace, I just re-posted this on another thread. I had forgotten that you posted it, and I found the link over at FFJ, and re-posted it here. Sorry about that.

 

[coloradokares]

I hope your recovery goes as smoothly as possible.




Personally, I did not read your post as being badly worded. Communication between people can be difficult at the best of times and even in the best of circumstances. Even when you correctly say what you mean someone can still read a different meaning into it just by giving different weight to some words in the sentence. I look forward to reading everyones posts and would hate to not read yours too.

Thanks, still I never want to appear to be rude. That is not who I am at all.

 

[coloradokares]

It'll be a slow but steady road to recovery, Coloradokares. Just do the best you can, we understand. Don't lurk, you have as valuable opinions as anyone else.

I hope ss, I do get discouraged. Thanks

 

[coloradokares]

Thank you and the one drawback to the internet is not being able to see people face to face (I guess that's good too, though) so it's hard to read the tone of a post, if that makes any sense, so it's easy to misunderstand or misinterpret something. I understand what you meant and please don't take my misunderstanding as a reason for you to stop lurking. I understand your need for clarification. Hey I think I was being defensive myself in thinking that you were being defensive, LOL if that makes any sense. No worries, CK. Thank you for your kind reply.:blowkiss:

By the way, you DID clarify my original question, so thank you.:blowkiss:

P.S. Prayers to you for a full and speedy recovery. Reading and posting are good "brain exercise" so continue...it's good for you

Thanks for understanding, Hugs

 

[Dru]

The only thing which imo complicates matters is the signs of chronic sexual abuse on JonBenet. If it weren't for that, it would basically be a simple and straightforward case: a parent (Patsy imo) snapped and lost it, inflicted a lethal head injury and then clumsily tried to cover it up by staging both a sex crime and a 'kidnapping for ransom' scenario.
But if it is true that JB had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse, who was her abuser? John?
If yes, how does the chronic sexual abuse mesh with the staged scene? I just can't believe Patsy would have covered up for John if he had not only molested, but also killed her daughter to silence her as a witness. But the forensic evidence (fibers from her jacket found in incriminating locations, and her in all probability having written the ransom note) implicates Patsy as the main stager of the scene.

I'd be interested in other RDIs' opinion on this, for I'm going back and forth on the issue of chronic sexual abuse.

1) Do you believe JonBenet had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse?

2) If yes, who do you think was her sexual abuser?
2' ) If it wasn't Patsy, do you think she knew who was JonBenet's sexual abuser?
2'') How would you put it all together in a time line of events on that fatal night?

3) If not, how would you interpret what Dr. McCann said about this issue in the Bonita papers?

My answers:
1) Yes.
2) JR.
2') No.
2") Here goes.

I have come to suspect that JR was abusing JBR. I don't think of him as a pedophile; I think if he was molesting JBR it was a crime of opportunity that began as slightly inappropriate conduct and progressed from there. I think it may have begun either during PR's battle with cancer or following his oldest daugher's death; in fact, that latter event seems the more likely catalyst, as his sincere grief over Beth's death may have collided with a kind of resentment of his youngest daughter, who was being made over into a miniature image of her mother before his eyes due to the pageant involvement and who would be dressed as a child one day and a provocative adult the next. Now, I do NOT think the abuse had progressed beyond digital activity; JBR's autopsy seems to indicate that more significant physical activity had not occurred.

In the days leading up to the crime I think JR was becoming very worried. JBR was showing signs of being about to tell: she may have initiated the mysterious 911 call, or JR may have thought that she did; she was seen crying and saying she didn't feel pretty, and she openly rejected the My Twinn Doll on Christmas morning, the doll that was supposed to look just like her. Moreover, JR's second family was on a collision course with his first; that is, he and PR and BR and JBR were to spend a couple of days in Charlevoix with Melinda, Stewart Long, and JAR: and both Melinda and Stewart had medical backgrounds, and might notice signs of abuse which had so far apparently escaped the attention of Dr. Beuf. In point of fact, PR was the one who kept taking JBR to Dr. Beuf to discuss her mysterious vaginal rashes and the like, and unless you truly believe in a Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy theory that's inexplicable if you think she either knew about or was responsible for JBR's abuse.

I think the R's arrived home the night of the 25th tired and stressed, and that PR gave both BR and JBR a snack, leaving the bowl of pineapple and BR's empty glass on the table. I think she then went up with JBR and put her to bed and then told JR not to let BR play with his new toy too long before going off to finish packing for the next day's trip; she may even have gone to the basement to finish wrapping gifts for extended family members.

Eventually JR sent BR to bed, too. I honestly think PR was getting ready for bed, or might even have gone to bed, before what happened next.

Now, I don't think JR intended to abuse JBR that night, nor am I at all sure which room of the house the murder took place in. But I think what happened is that JR discovered JBR still awake and possibly out of bed, ordered her sternly to go back to bed, and then interpreted something in her defiance or her actual words to be a threat of exposure. Coming on top of his concerns leading up to that day, and the next day's trip, I think this would be enough to cause him to strike the blow to the head.

One of the first things he would have thought about as she lay there apparently dead was that there was no way this could be passed off as an accident--because of the evidence of abuse that would be discovered during an autopsy (and JR had to know that a child's accidental death would require an autopsy. I think everyone knows that!). Inflicting the vaginal wound just made sense, then, because I think JR thought that if it looked as though someone else had done this then maybe the original evidence of chronic abuse would be too compromised to prove anything against him, and we should remember that this actually worked. Unfortunately for him, she was still alive, and the wound bled much more profusely than he might have thought it would. The clean up became necessary, and in the process JR left fiber evidence behind: the only fiber evidence, btw, that is present beneath JBR's clothing.

I think by this time he was already in the basement with her, no matter where the head blow had been struck. Since PR had put JBR to bed, PR knew which underwear she'd been wearing, and the word "Wednesday" was quite possibly visible, at least somewhat, through the off-white long underwear. JR remembered PR showing him the many gifts she'd bought for relatives, including the larger-sized Bloomies; he opened several packages to find them (which to me indicates that the person who used the Bloomies was NOT the person who wrapped them in the first place, though some have argued otherwise). Why would he do this? Because it was imperative that for the initial period following the murder PR should NOT suspect sexual abuse, which might make her suspect him: and he couldn't risk someone like PR forgetting which pair of underwear JBR had worn to bed!

After redressing JBR JR proceeded to stage the "body" for the first time. He placed a length of rope around her neck and tightened it, killing her, though it may be argued that he didn't realize she was still alive at that point; on the other hand, he might have known it. Beside the rope he placed BR's open pocket knife; beside the body he also placed a heavy golf club. (Why else would JR have been so worried about his golf clubs? I find myself wondering if some forensic evidence couldn't still be recovered from one of them.) These items were meant to indicate to PR that BR had committed the crime, since BR had struck JBR once before with a golf club and since I'm sure the children had the usual sibling squabbles; in fact, on Christmas Day JBR was laying in the doorway of BR's room as he played his new Nintendo with his friends, a detail which at least suggests the possibility that BR had forbidden her to come in and watch them play; so to abide with the letter of the law but thwart the spirit JBR lays just outside the room playing with her jewelry craft kit, a fact I'm sure BR found annoying at the time.

When all is ready JR goes and gets PR, and in a very heartbroken manner brings her to JBR's body. I think it was PR and not JBR who screamed around 2 a.m., and that PR sat cradling JBR's body, her rings leaving the 'stun gun' impressions as per another poster's brilliant theory. And PR's sweater fibers fell all over the rope, too, which is how they ended up twisted into the knot of the faux garrote.

I think JR found it easy to convince PR that BR had to be protected at all costs. If they let LE at him he'll be taken away from them; even if he can't be charged with the crime it may be years before he's ever in their care again: and this is where JR played his trump card--PR could be dead before she ever sees her son again, if she lets the police find out that he is the killer.

So PR lets herself be talked into covering up the crime, for the sake of her son. Ever after this the one thing that rouses her to actual anger is the suggestion by anyone that BR might have been involved; eventually a 'preemptive strike' in the form of a lawsuit is carried out to protect him.

But here's where JR runs into a snag. For his purposes, he'd like to stage the crime scene as a sexual assault scene--but he can't afford to let PR know what he has done to the body! So JBR's body has to remain fully clothed, though JR vetoes PR's desire to redress JBR in her favorite nightgown, and is then annoyed when the nightgown is left by the body after all. And the fake 'scenario' has to steer clear of sex motives; but there has to be a reason to call police early in the morning, and also to cancel their planned trip to Charlevoix. So a ransom note suggesting a politically motivated kidnapping is written instead, and the body is staged for the second time that night.

I think the notion that rigor has begun to appear by the time the wrist ligatures are tied is spot on. It had to have taken a while for JR to stage JBR's body the first time, for PR's sake; and by the time the two of them had discussed what to do and begun doing it I think it was between 2 and 3 a.m. I think they barely "made" it, making the 911 call a little before six a.m.

Now, eventually PR had to become aware of the physical/sexual assault evidence; but by the time it became necessary for her to know I think JR had decided how to handle things. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if JR eventually "sold" PR on the idea that BR didn't fully realize any of what he'd done, that in some way it really wasn't his fault, that he had some "issues" or other that just needed good old fashioned strong family love to sort out. I can see her falling for that, believing it because it allowed her to continue living her life and maintaining the status quo, which ultimately seems to have been the most important thing to her.

 

[Squishified]

Dru,
Excellent post and food for thought!

 

[Toltec]

Yup, yup. One of them was abusing her sexually and one of them killed her (probably accidentally). Person A covered for person B because to do otherwise would implicate them in the abuse.

If ONE person were abusing her AND killed her, what's the motive for the other to help cover it up? I can't think of anything.

John Ramsey was CEO of Access Graphics, a very succesful company. His wife was the former West Virginie...a trophy wife. They were involved in church and several organizations. The family had lots to lose.

 

[JMO8778]

John Ramsey was CEO of Access Graphics, a very succesful company. His wife was the former West Virginie...a trophy wife. They were involved in church and several organizations. The family had lots to lose.

oh yes,money,reputation...neither would have wanted anyone to ever think they were married to someone who could do that..and Patsy wanted to be able to continue her cancer treatments if need be...they needed money for that.plus I'm sure they didn't want BR taken from them.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

If JonBenet was being sexually abuse by someone, I don't see how Patsy would not have known or suspected, and based on her response in interview when told of evidence of prior sexual abuse, she did. She becomes defensive, and fails to ask the questions I know I, as a mother, would be asking about this evidence of prior abuse (had I had no idea it was happening.)

Things like: What did you find? What could that mean? Are you sure that could only happen from abuse? There's no other way for that to happen? Who could have done this? When did it happen? Where was she when someone could get to her like that? How could I not see something was going on? Did my daughter try to tell me, and I didn't realize? What about my other children - were they also abused?

Patsy didn't ask any of those questions, she practically challenged the interviewers to prove it because she insisted it didn't happen...like she knew it had and refused to let on that she knew, IMO. Who becomes defensive and doesn't ask questions when told their murdered child's body showed that she had been sexually abused prior to the night she was killed?

IMO, if JB was being abused, Patsy not only knew, but she knew who the abuser was and covered for that person. There's a chance it could have been her.

 

[UKGuy]

If JonBenet was being sexually abuse by someone, I don't see how Patsy would not have known or suspected, and based on her response in interview when told of evidence of prior sexual abuse, she did. She becomes defensive, and fails to ask the questions I know I, as a mother, would be asking about this evidence of prior abuse (had I had no idea it was happening.)

Things like: What did you find? What could that mean? Are you sure that could only happen from abuse? There's no other way for that to happen? Who could have done this? When did it happen? Where was she when someone could get to her like that? How could I not see something was going on? Did my daughter try to tell me, and I didn't realize? What about my other children - were they also abused?

Patsy didn't ask any of those questions, she practically challenged the interviewers to prove it because she insisted it didn't happen...like she knew it had and refused to let on that she knew, IMO. Who becomes defensive and doesn't ask questions when told their murdered child's body showed that she had been sexually abused prior to the night she was killed?

IMO, if JB was being abused, Patsy not only knew, but she knew who the abuser was and covered for that person. There's a chance it could have been her.

Nuisanceposter,

The inescapable conclusion is that they were both culpable, otherwise neither had a motive to become involved in a criminal homicide, the evidence tells you both parents engaged in the staging, and there is no evidence linking Burke to the crime-scene, although by his silence he is patently covering for his father, since the parents version of events does not correspond with the forensic evidence.

Its quite likely that both parents abused JonBenet possibly in different ways, but that she was, was what is intended to be hidden by her death and subsequent staging, without that as a motive then the intruder theory can be promoted with nothing to contradict it, and with all three Ramsey's colluding together to maintain a silence, the police cannot put anyone on the stand, since they have no star witness, no pleading deals, no wife to assume victim status in the witness box, in short they have a case but no witness.


.

 

[Ames]

If JonBenet was being sexually abuse by someone, I don't see how Patsy would not have known or suspected, and based on her response in interview when told of evidence of prior sexual abuse, she did. She becomes defensive, and fails to ask the questions I know I, as a mother, would be asking about this evidence of prior abuse (had I had no idea it was happening.)

Things like: What did you find? What could that mean? Are you sure that could only happen from abuse? There's no other way for that to happen? Who could have done this? When did it happen? Where was she when someone could get to her like that? How could I not see something was going on? Did my daughter try to tell me, and I didn't realize? What about my other children - were they also abused?

Patsy didn't ask any of those questions, she practically challenged the interviewers to prove it because she insisted it didn't happen...like she knew it had and refused to let on that she knew, IMO. Who becomes defensive and doesn't ask questions when told their murdered child's body showed that she had been sexually abused prior to the night she was killed?

IMO, if JB was being abused, Patsy not only knew, but she knew who the abuser was and covered for that person. There's a chance it could have been her.

And the interviewer wasn't accusing HER or JOHN...he simply stated that JB had been molested prior to that night, and she got WAY too defensive, for someone that didn't know it was happening. If she HADN'T of known, then she would have been asking those questions that you posted, and she would be trying to figure out who JB had been around, that would have had the opportunity to molest her, without her knowledge.

 

[DeeDee249]

I always was suspicious of PR's behavior when told of the sexual assault of her daughter. NO mother behaves like that. "You show me where it says that!" Instead of OMG, you HAVE to help me find out who did this to my little girl. Nedra's own words "JonBenet was only a LITTLE BIT molested" says it all. In the P family, a little bit of sexual molestation was OK. PR and her sisters probably had that drummed into their heads since childhood. Just as her own mother looked the other way (as SO many mothers do when confronted with the awful truth of the men in their lives sexually abusing their children), PR refused to accept as fact what the autopsy clearly stated. Her daughter had been sexually assaulted. Now, from where I stand, the only reason a mother gets defensive about her little girl having been sexually abused is when SHE is the abuser OR when her husband,boyfriend, or son is the abuser.
Each parent had reasons to cover for the other. Maybe fear of losing their son, their lifestyle, but whatever it was the only thing that IS definite is that as with OJ Simpson, there was NO need to find the "real killer".

 

[azwriter]

Yup, yup. One of them was abusing her sexually and one of them killed her (probably accidentally). Person A covered for person B because to do otherwise would implicate them in the abuse.

If ONE person were abusing her AND killed her, what's the motive for the other to help cover it up? I can't think of anything.

And supposing her death was an accident, there must have been some terrible circumstances surrounding the accident to keep her parents from calling 911 or taking her to the hostpital for emergency treatment. Would the guilt of those circumstances keep Patsy and John from seeking help for their 6-year-old?
Something very wrong was going on in that home that night, wrong enough to force the parents into faking a crime scene. Or were they covering for the person who caused the death, a person they could not name because they too would be blamed for allowing it to happen?
We don't have all the evidence. There is some key piece that keeps us from linking this all together into a clear picture.
JMO