Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[SunnieRN]

SunnieRN,

What I visualise is the head of scots-terrier, the one with the drooping whiskers peering out.

.

So, I have never seen mention of a stuffed animal, or dog, but it is there. Hence 'devil dog', since this is cropped from the court tv picture. I have seen a lot of strange things before, but this surprised me.

 

[LinasK]

Excellent points.

The acute and prior sexual abuse is often used to implicate John Ramsey as the abuser. The garrotte and "sex game gone awry" state a sexual nature to JonBenet's death which wasn't intentional e.g the perpetrator didn't mean to kill JonBenet. If Patsy wrote the ransom note, she either killed JohnBenet or was covering up for someone/others.

But imagine if John did it -- he at some point got Patsy involved. How do you break it to her "erm, our daughter's dead...". Did he lie and make something up? Did she know he was molesting her and so covered up for that as she had been knowing of his deed and thus approved it.

Who knows.

This is exactly what I think happened, not Patsy killed in bed-wetting rage. It was John in sex-game gone awry, and Patsy stood by her man and wrote the ransom note and helped with the staging...

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

This is exactly what I think happened, not Patsy killed in bed-wetting rage. It was John in sex-game gone awry, and Patsy stood by her man and wrote the ransom note and helped with the staging...

Yes. I absolutely think the evidence supports the theory that JonBenet died from a sex-game gone wrong. It's the most logical imo -- molested genitals in conjunction with ligature (EA device) and mild brain swelling/lack of blood due to fact the ligature pressed on the vagal nerve first, thus stopping the heart and blood-flow.Head-wound is then done AFTER the asphyxiation in order to simulate intruder attack.

 

[LinasK]

Yes. I absolutely think the evidence supports the theory that JonBenet died from a sex-game gone wrong. It's the most logical imo -- molested genitals in conjunction with ligature (EA device) and mild brain swelling/lack of blood due to fact the ligature pressed on the vagal nerve first, thus stopping the heart and blood-flow.Head-wound is then done AFTER the asphyxiation in order to simulate intruder attack.

I thought the head wound was to finish her off when they realized she was dying. Too embarassing to call 911, and let the world know what really happened to her. Would've hurt their social standing to have her rescucitated (sp?) and she could've told on them...

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I thought the head wound was to finish her off when they realized she was dying. Too embarassing to call 911, and let the world know what really happened to her. Would've hurt their social standing to have her rescucitated (sp?) and she could've told on them...

That's very logical and possible.

I always thought that after the EA device failed and JonBenet would appear dead to them (she was dying) that they would try to resuscitate her but could not. They then had a dead, molested child which they caused. Thus, the head-blow was inflicter afterwards to simulate an intruder attack.

I think the head could have been struck more than once -- the 'hole' in the skull perhaps shows some evidence of this.

 

[DeeDee249]

That's very logical and possible.

I always thought that after the EA device failed and JonBenet would appear dead to them (she was dying) that they would try to resuscitate her but could not. They then had a dead, molested child which they caused. Thus, the head-blow was inflicter afterwards to simulate an intruder attack.

I think the head could have been struck more than once -- the 'hole' in the skull perhaps shows some evidence of this.

I saw nothing that indicated this. The coroner made no such claim either. What evidence do you mean?
The "headblow by intruder" is faulty logic on the part of the stager anyway. This was staged to be a kidnapping. A kidnapper wouldn't bash his victim, not before getting the ransom money. Dead body= no ransom money paid unless the parents don't know she's dead. Dead body in the victim's own home found by parent = no ransom money paid.

 

[Tadpole12]

Considering that the skull fracture was 8.5 inches long, almost running entire length of head with a hole in it, I think it's possible her head was hit more than once. But this was done after the neck injury when she was almost dead.

Regarding Wecht, I disagree that he said sensational stuff for the sake of selling books.His theory does make sense. It does tie together every piece of information and does satisfy science.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

Heyya Let_Forever_Be.

Very invigorating discussion re CW's AEA theory.

The single massive blow to the head is the probability most often discussed by experts and laymen. What leads you to assume otherwise.
The runs extending from the 'divot' are most often viewed as resulting from a single high impact blow?

Will read on, ty.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I saw nothing that indicated this. The coroner made no such claim either. What evidence do you mean?
The "headblow by intruder" is faulty logic on the part of the stager anyway. This was staged to be a kidnapping. A kidnapper wouldn't bash his victim, not before getting the ransom money. Dead body= no ransom money paid unless the parents don't know she's dead. Dead body in the victim's own home found by parent = no ransom money paid.

I'm talking about the skull fracture -- the severe 8.5 inch fracture with the 'hole' in it. I'm speculating that perhaps, it was hit more than once, hence the hole.(I read something about this and can't find my source -- I'll try to find it).

Regarding the faulty logic of the stager -- well, I think at the absolute base of all the decision making that night, was a survival instinct to 'project-away' personal involvement with regards to JonBenet. Personal involvement of the sexual nature which I find is the reason that at no time could the perp have ever called for help from an ambulance/doctors. In Layman's terms, even if death was accident, the preceding and linking event was sexual molestation which prevented the perp, in any way, shape or form, from getting help.

As a result, decisions were made to 'blame' something/someone else for Jonbenet's death.

I agree with your logic as per what a true kidnapper would do -- obviously, in real cases, they take the body for ransom.

The ransom note does suggest this (a kidnapping) but obviously a dead body in the house contradicts that. Perhaps a kidnapping gone wrong whereby the original intention was to take JonBenet but something forced them to kill her there and then is what was hoped for. I think the ransom note was a necessity for the perp (I believe a Ramsey did it) as it was the most obvious way to place blame on someone else.They had a dead body, couldn't get rid of it so next best thing was to write note that some evil 'faction' did it.The ransom note gave a written expression that some other 'entity' did this and not the Ramseys. So obviously, the body was not or could not be removed from house thus the ransom note (which had to written) would eventually be contradicted when the body was found. But I think the Ramseys just hoped the police would be confused and that as long as nothing of them implicated absolute guilt, they would deflect away involvement by any silly means and hide behind great defence lawyers.

Further, it could be said that the intruder wrote the ransom note before JonBenet died and it was left behind for whatever reason.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Heyya Let_Forever_Be.

Very invigorating discussion re CW's AEA theory.

The single massive blow to the head is the probability most often discussed by experts and laymen. What leads you to assume otherwise.
The runs extending from the 'divot' are most often viewed as resulting from a single high impact blow?

Will read on, ty.

Hi.

I too think a single blow to the head was performed.I obviously think it came after she was asphyxiated aswell.

I read something which made me think though. I'll try and track down the source again.

 

[Sophie]

Who? Initials would suffice.

Don't want to say. Dee Dee since he's still alive, I think.

But, I don't think JBR was the first person in that family to be subjected to some nasty goings on...

 

[UKGuy]

I saw nothing that indicated this. The coroner made no such claim either. What evidence do you mean?
The "headblow by intruder" is faulty logic on the part of the stager anyway. This was staged to be a kidnapping. A kidnapper wouldn't bash his victim, not before getting the ransom money. Dead body= no ransom money paid unless the parents don't know she's dead. Dead body in the victim's own home found by parent = no ransom money paid.

DeeDee249,

Excellent points.

The head blow does not look like staging from where I am sitting. If its not visible then it does not fulfil its intended purpose.

JonBenet's prior molestation is also not visible which, for me, suggests a degree of conformity in the staging.


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

DeeDee249,

Excellent points.

The head blow does not look like staging from where I am sitting. If its not visible then it does not fulfil its intended purpose.

JonBenet's prior molestation is also not visible which, for me, suggests a degree of conformity in the staging.


.

But there was chronic sexual abuse meaning that some of the molestation was from a prior day at least 48-72 hours before the 25/26th December.The molestation from the time of death also mysteriously was in same place as that of the chronic abuse.

How exactly does one stage molestation which occurred before an event --use a time-travelling machine? We then have to view the molestation as two separate incidents not necessarily related. I don't buy that.

If we are to take your theory, then we have to speculate as to why a perpetrator would inflict a head-wound onto the child. Assuming it was a Ramsey, we then have to wonder why they didn't call the medical services when JonBenet was struck on the head.We then have to assume they quickly thought up the asphyxiation plan and then molested JonBenet's genitals. And even that theory cannot explain the chronic molestation which happened on another date.

I think the 'thing' which prevented the perp from calling the medical services was that JonBenet was being abused both before she died and at the time of her death. This was the reason the perp could not call for help.

JonBenet's prior molestation is also not visible which, for me, suggests a degree of conformity in the staging.

Em, how likely is it that genital molestation would be 'visible'? The injuries were internal, not external and the blood which was drawn was wiped away.Why would the perp make the vaginal injuries so 'hidden' if his intention was to make it look like a sexual attack and thus stage the event this way?Why not make them look worse? But the 'vaginal injuries' were as visible as they would be as per molesation claims -- e.g the injuries were not related to the idea of death but rather related to the idea that JonBenet would be alive thus the injuries were relative to whomever was molesting her.As the bonita papers recorded:

" The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia"

Is it more probable that the vaginal injuries were just that -- injuries that JonBenet sustained via ongoing molestation. The molester wasn't trying to hurt her but was being 'gentle' in as far as they never thought one day that she would die and so the things they were doing to her would become evident?

The head blow does not look like staging from where I am sitting. If its not visible then it does not fulfil its intended purpose.

I disagree. Since the brain swelling was so mild and the amount of blood found was merely 7ccs, it's very uncommon for an 8.5 inch skull fracture to lead to merely those outcomes.Granted it's not impossible but it's not that common. And when viewed in the totality of the evidence, I cannot see what evidence supports the notion that the head-blow came first as opposed to the asphyxiation.

Further, inflicting an 8.5inch skull fracture upon an individual is pretty much known. It takes so much force to do it that I doubt the person doing it wouldn't know.And if the head-blow came after the asphyxiation and sexual abuse which I believe were not meant to kill JonBenet, and we know a head-blow was inflicted, then I feel the head injury was intended to make it look like an intruder hit her skull. It also added a new element into what was done i.e the sexual stuff which served to confuse the events of that fateful night.

I think (if RDI) hitting your child over your head is quite a traumatic thing to do. Especially when they are lying in what appears to be a dead state.I don't think the perp was a monster and so could butcher the child to make it look more gruesome. I think the head-blow represented what they could muster that night. All other efforts were directed towards removing their involvement in the case e.g wiping body down, ransom note, wiping flashlight etc.

 

[Whaleshark]

Speaking of Agatha_C- I haven't seen her around for quite a while. Hope she is planning to come back, I valued her comments very much.

I think Agatha is wrapped up in the Casey Anthony Murder Trial these past few weeks like I am.....

....visiting here today to get a break....

and yes, there was mention of not only one doll, but more than one, and there are photos of the doll (s), and much discussion about how it looks like there is one doll laid over the other. you can pretty much tell there is a doll in a box in the photos...would have to find somewhere.... but they are there.

 

[UKGuy]

But there was chronic sexual abuse meaning that some of the molestation was from a prior day at least 48-72 hours before the 25/26th December.The molestation from the time of death also mysteriously was in same place as that of the chronic abuse.

How exactly does one stage molestation which occurred before an event --use a time-travelling machine? We then have to view the molestation as two separate incidents not necessarily related. I don't buy that.

If we are to take your theory, then we have to speculate as to why a perpetrator would inflict a head-wound onto the child. Assuming it was a Ramsey, we then have to wonder why they didn't call the medical services when JonBenet was struck on the head.We then have to assume they quickly thought up the asphyxiation plan and then molested JonBenet's genitals. And even that theory cannot explain the chronic molestation which happened on another date.

I think the 'thing' which prevented the perp from calling the medical services was that JonBenet was being abused both before she died and at the time of her death. This was the reason the perp could not call for help.




Em, how likely is it that genital molestation would be 'visible'? The injuries were internal, not external and the blood which was drawn was wiped away.Why would the perp make the vaginal injuries so 'hidden' if his intention was to make it look like a sexual attack and thus stage the event this way?Why not make them look worse? But the 'vaginal injuries' were as visible as they would be as per molesation claims -- e.g the injuries were not related to the idea of death but rather related to the idea that JonBenet would be alive thus the injuries were relative to whomever was molesting her.As the bonita papers recorded:

" The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia"

Is it more probable that the vaginal injuries were just that -- injuries that JonBenet sustained via ongoing molestation. The molester wasn't trying to hurt her but was being 'gentle' in as far as they never thought one day that she would die and so the things they were doing to her would become evident?



I disagree. Since the brain swelling was so mild and the amount of blood found was merely 7ccs, it's very uncommon for an 8.5 inch skull fracture to lead to merely those outcomes.Granted it's not impossible but it's not that common. And when viewed in the totality of the evidence, I cannot see what evidence supports the notion that the head-blow came first as opposed to the asphyxiation.

Further, inflicting an 8.5inch skull fracture upon an individual is pretty much known. It takes so much force to do it that I doubt the person doing it wouldn't know.And if the head-blow came after the asphyxiation and sexual abuse which I believe were not meant to kill JonBenet, and we know a head-blow was inflicted, then I feel the head injury was intended to make it look like an intruder hit her skull. It also added a new element into what was done i.e the sexual stuff which served to confuse the events of that fateful night.

I think (if RDI) hitting your child over your head is quite a traumatic thing to do. Especially when they are lying in what appears to be a dead state.I don't think the perp was a monster and so could butcher the child to make it look more gruesome. I think the head-blow represented what they could muster that night. All other efforts were directed towards removing their involvement in the case e.g wiping body down, ransom note, wiping flashlight etc.

Let_Forever_Be,

But there was chronic sexual abuse meaning that some of the molestation was from a prior day at least 48-72 hours before the 25/26th December.The molestation from the time of death also mysteriously was in same place as that of the chronic abuse.

How exactly does one stage molestation which occurred before an event --use a time-travelling machine? We then have to view the molestation as two separate incidents not necessarily related. I don't buy that.

One stages by simulating a sexual assault. As per the ongoing molestation theory there was one or more incidents prior to JonBenet's death. I do not find anything mysterious about this.

If we are to take your theory, then we have to speculate as to why a perpetrator would inflict a head-wound onto the child. Assuming it was a Ramsey, we then have to wonder why they didn't call the medical services when JonBenet was struck on the head.We then have to assume they quickly thought up the asphyxiation plan and then molested JonBenet's genitals. And even that theory cannot explain the chronic molestation which happened on another date.

I think the 'thing' which prevented the perp from calling the medical services was that JonBenet was being abused both before she died and at the time of her death. This was the reason the perp could not call for help.

Either this and/or the unknown circumstances surrounding her death did not lend themselves to any interpretation of accident.

Em, how likely is it that genital molestation would be 'visible'? The injuries were internal, not external and the blood which was drawn was wiped away.Why would the perp make the vaginal injuries so 'hidden' if his intention was to make it look like a sexual attack and thus stage the event this way?Why not make them look worse? But the 'vaginal injuries' were as visible as they would be as per molesation claims -- e.g the injuries were not related to the idea of death but rather related to the idea that JonBenet would be alive thus the injuries were relative to whomever was molesting her.As the bonita papers recorded

It is very likely that the genital molestation would be visible if JonBenet's death had been intended to have been staged as an intruder homicide. More or less along the lines of Lou Smit's psychopathic intruder. In this scenario there is no need to cleanup JonBenet, or to redress her.

e.g the injuries were not related to the idea of death but rather related to the idea that JonBenet would be alive thus the injuries were relative to whomever was molesting her.As the bonita papers recorded

My thoughts on this issue is that there was more than one staging event. One along the lines of a Lou Smit scenario, another as per the wine-cellar staging, with the molestation hidden from view. Its probable that Patsy was unaware of this, hence her ignorance of the size-12's. Which might suggest someone else amending features of the staging? With a pink barbie nightgown deposited in the wine-cellar along with a barbie doll and JonBenet redressed in size-12 underwear makes , for me at least, the wine-cellar a staged crime-scene.

Further, inflicting an 8.5inch skull fracture upon an individual is pretty much known. It takes so much force to do it that I doubt the person doing it wouldn't know.And if the head-blow came after the asphyxiation and sexual abuse which I believe were not meant to kill JonBenet, and we know a head-blow was inflicted, then I feel the head injury was intended to make it look like an intruder hit her skull. It also added a new element into what was done i.e the sexual stuff which served to confuse the events of that fateful night.

How can an invisible and unseen head injury make any material difference?

It would appear that soon after returning from the White's JonBenet was being molested, and at some point either deliberately or accidentally JonBenet sustained a head injury. Assuming death JonBenet's killer(s) staged some kind of intruder assault, later revised to that of a Kidnap Scenario.

In the Kidnap Scenario there is no real requirement to redress JonBenet since in essence she has been abducted, all that is needed is that JonBenet be hidden from view.

I think (if RDI) hitting your child over your head is quite a traumatic thing to do. Especially when they are lying in what appears to be a dead state.I don't think the perp was a monster and so could butcher the child to make it look more gruesome. I think the head-blow represented what they could muster that night. All other efforts were directed towards removing their involvement in the case e.g wiping body down, ransom note, wiping flashlight etc.

The head injury whether accidental or deliberate is a secondary issue. What is primary is the staging enacted to hide any signs of JonBenet's genital injuries. This along with the size-12's, nightgown, and doll, all suggest restaging with some of the latter being residue from a former staging.

The wiping of the flashlight might fall into the mistake category e.g. size-12's, since what intruder is going to stop to clean the batteries. Either that or the use of the flashlight was premeditated and the batteries were changed. Even so the flashlight could have been employed in the basement, then put away in some drawer, not wiped clean, and I doubt anyone would be any wiser?

Its as if some third party was called over. Was handed the flashlight to view the wine-cellar, then it was wiped clean in front of this person(s).

Since none of the former appear consistent it seems more likely that the flashlight was employed in the crime-scene and became contaminated with forensic evidence via JonBenet.



.

 

[tennison]

Okay,but PR being the abuser/punisher really doesn't explain why JR helped her in the cover-up,I will never ever buy that theory that he had no clue whatsoever re what happened(she did it all by herself).And if you trust and rely on the fiber evidence,then how do you explain his fibers in JB's underwear.
Also,and this is strictly my opinion and gut feeling,I don't see JR as being the innocent little lamb controlled and manipulated by his wife,on the other hand I see in PR what I saw in many women who stand by their men no matter WHAT.
And there's another thing,if we are to believe that PR abused/punished JB BEFORE then I guess this wasn't just an accident.

Below are the Autopsy findings by Dr Meyer.

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violent discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified

so we are to believe that the facts of this case is parents(BOTH) just flip out, accidentally Garotte her, fracture her skull, tape her mouth, tie her hands, assult her sexually with a broken paintbrush and leave her in the basement, wait a few hours and write a ransom note, all out of the blue and without her brother seeing a thing???????????
Sounds a lot like people are trying too hard to take the evidence and make it fit the parents.
I, for one, dont buy it.

 

[madeleine]

so we are to believe that the facts of this case is parents(BOTH) just flip out, accidentally Garotte her, fracture her skull, tape her mouth, tie her hands, assult her sexually with a broken paintbrush and leave her in the basement, wait a few hours and write a ransom note, all out of the blue and without her brother seeing a thing???????????
Sounds a lot like people are trying too hard to take the evidence and make it fit the parents.

and where exactly did I say all these things?
seems like you picked a line from one scenario,another line from another scenario and you make it sound like we all believe something that isn't supported by any evidence at all.
how does someone accidentally garrote someone anyway?
where does it say she was assaulted with the paintbrush?Meyer said digital penetration,the splinters could have ended up in her vagina through transfer,the one who broke the brush touched JB.
all out of the blue?hm,seems an entire panel of doctors disagree with you,JB was previously abused/molested.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Below are the Autopsy findings by Dr Meyer.

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violent discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified

so we are to believe that the facts of this case is parents(BOTH) just flip out, accidentally Garotte her, fracture her skull, tape her mouth, tie her hands, assult her sexually with a broken paintbrush and leave her in the basement, wait a few hours and write a ransom note, all out of the blue and without her brother seeing a thing???????????
Sounds a lot like people are trying too hard to take the evidence and make it fit the parents.
I, for one, dont buy it.

No evidence of an intruder so that leaves only the three people KNOWN to be in the house the night JonBenet died -- Burke, Patsy and John.

And you crudely defined people's theories. The 'ligature' was most certainly no accident -- people such as myself who believe it was an EA device or those who think it was staging still agree that it was applied deliberately but with a different purpose intended in its use.

All the evidence does implicate the parents though - no-one has to "try" to make it fit. Most handwriting experts think Patsy wrote the ransom note -- why would an 'innocent' women write a ransom note?

Fibres from Patsy's red top she was wearing on the 25th December were found on the duct tape placed on JonBenet's mouth? How did they get there?

The list goes on and on. But most people, either those that believe the asphyxiation came first or the the head-blow preceded it, both agree that evidence is not shortcoming in implicating parental guilt and involvement and way you dice and slice it!

 

[UKGuy]

Below are the Autopsy findings by Dr Meyer.

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violent discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified

so we are to believe that the facts of this case is parents(BOTH) just flip out, accidentally Garotte her, fracture her skull, tape her mouth, tie her hands, assult her sexually with a broken paintbrush and leave her in the basement, wait a few hours and write a ransom note, all out of the blue and without her brother seeing a thing???????????
Sounds a lot like people are trying too hard to take the evidence and make it fit the parents.
I, for one, dont buy it.

tennison,
No parent need flip out. JonBenet had an accident, but due to the current and acute molestation, see the autopsy and Coroner Meyer's verbatim remarks regarding sexual contact, no 911 or medical assistance was requested. This left JonBenet's killer(s) with no option but to consider some form of staging.

The problem with any IDI theory is that there is zero evidence linking to or supporting any intruder theory. It all points to a Ramsey resident, there is even forensic evidence linking the parents to the crime-scene but none to that of an intruder.

Those acquainted with the case know that there was a larger organised conspiracy, one which, allegedly assisted the Ramsey's to evade justice.

.

 

[BBB167893]

In Layman's terms, even if death was accident, the preceding and linking event was sexual molestation which prevented the perp, in any way, shape or form, from getting help.

As a result, decisions were made to 'blame' something/someone else for Jonbenet's death.

THERE's something we can agree on.

I think the ransom note was a necessity for the perp (I believe a Ramsey did it) as it was the most obvious way to place blame on someone else.They had a dead body, couldn't get rid of it so next best thing was to write note that some evil 'faction' did it. The ransom note gave a written expression that some other 'entity' did this and not the Ramseys. So obviously, the body was not or could not be removed from house thus the ransom note (which had to written) would eventually be contradicted when the body was found. But I think the Ramseys just hoped the police would be confused and that as long as nothing of them implicated absolute guilt, they would deflect away involvement by any silly means and hide behind great defence lawyers.

Further, it could be said that the intruder wrote the ransom note before JonBenet died and it was left behind for whatever reason.

You're hitting 'em out of the park, LFB!

 

[BBB167893]

so we are to believe that the facts of this case is parents(BOTH) just flip out, accidentally Garotte her, fracture her skull, tape her mouth, tie her hands, assult her sexually with a broken paintbrush and leave her in the basement, wait a few hours and write a ransom note, all out of the blue and without her brother seeing a thing???????????

Something like that.

Sounds a lot like people are trying too hard to take the evidence and make it fit the parents.
I, for one, dont buy it.

Welcome to the inferno, tennison.