Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[madeleine]

this issue always kept me from being sure that BDI.I always thought that the parents behaviour fits the BDI theory,her wounds as well,the garrote,the strangulation and some other things.
But JB being previously molested/abused makes me rethink all this.
PLUS all the trouble the killer/killers went through with redressing /whiping her off,the most important part of the staging IMO.This is what needed to be covered for.

 

[Sophie]

I don't think there's any doubt that JBR's vagina was damaged in a way that is inconsistent with bubble baths, masturbation or scratching from vaginitis - to me, the autopsy report is uncharacteristically clear on that point. I am not entirely sure that the damage was of overtly sexual provenance (ie. it may have involved a female charged with JBR's genital cleanliness, which, as discussed on here, is an incredibly common source of vaginal damage in children).

But, for me, there's a really important omission from this list of candidates.....

 

[DeeDee249]

But, for me, there's a really important omission from this list of candidates.....

Who? Initials would suffice.

 

[dodie20]

I picked PR but I'm not sure corporal punishment was the reason.

 

[OneLove]

I picked PR but I'm not sure corporal punishment was the reason.

I will say here that I was the court-appointed supervisor years ago for supervised visitation for a mother who had sexually molested her two young children. I believe the root of her behavior was the sexual abuse she suffered herself as a child, her obsessive-compulsive nature, and thinking her children were literally an extension of her own body that she 'owned'. The memory of those visitations still gives me goosebumps.

 

[BBB167893]

I will say here that I was the court-appointed supervisor years ago for supervised visitation for a mother who had sexually molested her two young children. I believe the root of her behavior was the sexual abuse she suffered herself as a child, her obsessive-compulsive nature, and thinking her children were literally an extension of her own body that she 'owned'. The memory of those visitations still gives me goosebumps.

Wow. You must have read my mind.

 

[madeleine]

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.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Yeah, if it weren't for that, I might be able to give him a pass.

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.

I can see that, too.

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.

You mean more like an escalation?

 

[UKGuy]

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.

madeleine,
The masking of any sexual assault is a big clue. Consider JonBenet's homicide as the real deal e.g. intruder makes an unseen entrance into the Ramsey household, enters JonBenet's room, sexually assaults her, then strangles her using some cord he brought for that purpose. Then he thinks I'll need some time to return back to base so I'll hide the body in the basement, and write a bogus ransom note, this should give me a few extra hours to shower and burn my clothing etc etc.

But JonBenet is found secluded in the wine-cellar redressed in clean size-12 underwear underneath a pair of white longjohns.

No psychopath is going to bother redressing and wiping down JonBenet. The sexual assault is the last thing on his mind, he knows that will be discovered, because he knows there will be a post-mortem investigation, so hiding it is redundant!

Now a corroborating piece of evidence is the Ramsey testimony. They say changed JonBenet's clothing upon return from the White's.

They placed the longjohns on her, which indirectly suggests hiding her genital injuries was very important to the person conducting the wine-cellar staging.

Otherwise she could have been left as per the former psychpathic scenario, e.g. bottomless and obviously injured.

In an alleged RDI someone chose to mask the injury and incorporate dressing JonBenet in the longjohns as part of their version of events the night before.

But the size-12's gave the game away, big time, so much so the Ramsey's found the remaining size-12's in a packing crate at a much later date. Even they knew how important the size-12's were.

So its entirely possible that PR killed JonBenet as per Steve Thomas' theory, but that JR has something that requires to be hidden, so he amends Patsy's preferred staging to one that suits his agenda?

Yet from memory Coroner Meyer explicitly said that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted prior to her death e.g. not merely vigorously cleansed?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

You know, the more I think about it, I simply can't see EITHER parent covering up for the other. This was THEIR CHILD, and she was DEAD. Imagine these scenarios: Patsy kills JB accidentally with a bash/slam to the head. JR finds out but agrees to help with the cover up because he has sexually abused her? So after their daughter has been killed NOW he has to tell Patsy that he's been sexually molesting her, so he'll help her stage it to look like a kidnapping so no one will find out? Unlikely.
Or JR kills JB with a bash on the head because she screamed as she was being sexually molested and Patsy agrees to cover it up so she can continue to enjoy her lifestyle?
Unlikely.
BUT envision their son(s) as the perps and you have a whole 'nother ball game.
NOW I can see it.

No way Patsy did all of this by herself, and JR just goes along with it when he finds out.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I read a theory on a JBR forum that said perhaps when Fleet White was driving Burke to his house, Burke told Fleet what happened in the house, and that explains Fleet's post-12/26 behavior.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

As people have alluded to, one of the problems is reconciling why any parent would cover-up for another. What would compel them to do this?

I have tended to agree with Cyril Wecht's thesis of a 'death game gone awry' and and so have pondered why Patsy, is she did not kill John Benet, would cover-up for John?

What if Patsy was molesting her? I'm no expert and do not know for certain.

I just have a hard time understanding why Patsy, who wrote that ransom note and so was involved, would cover-up for John if she knew he killed JonBenet.

What if John killed JonBenet via Wechts theory but didn't relay that to Patsy. Therefore Patsy was covering up for her hubby but with no knowledge of his sexually molesting the kid?

What if both parents were sexually abusing Jonbenet?

Just some thoughts...........

 

[dodie20]

As people have alluded to, one of the problems is reconciling why any parent would cover-up for another. What would compel them to do this?

I have tended to agree with Cyril Wecht's thesis of a 'death game gone awry' and and so have pondered why Patsy, is she did not kill John Benet, would cover-up for John?

What if Patsy was molesting her? I'm no expert and do not know for certain.

I just have a hard time understanding why Patsy, who wrote that ransom note and so was involved, would cover-up for John if she knew he killed JonBenet.

What if John killed JonBenet via Wechts theory but didn't relay that to Patsy. Therefore Patsy was covering up for her hubby but with no knowledge of his sexually molesting the kid?

What if both parents were sexually abusing Jonbenet?

Just some thoughts...........

IDK why a spouse would cover up for the other...maybe it's as simple as them keeping outsiders out of personal business. When a wife looks at her husband, she wouldn't just see a murderer, she'd still see her husband ...and maybe she has always made excuses for him and semi blames the child. A lot of times, I've noticed that men take parenting cues from their wives. If she's lenient, so is he. If she's abusive, so is he. If a mother was the murderer, I could see this kind of man just stepping back and not involving himself, unless he's accused. I've been married for over 20 years and if my husband did something like this, I'd be horrified...partly because there would be no signs. But if somebody was married to a different kind of man, they might not be so shocked...so how they'd handle it, would be different. My town's police chief's wife was a shoplifter, but nobody knew about it until after he died. She got caught in a neighboring town and he wasn't around to take care of the problem. I wonder how far a man man like that would go to protect his wife and name. MOO

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

IDK why a spouse would cover up for the other...maybe it's as simple as them keeping outsiders out of personal business. When a wife looks at her husband, she wouldn't just see a murderer, she'd still see her husband ...and maybe she has always made excuses for him and semi blames the child. A lot of times, I've noticed that men take parenting cues from their wives. If she's lenient, so is he. If she's abusive, so is he. If a mother was the murderer, I could see this kind of man just stepping back and not involving himself, unless he's accused. I've been married for over 20 years and if my husband did something like this, I'd be horrified...partly because there would be no signs. But if somebody was married to a different kind of man, they might not be so shocked...so how they'd handle it, would be different. My town's police chief's wife was a shoplifter, but nobody knew about it until after he died. She got caught in a neighboring town and he wasn't around to take care of the problem. I wonder how far a man man like that would go to protect his wife and name. MOO

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.

 

[madeleine]

As people have alluded to, one of the problems is reconciling why any parent would cover-up for another. What would compel them to do this?

I have tended to agree with Cyril Wecht's thesis of a 'death game gone awry' and and so have pondered why Patsy, is she did not kill John Benet, would cover-up for John?

What if Patsy was molesting her? I'm no expert and do not know for certain.

I just have a hard time understanding why Patsy, who wrote that ransom note and so was involved, would cover-up for John if she knew he killed JonBenet.

What if John killed JonBenet via Wechts theory but didn't relay that to Patsy. Therefore Patsy was covering up for her hubby but with no knowledge of his sexually molesting the kid?

What if both parents were sexually abusing Jonbenet?

Just some thoughts...........

I wouldn't say it's impossible,I thought about it.There was a case years ago,both parents were arrested,they were BOTH molesting BOTH kids,a little girl and her little brother,sex games.

 

[madeleine]

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?.

If this is the case IMO he probably didn't tell her the whole truth/made something up.It's like S.Singular said,you'd be more horrified of your wife than of police.ITA.

 

[madeleine]

You mean more like an escalation?

more like second degree murder


second degree murder

n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility.

if you're punishing someone (doesn't matter the motif,rage,jealousy,etc) I guess you are very well aware that things might go wrong and that you're hurting that person even if killing is no way your intent.

take abusive husbands for ex.oh,it's just a slap,but they KNOW the wife might fall and hit her head and die.right?

still,signs of digital penetration and an eroded hymen tell me a different story.prima facie tells me it was a man and since there's no evidence to tell me otherwise (that it was her)........+I see no reason whatsoever why he would cover for the psycho aggressive wife,especially when there's another child around who needs to be protected from her.

 

[madeleine]

You know, the more I think about it, I simply can't see EITHER parent covering up for the other. This was THEIR CHILD, and she was DEAD. Imagine these scenarios: Patsy kills JB accidentally with a bash/slam to the head. JR finds out but agrees to help with the cover up because he has sexually abused her? So after their daughter has been killed NOW he has to tell Patsy that he's been sexually molesting her, so he'll help her stage it to look like a kidnapping so no one will find out? Unlikely.
Or JR kills JB with a bash on the head because she screamed as she was being sexually molested and Patsy agrees to cover it up so she can continue to enjoy her lifestyle?
Unlikely.
BUT envision their son(s) as the perps and you have a whole 'nother ball game.
NOW I can see it.

No way Patsy did all of this by herself, and JR just goes along with it when he finds out.

their behavior makes so much sense if BDI,isn't it?still,if it was just a kids game that resulted in an accident,why such a horrible staging?or was everything real and they had to cover for a really deranged kid?look at how it turned out,their lives a mess,all of them under the umbrella for life,dad accused of sex abuse,mom accused of being a psycho enraged killer.was it worth it?wouldn't it be fair for BR to stand up now if so and tell the truth?even lie,"it was just an accident,we were kids",bla,bla.after everything his parents went through for him,I think he should do it.
I still have a problem with how soon and easily BR was cleared by authorities.
even if:

Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter is among those who privately considered the possibility that Burke played a role in the death of his sister. "I wonder if Burke is involved in this," Hunter mused out loud one day, former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas wrote in his book.

Hunter declared publicly in 1999 that Burke wasn't a suspect in his sister's death. But later events suggested that statement wasn't as definitive as it seemed. In 2000 Hunter refused a request by Ramsey attorney Wood to sign a statement declaring under oath that "all questions related to" Burke's "possible involvement" in the death of his sister "were resolved to the satisfaction of investigators." He also refused to declare that Burke "has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect." Nor would he say that Burke "has not been and is not a suspect."

Hunter did, however, agree to language in which he declared that "no evidence has ever been developed ... to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from witness to suspect," and there is nothing in the transcripts of the interviews of the Ramseys to suggest any such evidence was developed.

So whatever Hunter's suspicions about Burke, he wasn't able to substantiate them.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0

 

[SunnieRN]

You know, the more I think about it, I simply can't see EITHER parent covering up for the other. This was THEIR CHILD, and she was DEAD. Imagine these scenarios: Patsy kills JB accidentally with a bash/slam to the head. JR finds out but agrees to help with the cover up because he has sexually abused her? So after their daughter has been killed NOW he has to tell Patsy that he's been sexually molesting her, so he'll help her stage it to look like a kidnapping so no one will find out? Unlikely.
Or JR kills JB with a bash on the head because she screamed as she was being sexually molested and Patsy agrees to cover it up so she can continue to enjoy her lifestyle?
Unlikely.
BUT envision their son(s) as the perps and you have a whole 'nother ball game.
NOW I can see it.

No way Patsy did all of this by herself, and JR just goes along with it when he finds out.

I read a theory on a JBR forum that said perhaps when Fleet White was driving Burke to his house, Burke told Fleet what happened in the house, and that explains Fleet's post-12/26 behavior.

This is the exact scenario I believe. Either that or John did the deeds and placed blame on Burke so Patsy would aide in the cover up. Patsy desperately loved JonBenet and John didn't particularly give a frip about anyone after Beths death. To me, the overkill, sexual assault that was not caused by a penis, the way John and Patsy acted, reacted and secluded Burke, all lead me to believe the scenarip.

 

[Chrishope]

If Burke had been blamed, but was not actually involved, then it seems that would have come out by now. Burke would have spoken up in his own defense, and at some point he and PR would have had a long chat. Under this scenario you still have to accept PR standing by her man even after she knows the truth. It may explain the cooperation that fateful night, but it's harder to believe she keeps up the ruse for years.