Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

who molested/abused JB?

  • JR

    Votes: 180 27.1%
  • BR

    Votes: 203 30.6%
  • JAR

    Votes: 28 4.2%
  • a close family friend

    Votes: 41 6.2%
  • a stranger/stalker a la JMK

    Votes: 20 3.0%
  • PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

    Votes: 89 13.4%
  • she wasn't previously abused/molested

    Votes: 103 15.5%

  • Total voters
    664
Status
Not open for further replies.

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
Since I believe the "sex game gone awry" thesis I therefore believe that an adult was molesting JonBenet.

I believe that the erotic asphyxiation device (garrote) around neck was a game gone wrong. As Cyril Wecht stated -- JonBenet died when the garrotte pressed on her vagal nerve cutting off blood to her heart. I think the head trauma was part of the staging to make it appear that some nasty intruder had hit JonBenet first over the head -- it essentially served to try and cover-up the sexual abuse imo.

I think the chronic and acute sexual abuse, in conjunction with the erotic asphyxiation device which killed her, was evidence that an adult committed this crime.

I simply do not know which adult did this. I work from the basis that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note -- therefore she either wrote that covering-up for herself or for her husband imo.

Some people have speculated that after Patsy's cancer she obviously viewed life differently. JonBenet was an extension of herself. This can be viewed in how JonBenet was dressed to match Patsy e.g. JonBenet in the cowgirl outfit was a carbon copy of one Patsy wore in her pageant years etc. Could this 'closeness' have led to Patsy molesting JonBenet? Anyone know of any data which speaks of how women abuse?
 

dodie20

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
5,077
Reaction score
117
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.
It's not too farfetched imagining a mother killing a daughter, out of rage, but then covering prior abuse caused by the father. It NOT being covered up, would lead questioning investigators straight to the family. This would require a very dysfunctional family, but hey,they're out there. Personally, I lean towards the prior abuser being the murderer, just because that theory follows a more logical path, but there are always exception to logic. MOO.
 

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
It's not too farfetched imagining a mother killing a daughter, out of rage, but then covering prior abuse caused by the father. It NOT being covered up, would lead questioning investigators straight to the family. This would require a very dysfunctional family, but hey,they're out there. Personally, I lean towards the prior abuser being the murderer, just because that theory follows a more logical path, but there are always exception to logic. MOO

The reason I dismiss the 'mother killing out of rage' is that the physical data does not correspond with such an idea.

Some have said that Patsy hit JonBenet and she banged her head and then tried to cover the death up etc. I don't buy this. I think JonBenet was killed by a sex-game gone wrong.

Dr Wecht says:

"If you inflict a blow like that on someone whose heart is beating," he asserts, "the heart doesn't stop, because the cardiac and respiratory centers are at the base of the brain. You're not damaging that with a blow to the top of the head. It'll become compromised as the brain swells, but initially there's no compromise. They control your heart and lungs. The heart continues to beat. The blood continues to flow. But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood. If you have a beating heart and the carotid arteries are carrying blood, this person doesn't die right away. That
means that blow was inflicted when she was already dead or dying.
"

This means that the headblow was done after the kid was dead or near dead. This by definition means the cause of death was the strangulation or the "sex game".

I too agree that the prior abuser was the person who killed JonBenet. To me it's correlative. The question then arises -- was it Patsy, John or both?
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,443
Since I believe the "sex game gone awry" thesis I therefore believe that an adult was molesting JonBenet.

I believe that the erotic asphyxiation device (garrote) around neck was a game gone wrong. As Cyril Wecht stated -- JonBenet died when the garrotte pressed on her vagal nerve cutting off blood to her heart. I think the head trauma was part of the staging to make it appear that some nasty intruder had hit JonBenet first over the head -- it essentially served to try and cover-up the sexual abuse imo.

I think the chronic and acute sexual abuse, in conjunction with the erotic asphyxiation device which killed her, was evidence that an adult committed this crime.

I simply do not know which adult did this. I work from the basis that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note -- therefore she either wrote that covering-up for herself or for her husband imo.

Some people have speculated that after Patsy's cancer she obviously viewed life differently. JonBenet was an extension of herself. This can be viewed in how JonBenet was dressed to match Patsy e.g. JonBenet in the cowgirl outfit was a carbon copy of one Patsy wore in her pageant years etc. Could this 'closeness' have led to Patsy molesting JonBenet? Anyone know of any data which speaks of how women abuse?

Let_Forever_Be,
I think the chronic and acute sexual abuse, in conjunction with the erotic asphyxiation device which killed her, was evidence that an adult committed this crime.
There was no erotic asphyxiation device this formed part of Lou Smit's intruder theory. There is no forensic evidence to substantiate this view.

The garrote could not physically function in the manner you suggest, also JonBenet's hair is entangled into the knotting that forms the garrote. Twisting it would have pulled JonBenet's hair out at the roots, this never occurred!


.
 

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
Let_Forever_Be,

There was no erotic asphyxiation device this formed part of Lou Smit's intruder theory. There is no forensic evidence to substantiate this view.

The garrote could not physically function in the manner you suggest, also JonBenet's hair is entangled into the knotting that forms the garrote. Twisting it would have pulled JonBenet's hair out at the roots, this never occurred!


.

In your opinion.It's speculative to say that hair would have been out at root.She has substantially long hair which just from a cursory perception and in no way a factual assessment, would imo, withstand the twisting of the garrotte.However, if you could provide some data regarding your hair claim I'd love to read it.

The garotte was acting as an EA device imo. I disagree wholeheartedly that there was no EA device. The lack of blood in the head from the head blow but yet the fact she was dead requires a need to explain her death. It's logical to state, with some medical merit, that the EA device (which you say didn't exist but I say did) pressed on her vagal nerve and killed her. This would explain the lack of blood found from the head blow. If there was no strangulation, then the alternative theory is she suffered a head trauma. However, I believe the evidence better supports the notion that the strangulation came first thus the head blow was AFTER the strangulation.

Clearly certain pathologists, such as Mr Wecht disagree with your claim that no EA device was used. And being somewhat subservient to science and not proclaiming to know the truth, I therefore have to make an educated assessment of the theories.

I choose to believe what My Wecht says because to me, it makes the most sense.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
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.

It happens, doesn't it? Didn't Patsy and her mother Nedra often speak about the size of BR's penis? I'd NEVER find such a topic appropriate about my grandsons.
If there was a legitimate medical issue that would be one thing. But speaking about the size of a young boy's penis purely for the sake of being amused by its size or enjoying the titillating aspect of what that (unusually large) size implies is WAY out of line.
 

madeleine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
4,973
Reaction score
82
I choose to believe what My Wecht says because to me, it makes the most sense.

It was Wecht who convinced me that strangulation came first (+someone else explaining that red marks indicate she was alive when strangled,white marks would have indicated the garrote was placed after death),but this doesn't mean the garrote was an AE device IMO.why was it left there if so?to give police the motif on a golden plate?why bother try to cover the abuse up if you leave the AE device right there.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,443
In your opinion.It's speculative to say that hair would have been out at root.She has substantially long hair which just from a cursory perception and in no way a factual assessment, would imo, withstand the twisting of the garrotte.However, if you could provide some data regarding your hair claim I'd love to read it.

The garotte was acting as an EA device imo. I disagree wholeheartedly that there was no EA device. The lack of blood in the head from the head blow but yet the fact she was dead requires a need to explain her death. It's logical to state, with some medical merit, that the EA device (which you say didn't exist but I say did) pressed on her vagal nerve and killed her. This would explain the lack of blood found from the head blow. If there was no strangulation, then the alternative theory is she suffered a head trauma. However, I believe the evidence better supports the notion that the strangulation came first thus the head blow was AFTER the strangulation.

Clearly certain pathologists, such as Mr Wecht disagree with your claim that no EA device was used. And being somewhat subservient to science and not proclaiming to know the truth, I therefore have to make an educated assessment of the theories.

I choose to believe what My Wecht says because to me, it makes the most sense.

Let_Forever_Be,
However, if you could provide some data regarding your hair claim I'd love to read it.
The EA theory was put to bed a long time ago. Its genesis lies in conversations Lou Smit and John Ramsey had after allegedly praying together. For further information use the search function to find the poster BlueCrab's posts, for whom, an EA device formed a central part of his BDI theory. A plus of course is that you will find a fellow travellor!

It's logical to state, with some medical merit, that the EA device (which you say didn't exist but I say did) pressed on her vagal nerve and killed her.
An appeal to logic is always of interest, so with this in mind, can I refer you to William of Ockham after whom Occam's Razor is attributed. search http://www.wikipedia.org

So in the spirit of employing logic and medical evidence. JonBenet's shirt collar or the cord around her neck pressed on her vagal nerve and killed her. As per Occam's Razor no EA Device is required to explain the medical evidence e.g. it is one object too many.

What you consider an EA Device is simply part of the staging and has patently worked its magic in your case.

And being somewhat subservient to science and not proclaiming to know the truth, I therefore have to make an educated assessment of the theories.
Science is simply the application of logic to the natural world. It should be subservient and act as a tool for you.


I choose to believe what My Wecht says because to me, it makes the most sense.
Excellent. If you research JonBenet's homicide long and deep enough you might discover other beliefs which make even more sense of the evidence.


.
 

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
Let_Forever_Be,

The EA theory was put to bed a long time ago. Its genesis lies in conversations Lou Smit and John Ramsey had after allegedly praying together. For further information use the search function to find the poster BlueCrab's posts, for whom, an EA device formed a central part of his BDI theory. A plus of course is that you will find a fellow travellor!


An appeal to logic is always of interest, so with this in mind, can I refer you to William of Ockham after whom Occam's Razor is attributed. search http://www.wikipedia.org

So in the spirit of employing logic and medical evidence. JonBenet's shirt collar or the cord around her neck pressed on her vagal nerve and killed her. As per Occam's Razor no EA Device is required to explain the medical evidence e.g. it is one object too many.

What you consider an EA Device is simply part of the staging and has patently worked its magic in your case.


Science is simply the application of logic to the natural world. It should be subservient and act as a tool for you.



Excellent. If you research JonBenet's homicide long and deep enough you might discover other beliefs which make even more sense of the evidence.


.

The EA theory was put to rest? By whom? I believe it. Others believe it. Thus, it has not been put to rest. In your mind it may be incorrect but in my mind it is not.Saying something "was put to bed" does not deter me from believing what I think the facts corroborate best.

And I'm well aware of other beliefs. I just have formed my own opinion based on the evidence available to me. Good luck with your beliefs in that case.I will do you the good favour of not telling you they have been "put to bed" so as to not stifle your attempts to uncover the truth, which is ultimately all that matters.
 

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
It was Wecht who convinced me that strangulation came first (+someone else explaining that red marks indicate she was alive when strangled,white marks would have indicated the garrote was placed after death),but this doesn't mean the garrote was an AE device IMO.why was it left there if so?to give police the motif on a golden plate?why bother try to cover the abuse up if you leave the AE device right there.

The sexual abuse could not be undone.I think that's key imo.The trauma was done. Blood was evident in JonBenet's genitals at time of her death. The perpetrators knew this.She did have acute and chronic genital trauma-- the perpetrator tried to wash away their actions via cleaning body, redressing her body etc.

I would postulate that the garrotte was left as they knew that at some point experts would be assessing the body and analysing it. They knew sexual abuse would be found since it's an objective fact JonBenet was being molested.So, leaving the garrotte and the head-wound adds a sense of confusion to the case.It could be argued, from the Ramseys, that the kidnapper was abusing JonBenet and did all of the horrible things to her. He then had to leave in a hurry hence why some things were left e.g. ropes.Thus, the garrotte could be argued as the evidence left by a sick, twisted perpetrator as opposed to being the left overs from a family member doing a sex-game.

Of course, clearly whoever did all the sick things to JonBenet had plenty of time to do things -- what kidnapper washes down a body and also washes down the batteries from the flashlight? Thus, the idea that the kidnapper had to leave in a hurry hence why they never took the body with them is contradicted by the fact the body displayed clear evidence of time spent on it, staging it and cleaning it of evidence.

In short, the device was left to add to the idea that the perpetrator was a sexual predator and thus was to be blamed for the molestation aswell. The ransom note was also meant to explain this 'outside' evil force doing this.

Just some thoughts.
 

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
Let_Forever_Be,

So in the spirit of employing logic and medical evidence. JonBenet's shirt collar or the cord around her neck pressed on her vagal nerve and killed her. As per Occam's Razor no EA Device is required to explain the medical evidence e.g. it is one object too many.

What you consider an EA Device is simply part of the staging and has patently worked its magic in your case.

.

It has never been established as an absolute fact that the head-wound came first and therefore the EA device (which you say didn't exist) was mere staging. That's your interpretation. I obviously have my own. C'est la vie.The autopsy could not say which preceded the other regarding the strangulation/ head-blow and as such, many pathologists have weighed in, offering their take -- and I'm sure you know that many different opinions have formed thus this certainty you have regarding my view being absolutely wrong is not corroborated by those who share my view.

I would suggest that what you think is staging, namely the garrotte, was not, and was in fact the source of JonBenet's death. The head-blow, which I believe came after the strangulation, has patently worked its magic in your case as to convince you that it was the absolute cause of death and that the EA device was mere staging.

The only way I could see a head-blow preceding the neck trauma and making the facts fits to the best end, was if the head-wound happened and very quickly, the strangulation occured. This would, to an extent, explain the mild swelling of the brain.It would explain the petechial hemorrhages if indeed she was strangled. It also rests on the idea she was still alive when this occurred.But didn't you say that no garrotte was used so how did the petechial hemorrhages form them? Was she strangled with something else in your view?

But I simply do not agree with that theory. I think it's more plausible that when the perpetrator sensed the child was dying/dead (according to their perception) after the sex-game went wrong, they panicked and then hit her over the head to simulate what they thought an evil intruder would do.

Scenario 1: Perpetrator strikes child for whatever reason.Or chold hurts head herself. Head-wound forces JonBenet into a 'dead-like' state. The 'stager' then manages, with the trauma surely going on in their minds, to think up the EA device/rope plan and stage it to make it look like a sexual assault.They manage to do this very quickly -- so much so that they have staged the garrotte before the brain swelled up as would be expected.

Scenario 2 :Or, as per my view, the garrotte was an EA device as per Wechts theory. It was being used for a sexual purpose. JonBenet's molested genitals, which were molested at the time she died approximately) were related to the fact the perpetrator was performing a sex-game on her. Hence the garrotte.Hence the genital trauma.Hence the genital blood and the need to wipe her thighs down. The EA device pressed on her vagal nerve, killing her. Her heart slowed to an almost non-existent beat.The perp tried to resuscitate her.It failed. Then, in a panic but to disguise somewhat the sexual nature of the crime, they whacked her over the head to simulate a nasty intruder attack. Considering that the brain was very mildly swelled (unexpected it she was hit on head first with the force displayed to crack skull) and little blood was uncovered (1 1/2 teaspoons) I postulate that the brain bore the effects of the EA device which killed her primarily and hence stopped the blood flow. The EA device also caused the petechial hemorrhages.The staging came after.

I believe scenario 2 better ties the evidence together far more successfully. It seems more logical that when the perp sense the kid was dead, they mustered up the idea to bang her on head. This seems more congruential with human nature than whacking a kid on the head and then, quickly and before the brain swelled, managing to think up the EA /sexual staging, source all the bits and actively tie the kid up etc.As per Occoms razor (thanks for link btw), surely the simplest explanation is scenario 2 which requires less mental contortions unlike scenario 1 which requires us to account for the small brain swelling, little blood, petechial hemorrhages whilst trying to account for how the perp managed to think up and act out the fake staging so quickly -- so quickly they performed it before the brain swelled up.I think, after the body was seen to be dead/dying, it's far easier for someone to make one blow to the head with say a flashlight, than it is to spend some time, glaring over a dead body, lying sexually molested, and tie up her hands, and put rope round neck etc. I don''t buy that at all.

But that's just my theory. It's not a fact. Bit it's certainly not "put to bed" as you claimed either.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
The head bash makes no sense as staging. If the perp(s) sensed she was dead/dying as you suggest, and bash her on the head to simulating what an "intruder" would do, then why leave the garrote in place? Does this mean than an intruder would bash her on the head but NOT strangle her? A kidnapper takes the victim- dead or alive- until ransom is paid. Did the parents feel the strangulation alone was not enough to suggest an intruder, but a head bash that wasn't even discovered until the autopsy was needed too? I don't think so. Frankly, the head bash points more to parental involvement than the garroting, erotic or not.
 

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
The head bash makes no sense as staging. If the perp(s) sensed she was dead/dying as you suggest, and bash her on the head to simulating what an "intruder" would do, then why leave the garrote in place? Does this mean than an intruder would bash her on the head but NOT strangle her? A kidnapper takes the victim- dead or alive- until ransom is paid. Did the parents feel the strangulation alone was not enough to suggest an intruder, but a head bash that wasn't even discovered until the autopsy was needed too? I don't think so. Frankly, the head bash points more to parental involvement than the garroting, erotic or not.

The sexual abuse could not be undone.They knew that. Measures were taken to disguise it e.g. cleaning the thighs etc. The perp knew the body would be analysed. Therefore, the left the garrotte on so as to make it appear that it was a sexual attack.The Ramseys refer to the 'intruder' in interviews as a "sexual predator" -- that's not an accident . Also, if they undone the garrotte etc, where would they put it? If it was hid and found by police, that strongly implicates them. It was actually safer to leave the garrotte on the body and play the "sexual predator" card.

I also think that when the skull was struck, it was known that damage was done. They may even have felt it.But in order to create 'more mess' regarding the brain area would involve them having to essentially butcher their child's body. I don't think they were capable. I think they DID LOVE her. I think that singular strike to the head was all they could muster.They were limited by emotions, the trauma etc.

Also, the EA device/strangulation relates to the genital trauma -- the overtly sexual molestation JonBenet suffered that night. The head-blow and cover-up is less correlative to that. I mean, how did the head-blow relate to the objective fact that JonBenet suffered acute genital abuse near when she died? The EA device clearly can be linked to the fact. No question.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
I agree both parents loved their little girl. What happened that night happened in an instant- one horrible, irreversible moment. A second and she was gone. I believe the head bash was so severe that she collapsed instantly, probably became comatose at once. She may have appeared dead at that point as shock and coma would have lowered her body temperature and her breathing may have become so shallow as to seem to be non-existent. So here we have a child who seems to have been killed instantly (though this was not the case) and how do we "explain" THAT? We know also that something penetrated her vagina with enough force to make her bleed, and she bled enough that it dripped onto her thighs and required wiping off. The abuse was intentional. The head bash was intentional. Her death was not. It's how they all fit together that holds the key to this murder.
 

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
I agree both parents loved their little girl. What happened that night happened in an instant- one horrible, irreversible moment. A second and she was gone. I believe the head bash was so severe that she collapsed instantly, probably became comatose at once. She may have appeared dead at that point as shock and coma would have lowered her body temperature and her breathing may have become so shallow as to seem to be non-existent. So here we have a child who seems to have been killed instantly (though this was not the case) and how do we "explain" THAT? We know also that something penetrated her vagina with enough force to make her bleed, and she bled enough that it dripped onto her thighs and required wiping off. The abuse was intentional. The head bash was intentional. Her death was not. It's how they all fit together that holds the key to this murder.

Can I ask, what do you think was the reason behind the head-wound? Or simply put, why did it occur?

Oh, and I agree about the perception of death. I mean, a 'lifeless' body would appear dead to most ppl even if it was only in a state of dying. That would be very traumatic.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
Can I ask, what do you think was the reason behind the head-wound? Or simply put, why did it occur?

Oh, and I agree about the perception of death. I mean, a 'lifeless' body would appear dead to most ppl even if it was only in a state of dying. That would be very traumatic.

I think the reason for the head wound is simple- she screamed and she was bashed to shut her up- FAST.
 

Let_Forever_Be

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
264
Reaction score
16
I think the reason for the head wound is simple- she screamed and she was bashed to shut her up- FAST.

That could have happened. But I simply do not know.

Would a parent, on trying to shut up their daughter who screamed, pick up a flashlight and whack them over the head? Why not just cover their mouth?

It's all just confusing. Who knows.
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
That could have happened. But I simply do not know.

Would a parent, on trying to shut up their daughter who screamed, pick up a flashlight and whack them over the head? Why not just cover their mouth?

It's all just confusing. Who knows.

Maybe it wasn't a parent. Maybe it was another family member. And maybe the flashlight was already in their hand and in a knee-jerk reaction, you just slammed it into her head.
 

SunnieRN

Active Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
3,577
Reaction score
68
That could have happened. But I simply do not know.

Would a parent, on trying to shut up their daughter who screamed, pick up a flashlight and whack them over the head? Why not just cover their mouth?

It's all just confusing. Who knows.

Maybe a parent didn't pick up a flashlight. Maybe a sibling picked up the aluminum bat, found outside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top