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.

k-mac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
31,026
I think the whole pineapple issue was a red herring - and never existed.

First of all, the coroner said there was a 'substance similar to pineapple' in JonBenet's small intestines. She didn't confirm if it was pineapple or not.


Second, the small intestines are between 9 - 20 feet long and it takes between 6 - 8 hours after food is ingested to reach the small intestines (Mayo Clinic). Therefore, it's not possible according ot any theories that JonBenet ate pineapple after she got home and was killed 6 - 8 hours after ingesting it.

Third, the photo of the bowl on the table looks to be apples and grits, a common breakfast for people from the South (Atlanta). The contents of the bowl was not confirmed nor tested, somebody after the fact claimed the content in the bowl appeared to be pineapple. The assumption that it was pineapple seems to have taken on urban legend proportions.

Fourth, only the prints on the bowl were tested. The prints belonged to Patsy - which would be there because she's likely the person who puts away dishes from the dishwasher - and Burke's.

GIven the chaos that morning, and that several of Pasty's friends had come over and helped to clean up the kitchen before the area was closed off as a crime scene. it's entirely possible Burke got the large bowl and overly large spoon to eat some apples and grits, as he was likely hungry by lunchtime (he was only nine and needed food) and it's doubtful anyone thought to make him something to eat.

Apple and grits were possibly in the refrigerator from the previous Christmas morning. There was no pineapple in the refrigerator, and Patsy said she didn't give JonBenet any pineapple. Even if one believes Patsy is a compulsive liar, lying about JonBenet not eating pineapple serves no utility.

And again, cornor never confirmed it was pineapple in her small intestines, stating only that it had the consistency pineapple - ingested 6-8 hours prior to death. And nobody confirmed what food was in the bowl, there is only a photo of it. A uncertain statement by the coronor and an unclear photo do not pineapple make. To me it looks like apples and grits.

I'm uncertain why so many want to believe Patsy or Burke killed JonBenet while they were cleared by DNA. The DNA profile was that of a man of latino heritage. Nothing rules out the intruder theory supported by Lou Smit, a Colorado Springs homicide detective (yes, ironically Lou worked with Joe Kenda of Homicide Detective) who had solved over 200 homicides and was hired by the DA. Since few people have ever solved one homicide, I put a lot of weight into Smit's findings.

I welcome any facts, not 'behaviors', that dispute or cast doubt on any of the items I wrote of in this post.
there is so much ill informed drivel in this post it really doesn't justify a reply.
ill just go with one point though if you think burke ate apples and grit for lunch at the ramsey mansion the day jon benet was found you really know absolutely nothing about the case.
 

kanzz

kanzz=kansas
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
52
JonBenet had received a bicycle Christmas morning and she was riding it around outside all morning until they left for the White's. If you're a girl or woman, you likely know that when you ride a new bike or with a new seat - it hurts and can even become bruised 'down there', sometimes for days. I think it's highly likely that any external redness / irritation was caused by the new bike she rode all morning.

Please - read the Autopsy Report so you will have a better idea of what JB's injuries were. A bicycle seat does not injure a hymen or a vagina, and her injuries constituted much more than redness and irritation to her external genitalia.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2017
Messages
88
Reaction score
55
Please - read the Autopsy Report so you will have a better idea of what JB's injuries were. A bicycle seat does not injure a hymen or a vagina, and her injuries constituted much more than redness and irritation to her external genitalia.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

Yes JB's injuries were internal as well as external you are correct.

@MissLeah as horrible as it is to accept that this innocent child was sexually abused, as are many children around the world, I don't think you'll find many (if any) people on this forum who don't think that JB was sexually abused by someone in the Ramsey home prior to her death.
 

harleymae

New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
101
Reaction score
1
Please - read the Autopsy Report so you will have a better idea of what JB's injuries were. A bicycle seat does not injure a hymen or a vagina, and her injuries constituted much more than redness and irritation to her external genitalia.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf
i just read that and based on what we know now, the marks on the hyman mean nothing, some girls just have red scar like tissues on their hyman, you can not tell if someone has or has not been sexually assaulted by the hyman.
Please - read the Autopsy Report so you will have a better idea of what JB's injuries were. A bicycle seat does not injure a hymen or a vagina, and her injuries constituted much more than redness and irritation to her external genitalia.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf
i just read that and based on what we know now, the marks on the hyman mean nothing, some girls just have red scar like tissues on their hyman, you can not tell if someone has or has not been sexually assaulted by the hyman.

Sent from my RCT6303W87DK using Tapatalk
 

AndHence

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2015
Messages
226
Reaction score
33
Below are a few open questions I have about BDI. I remain a RDI generalist, unwedded to any particular theory because I acknowledge they all have holes. I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. I should add that this isn't an attack on BDI, just an examination of some of the things that don't make sense.

Why is there a lack of forensic evidence for BDI but much stronger evidence implicating Patsy?
The only forensic evidence we have ever read about involving Burke has been his prints on the pineapple bowl/mug and a Barbie nightgown belonging to JonBenet. These items are not directly associated with the murder itself, however. The existing forensic evidence that has a direct connection to the crime (note, rope, paint brush/tote) all implicates Patsy's involvement in the crime. What do you reckon?

Why would the parents let Burke out of their sight if he was the one responsible for the murder? People forget that Burke was interviewed twice within the first ten days after the murder, an incomplete interview at Fleet's on the 26th and one with a child psychologist a week later. This is especially notable given that the parents didn't have their first formal interview until four months after the murder. Both interviews Burke had were not under parental supervision and they could not prevent Burke from saying something incriminating or breaking down. You'd think if they knew he was responsible they'd have kept him close that morning to control the flow of information, right? I'd like your take.

Why did Burke return to school so soon after the murder? If he was truly involved wouldn't the parents fear he'd say something incriminating to a classmate? You would think the Ramseys would pull Burke out for a prolonged period of time or even homeschool him to prevent anyone learning anything about the murder from him. It appears Burke resumed a normal life shortly after the murder. Thoughts?

Have you considered the temporal context of BDI? When the GJ was convened, the Ramseys were preparing for Patsy to be indicted. The housekeeper even said after her testimony that she thought Patsy would be indicted given the direction of the GJ's questioning. Law enforcement at the time including Steve Thomas did not consider Burke a suspect in JonBenet's murder. BDI was tabloid fodder at this juncture; it has only become an ascendant theory since Kolar's book.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
11,044
Reaction score
3,674
Below are a few open questions I have about BDI. I remain a RDI generalist, unwedded to any particular theory because I acknowledge they all have holes. I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. I should add that this isn't an attack on BDI, just an examination of some of the things that don't make sense.

Why is there a lack of forensic evidence for BDI but much stronger evidence implicating Patsy?
The only forensic evidence we have ever read about involving Burke has been his prints on the pineapple bowl/mug and a Barbie nightgown belonging to JonBenet. These items are not directly associated with the murder itself, however. The existing forensic evidence that has a direct connection to the crime (note, rope, paint brush/tote) all implicates Patsy's involvement in the crime. What do you reckon?

Why would the parents let Burke out of their sight if he was the one responsible for the murder? People forget that Burke was interviewed twice within the first ten days after the murder, an incomplete interview at Fleet's on the 26th and one with a child psychologist a week later. This is especially notable given that the parents didn't have their first formal interview until four months after the murder. Both interviews Burke had were not under parental supervision and they could not prevent Burke from saying something incriminating or breaking down. You'd think if they knew he was responsible they'd have kept him close that morning to control the flow of information, right? I'd like your take.

Why did Burke return to school so soon after the murder? If he was truly involved wouldn't the parents fear he'd say something incriminating to a classmate? You would think the Ramseys would pull Burke out for a prolonged period of time or even homeschool him to prevent anyone learning anything about the murder from him. It appears Burke resumed a normal life shortly after the murder. Thoughts?

Have you considered the temporal context of BDI? When the GJ was convened, the Ramseys were preparing for Patsy to be indicted. The housekeeper even said after her testimony that she thought Patsy would be indicted given the direction of the GJ's questioning. Law enforcement at the time including Steve Thomas did not consider Burke a suspect in JonBenet's murder. BDI was tabloid fodder at this juncture; it has only become an ascendant theory since Kolar's book.

AndHence,

Why is there a lack of forensic evidence for BDI but much stronger evidence implicating Patsy? The only forensic evidence we have ever read about involving Burke has been his prints on the pineapple bowl/mug and a Barbie nightgown belonging to JonBenet. These items are not directly associated with the murder itself, however. The existing forensic evidence that has a direct connection to the crime (note, rope, paint brush/tote) all implicates Patsy's involvement in the crime. What do you reckon?
Because Patsy elected to stage BR out of the crime-scene, as far as possible any of his links to JonBenet's death were removed, with Patsy leaving her own forensic trail behind, likely in ignorance. You left out BR's footprint, penknife and touch dna, which are all direct links to the wine-cellar.

Why would the parents let Burke out of their sight if he was the one responsible for the murder?

...

You'd think if they knew he was responsible they'd have kept him close that morning to control the flow of information, right? I'd like your take.
If the parents were innocent, even ignorant the answer is yes. Because both parents, particularly JR who had a game plan, knew JonBenet would eventually be found, then they might all be arrested and be subject to intrusive questioning?

JR did what he thought was best given the circumstances, i.e. relocate BR to somewhere he thought safe and beyond the reach of LEA, of course he miscalculated, as he did over his escape flight.

So rather than thinking the obvious, i.e. BR is safer with his parents, from their perspective, he his more at risk, since they do not know the outcome and may not be able to control his movements once JonBenet is discovered?

Why did Burke return to school so soon after the murder?
Calculated risk on the parents part, regardless of BR's role.

Have you considered the temporal context of BDI?
Yes. PDI has been promoted by ST as a background to his resignation magnum opus. Bear in mind ST's book and theory were redacted prior to publication, with the R's threatening BPD ongoing litigation, especially over any sexual connotations published in ST's book. So IMO ST's book is simply a safe RDI theory and a long resignation letter of complaint. This will be why ST never expands on his theory in interviews and said little to Kolar about his BDI. Note: not even to say you got it all wrong the case is PDI!

Another aspect of the sexual connotations to the case is Holly Smith's biography which had the whole chapter relating to the R's redacted. Why, because she was the head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team.

Without Kolar's input and before the GJ True Bills were partially published, BDI was the most consistent theory, since neither PDI or JDI were coherent.

With the publishing of Kolar's book, along with his circumstantial evidence implicating BR, the True Bills referencing an anonymous third person, and no murder 1 charges for the parents, the publication of pictures of JonBenet wearing over sized size-12 underwear and BR's long johns, and BR stating on Dr Phil he did return downstairs on Christmas Night, also he might have snacked pineapple?

All simply serves to strengthen a BDI theory. There is the caveat that it might all be window dressing though and BR is lying in public, to defend JR since JR and PR staged the wine-cellar crime-scene to deliberately implicate BR and point away from either PR, JR or both?

.
 

k-mac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
31,026
AndHence,


Because Patsy elected to stage BR out of the crime-scene, as far as possible any of his links to JonBenet's death were removed, with Patsy leaving her own forensic trail behind, likely in ignorance.





.

uk guy

why in the world would PR remove all traces of BR from the crime scene and deliberately incriminate herself??
if dna evidence was a worry to her she would have removed herself from the situation not included it!!
they were going for an intruder....no way in hell did she deliberately incriminate herself for BR protection.
this was not their game plan. not for a second .

people put way to much thought and effort into the staging.
it was far more random and thrown together I believe.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
11,044
Reaction score
3,674
uk guy

why in the world would PR remove all traces of BR from the crime scene and deliberately incriminate herself??
if dna evidence was a worry to her she would have removed herself from the situation not included it!!
they were going for an intruder....no way in hell did she deliberately incriminate herself for BR protection.
this was not their game plan. not for a second .

people put way to much thought and effort into the staging.
it was far more random and thrown together I believe.


k-mac,
why in the world would PR remove all traces of BR from the crime scene and deliberately incriminate herself??
BBM: I never said that you did. PR was just doing a crime-scene staging that involved her son.


it was far more random and thrown together I believe.

That's why PR left her forensic evidence behind. It was all slapdash and haphazard.

Later in interviews she explained away why JonBenet was wearing Burke's long johns, that she put the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, that she opened the partially opened gifts.

When in reality it was BR who did all this and Mommy was defending her son, i.e. she took the bullets for BR!


.
 

k-mac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
31,026
so uk guy
if PR is taking the bullet for her son that actually means she is deliberately incriminating herself.
you cant have it both ways.
was PR staging to incriminate herself and protect BR or was she simply trying too stage an intruder theory....can I remind you maybe of the ransom note ??
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
11,044
Reaction score
3,674
so uk guy
if PR is taking the bullet for her son that actually means she is deliberately incriminating herself.
you cant have it both ways.
was PR staging to incriminate herself and protect BR or was she simply trying too stage an intruder theory....can I remind you maybe of the ransom note ??

k-mac,
She is patently hoping to get away with staging a crime-scene that suggested an intruder.

Her motive is to save her son and the family from whatever she thinks will befall them.

Bear in mind JR was also involved. Regardless of who did what, all three R's have colluded in the death of JonBenet.

They continue to this day with their fairy tales on TV Crime Shows.

.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2017
Messages
88
Reaction score
55
k-mac,
she is patently hoping to get away with staging a crime-scene that suggested an intruder.

Her motive is to save her son and the family from whatever she thinks will befall them.

Bear in mind jr was also involved. Regardless of who did what, all three r's have colluded in the death of jonbenet.

They continue to this day with their fairy tales on tv crime shows.

.

this.
 

Userid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
1,298
Why would a 9 year old boy re-dress a victim he had just killed? This alone makes little sense.

In all honesty, the underwear could be a part of the staging by PR, when taken in the context of the many other ridiculously-strange items found about the house (like the books for example). It isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. Or perhaps, since they said "Wednesday" on the panties, PR purposefully used them in order to point that the murder occurred on Wednesday and not Thursday morning (much like they did with the tomb stone). My point is, there are a plethora of reasons. Certain people act like the only reason she was dressed in these was because a nine year old didn't know any better and just so happened to pick the one pair of underwear from her drawer that were wrapped up and for adults (out of the other unwrapped, loose options) and his own long johns (for whatever reason). That's inaccurate and somewhat illogical.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
11,044
Reaction score
3,674
Why would a 9 year old boy re-dress a victim he had just killed? This alone makes little sense.

In all honesty, the underwear could be a part of the staging by PR, when taken in the context of the many other ridiculously-strange items found about the house (like the books for example). It isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. Or perhaps, since they said "Wednesday" on the panties, PR purposefully used them in order to point that the murder occurred on Wednesday and not Thursday morning (much like they did with the tomb stone). My point is, there are a plethora of reasons. Certain people act like the only reason she was dressed in these was because a nine year old didn't know any better and just so happened to pick the one pair of underwear from her drawer that were wrapped up and for adults (out of the other unwrapped, loose options) and his own long johns (for whatever reason). That's inaccurate and somewhat illogical.

Why would a 9 year old boy re-dress a victim he had just killed? This alone makes little sense.
He would do it knowing he had to hide evidence regarding his prior behavior. There is nothing about JonBenet's homicide that is rocket science. We are much agreed on what happened, and mostly disagree on who did what?

In all honesty, the underwear could be a part of the staging by PR
She could be framing BR, to misdirect the ensuing investigation, she could be acting irrationally, who knows?

We do not know why BR should redress JonBenet as she was, or even if it was JR?

I'm content to assume that Patsy is covering for BR by saying she redressed JonBenet in Burke's long johns, and that she gave the size-12's to JonBenet for her use.

I never bothered much about the long johns, thinking they were of the female variety, once I saw they were BR's, this allowed another perspective on Patsy's claims.

So whilst it may make little sense to you, to me it certainly makes sense of the forensic evidence and Patsy's unusual claims.

.
 

Userid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
1,298
^ A nine year old wouldn't think that far. He would wrap her up in blankets and hide her in a closet, etc. He wouldn't think about changing her underwear and he wouldn't go out of his way to choose the adult underwear when there were a plethora of other options that were not packaged. Nor would he then go to his room -- on the complete other side of the house -- and fetch his own long johns to re-dress her in, because there is no logical reason why he would do that. The bloomies were in her bedroom, in her drawer. The long-johns would have been in BR's room in your scenario; unless BR took off the long-johns he himself was wearing when the crime occurred, only to dress her in them, which again makes no real sense.
 

kanzz

kanzz=kansas
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
52
As evidenced by the urine on the underwear and the longjohns, it doesn't appear as though JB was re-dressed after she was killed. She was wearing those items when she died.
 

Pursuit of Truth

New Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
4
Reaction score
5
This isn't in response to a specific post, but just scrolling through these I had a moment of clear thought...what if JR and PR discovered JB in the compromised state and DID do what we all wonder out loud. Attempt to get help. Either she was unconscious, B told them he did something, etc. The way she was found or whatever would elicit questions from ER staff, etc so they had to clean her up thoroughly BEFORE taking her to the ER for help. I genuinely believe they loved JB and weren't the ones physically harming her. I think the evening took hours. The whole thing didn't go down in a short amount of time. They quickly tried to clean her up to load her in the car to rush to the ER. So, Wipe her off aggressively and fast and put on clean pants etc.... at some point, though she expired and then the panic set in. Just a thought I had.
 

BoldBear

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
653
Reaction score
177
As evidenced by the urine on the underwear and the longjohns, it doesn't appear as though JB was re-dressed after she was killed. She was wearing those items when she died.

My narrative for this is that she was being dressed to be taken outside. She went into Cheyne-Strokes breathing. The murderer panicked (didn't want her panting when he took her outside) and finished the job.

I believe she was being redressed to be taken outside of the house.
 

DeDee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
24,091
As evidenced by the urine on the underwear and the longjohns, it doesn't appear as though JB was re-dressed after she was killed. She was wearing those items when she died.

True. After seeing the image of those nasty longjohns, there is no way on earth PR dressed her daughter in those to be found by the police and photographed by forensics.

I was aghast when I saw them and did not want to believe they actually were on our Little Miss Christmas when she died. Yet, indeed, sadly enough, they were. Has anyone performed a comparison on how they would appear on her when she was wearing them? The crotch looked like it would hang down to her little knees.

BR was ripping into gift wrapped presents in the basement. He knew the package of size 12 undies were in the basement prepared to be shipped to the niece. He may not have realized that they would appear ridiculously too big for the precious JonBenet.

Does anyone suspect that it gave BR secret pleasure to know the family beauty queen was dressed in a pair of old boy longjohns when found?
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
11,044
Reaction score
3,674
True. After seeing the image of those nasty longjohns, there is no way on earth PR dressed her daughter in those to be found by the police and photographed by forensics.

I was aghast when I saw them and did not want to believe they actually were on our Little Miss Christmas when she died. Yet, indeed, sadly enough, they were. Has anyone performed a comparison on how they would appear on her when she was wearing them? The crotch looked like it would hang down to her little knees.

BR was ripping into gift wrapped presents in the basement. He knew the package of size 12 undies were in the basement prepared to be shipped to the niece. He may not have realized that they would appear ridiculously too big for the precious JonBenet.

Does anyone suspect that it gave BR secret pleasure to know the family beauty queen was dressed in a pair of old boy longjohns when found?

DeDee,
BBM: More than likely judging by his smiles on Dr Phil. Patsy probably killed JonBenet by ligature asphyxiating her, considering her fibers were found in the ligature knotting?

That might be wrong and Patsy was simply adding bogus evidence to fabricate a crime-scene, i.e. JonBenet was already dead?

I could envisage Patsy dressing JonBenet in the size-12's, just, but not Burke's long johns, because she is implicating Burke as an immediate suspect, rightly or wrongly.

The simplest explanation would be that BR manually strangled JonBenet and applied blunt force trauma to her head, but this did not result in JonBenet's death.

The parents subsequently fabricated a crime-scene to include JonBenet being ligature asphyxiated and sexually assaulted?

Which scenario is preferable all depends on if you think the primary motive was to sexually assault JonBenet, and that she was?

If that's the case then it looks like Kolar's BDI All, is right?

.
 

Userid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
1,298
As evidenced by the urine on the underwear and the longjohns, it doesn't appear as though JB was re-dressed after she was killed. She was wearing those items when she died.

Exactly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top