Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by madeleine, Jun 7, 2011.

?

who molested/abused JB?

  1. JR

    180 vote(s)
    27.1%
  2. BR

    203 vote(s)
    30.6%
  3. JAR

    28 vote(s)
    4.2%
  4. a close family friend

    41 vote(s)
    6.2%
  5. a stranger/stalker a la JMK

    20 vote(s)
    3.0%
  6. PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

    89 vote(s)
    13.4%
  7. she wasn't previously abused/molested

    103 vote(s)
    15.5%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. singularity

    singularity New Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In other words, the books can just as easily be concerning Jonbenet(especially the first one), both of them, or the family in general.

    BDI are the ones who make a federal case out of these books.

    I wasn't aware of a mega-Burke thing....
     
  2. andreww

    andreww Former Member

    Messages:
    5,710
    Likes Received:
    4,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody knows for sure that its a brother/sister case gone wrong. Its one theory. The books seem to be self help books written to guide parents to raise smart, well rounded children. They weren't even purchased by the Ramsey's, I believe they were sent by the Paughs, so who's to say if they were wanted or even read? At very best, these books may indicate that the Rs may have been experiencing some behavioural problems with one or both their kids, or maybe not. Their evidentiary value is minimal without any backup such as the children's medical history.
     
  3. OliviaG1996

    OliviaG1996 Member

    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Come on now, be fair. Other DI theorists ignore everything and anything that doesn't seem normal with BR because it doesn't jibe well with their theories. At least BDI takes PR's issues into account at all.
     
  4. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,721
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    singularity,
    BDI is the best theory out there, it explains away more of the forensic evidence than any other theory and is consistent with the parents behaviour both before, and after JonBenet's death, including BR's TV debut on fixit phils personality show.

    I can only see it being say PDI, if Patsy deliberately injected BR into the forensic evidence as a case spoiler?

    The books represent speculation, so could be just so stories. Far more important and relevant is we know from the house keeper that she walked in on JonBenet and Burke euphemistically playing doctor, also we know that Patsy was relaxed about JonBenet and Burke sharing beds together. Although she tried to play that down, once JonBenet was dead.

    Thats why I reckon its a brother on sister case, and not a parent on daughter case!

    .
     
  5. Annapurna

    Annapurna Member

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I question that slightly only because Nedra/the Paughs bought those books for the R's. Nedra most certainly was not worried about a "mega-jonbenet thing", and seemed to be a driving force behind the pageant involvement. They were actively encouraging JB to act more adult and precocious, it seems unlikely to me that they would then be worried about her acting that way or being pressured (since they were the ones pressuring her ultimately). Do we think that they were simultaneously pressuring her and worries about too much pressure?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. singularity

    singularity New Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? The main posters here who are not BDI(although most are walking away) admit that he is/was very quirky and there's something going on there. They just don't believe he bashed her head in.

    Most non BDI on the forums believe he was as much a victim of the dysfunction in that house as Jonbenet but simply survived it. I certainly don't need to paint him as a saint to squeeze him into a PDI scenario.


    That isn't true no matter how many times it gets said. You know as well as anyone that if looking at the case from that specific angle, the arrow is aimed in Patsy's direction.....then John's....and much further down the list, you've got a fruit snack with a print that has Burke's name on it and that same snack also has Patsy's print and of course further down the table(John's side of the table) is another glass that conveniently gets ignored.

    BDI doesn't attempt to explain away more of the evidence. It must conveniently ignore key areas to allow it to sound feasible. CBS did it, Kolar did it, and some online sleuths are doing it too.

    The way some speculation is being pushed as simple and obvious facts isn't helping either. Its creating a false narrative.


    Come on.

    The ONLY way you can imagine PDI is if she tried to frame him with forensic evidence(the extremely miniscule amount there is) even though she's been suspect number one for twenty years for a long list of obvious and much discussed reasons?

    None of that indicates murder. Millions of children "play doctor" whether out of genuine curiosity or acting out abuse.

    There's also nothing surprising about her sleeping with him. She was a six year old child practically sleeping in her own wing of a mansion. Of course she sought out company. So would any other six year old.


    So the least amount of evidence out of the three surviving members of the house of horrors that also played doctor with his sister and the sister slept with him at night periodically leads you to a brother on sister case?

    I along with many others are going to need a hell of a lot more than that.


    The point is that everyone in the Ramsey circle was aware of this issue to the point of some considering an intervention. The varying levels of concern regarding this issue is beside the point. It exists whether or not certain people believe Burke is the maniacal poopy pants fruit snack killer. It wasn't a mega-Burke thing, it was a mega-Jonbenet thing.

    Of course Nedra didn't genuinely care. In her mind, Jonbenet was only "a little bit molested".
     
  7. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,721
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    singularity,
    BDI is the best theory out there. Its consistent with the forensic evidence and the parents post-mortem behaviour.

    I'm no soothsayer, so the case could be PDI or JDI, etc. With PDI I cannot see Patsy dressing JonBenet in those size-12's, followed up with Burke's long johns. Outside of a homicide context I can see that happening, but when its a homicide your staging, why inject Burke, where is the percentage in that?

    With JDI there is little to go on, other than some fibers and ad hominem accusations regarding incest.

    With BDI we have the house=keeper telling us what she saw taking place between Burke and JonBenet, apparently consensual, so what does that imply?

    Then you have Patsy telling us candidly Burke and JonBenet shared bedrooms, and that is a euphemism.

    In the CBS show they focus on the head injury, i.e. an impulse injury. Yet JonBenet was sexually assaulted, Coroner Meyer confirmed this with a second opinion. Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, assistant professor of pediatrics re-examined JonBenet's gentitals and patently confirmed Meyer's earlier judgement of digital penetration

    99% of people ignore Sirotnak's opinion, but it demonstrates we have a case motivated by sexual assault, not simply one of anger impulse, add in the house-keepers evidence and Patsy's account regarding JonBenet and Burke sharing beds, and we have a classic case of brother on sister gone wrong.

    Neither PDI or JDI display such evidence, that's why BDI is the best theory out there!


    .
     
  8. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,180
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ^ You have to take much more of a "leap of faith" with BDI than with PDI/RDI, so to say it's the best theory out there: no. Only in your own mind.

    For starters, with BDI, it's illogical why the parents' first instinct would be to cover up a murder if they found one of their children injured in any way; and also, how they would have immediately known it was indeed BR who was responsible. This isn't to mention the way overboard views of some that BR was capable of not only the blow to the head, but also the strangulation, the garrotte/whatever-you-want-to-call-the-thing, re-dressing the victim, moving her, etc, without leaving any single trace anywhere in the entire household, etc. There are way too many variables that don't make sense in a BDI. We've gone over them and then some so it's pointless to do so here again, but a plethora exist.
     
  9. singularity

    singularity New Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It implies two children doing what countless millions of other children have done.

    No that's you seeing exactly what you want to see.

    Like I just said, she was a six year old girl in her own wing of this house. Her seeking out the company of her older brother is to be expected.

    Talk about a massive leap....

    Most people who have studied the case know that most of the evidence is aimed in Patsy's direction, which is why she was suspect number one for twenty years and when the Burke smoke clears, will be again.


    Dear lord, the version of BDI pushed on a mainstream platform had to ignore the sexual assault and anything that might scream Patsy to allow some viewers to swallow it.





    Absolutely. The people willing to do it are vanishing unfortunately and what's left in its place is an echo chamber and some speculation pushed as simple facts with no one left to refute it.

    BDI chased its tail to the point there's no audience to observe it. It still blows my mind that the most important anniversary year was spent on that. The case took two steps backwards and unless some crucial witness steps forward at some point, the case will never recover.

    Burke has no incentive to ever step forward now. He was treated like garbage when finally coming forward when it should've been the exact opposite. He made some interesting reveals but he shouldn't have even bothered as we'll never get any followup to it.

    He's going to take the money and run and I don't blame him.

    As I've said many times, John is laughing. He picked the perfect moment to say he was done discussing the case. Exit stage left with the stench of Burke poop floating in the air and he can safely ride off into the sunset.
     
  10. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,719
    Likes Received:
    24,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    according to you uk guy
    it is not the best theory out there.
    they all suffer holes andblank spaces.
    stop peddling it was a sexual assault. we don't know for sure.
    I believe as do many others it was a physical assault caused by PR.
    there is nothing you can prove otherwise.
    it is an unknown.

    and it is not a fact because you wont come at PR dressed JBR in those longjohns. she has admitted to it on the record. big deal.

    agree singularity JR has thoroughly enjoyed BR being thrown under the bus.

    i keep coming back to why from day dot was 3 reps assigned to JR and one for PR and BR.
    their legal stance was telling in my opinion.
     
  11. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,721
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    k-mac,
    Its not fact because its just a theory, something for us to discuss.

    BBM: believing is not the same as knowing, e.g. years ago people never knew humans could fly, that the earth circled the sun, or that goblins, unicorns and fairys never existed.

    I have no problem with Patsy assaulting JonBenet, I interpret it as part of the staging.

    Coroner Meyer stated verbatim during the autopsy that JonBenet been the victim of Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration. Her autopsy photographs showed an enlarged hymen. Coroner Meyer sought a second opinion from Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, after a second physical examination of JonBenet's genitals Sirotnak did not disagree with Coroner's Meyer's initial opinion.

    So if you are PDI then Patsy must have been sexually molesting JonBenet, or do you think both Meyer and Sirotnak have got it all wrong?

    So Patsy is staging a homicide and decides to leave JonBenet in Burke's long johns, OK that's not impossible, but the size-12's, what is all that about, even telling investigators she put the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, for her use, despite the investigators finding none in the drawer?

    Its simply more plausible that Burke redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and his long johns, and that Patsy was inventing explanations after the fact.

    Where did JonBenet's pink pajama bottoms vanish to, which motivated Patsy to redress JonBenet in Burke's long johns, why not choose any other pair of JonBenet's pajama bottoms, or her barbie nightgown, why select Burke's long johns?

    Looks like Patsy was taking a bullet for BR by offering up those explanations for JonBenet being redressed in such a manner?

    .
     
    dgfred likes this.
  12. k-mac

    k-mac Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,719
    Likes Received:
    24,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    uk guy
    your completely missing the point.
    you keep over riding PR doing the assault. because she has vaginal trauma in your theory it has to be sexual.
    you can not prove it was a sexual assault.
    that damage could have been caused by chronic douching.
    completely non sexual contact.

    so no I am not ignoring Meyers findings. your ignoring what I take away from his findings.
     
  13. singularity

    singularity New Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just because someone is PDI doesn't mean they believe she was molesting Jonbenet. You can make a case that something not kosher was going on(the screams heard by LHP coming from the bathroom for starters), but it doesn't mean it had to be actual molestation.

    I realize k-mac doesn't believe she was being molested. I disagree with that. She showed signs of abuse and so did Burke. Two kids acting out to such an extent are waving red flags of some sort.

    Not only is it not impossible, it's likely. We've all heard how she wore his old clothing sometimes.


    After people got to see the pictures of how she was found and the condition this clothing was in, that scenario no longer flies. For years it was assumed this clothing was in pristine condition and she had been redressed in them so people imagined various theories to include that. As we all know, she was found completely soiled in this clothing.
     
  14. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,721
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    k-mac.
    If anything could be proved, we would not need this discussion. I reckon there was both a sexual assault and a physical assault probably with the paintbrush, intended as staging.

    The douching scenario could be part of Patsy's prior behaviour, I have no problem with that, for me, it does not explain much of the forensic evidence, or why you kill your daughter because she dislikes being douched?


    Sure as could any other non abusive medical technique. So why did Coroner Meyer cite Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact?

    Would the douching have left any chemical signature inside JonBenet?

    .
     
  15. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,721
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    singularity,
    Also you have Coroner Meyer saying verbatim at autopsy that JonBenet was the victim of Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration. Dr. Andrew Sirotnak later that evening re-examined JonBenet's genitals and agreed Coroner Meyer's findings. Detective Harmer presented an anatomy lesson, she showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy child and contrasted it with the picture of the vagina of JonBenet, the visual difference was apparent, described as evidence of prior chronic abuse or in BPD terms: prior vaginal trauma. Spitz is on record stating he thinks the paintbrush was used to enact staging.


    If BR was not responsible for the prior abuse, who was, and why?

    Nope, ever since the autopsy we have known the condition of the long johns and underwear worn by JonBenet.

    Autopsy Report, excerpt
    So after being dressed in the size-12's, someone wiped blood off JonBenet's genitals, was this Patsy, as per PDI?

    At this point Patsy has the option of dressing JonBenet in a clean pair of normal sized underwear and and female pajama bottoms from her extensive wardrobe.

    Its not the soiling that is an issue, its that a homicide victim is wearing her brothers long johns and oversized underwear, something we know the parents would recognize as red flags?

    .
     
  16. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,180
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ^ "So after being dressed in the size 12's, someone wiped blood off"..........Nothing in the autopsy report concluded that she was wiped down "after," definitively. You're simply jumping to the conclusion yourself that she was wiped "after" being dressed in the bloomies, which is illogical. The logical thing to believe, would be that she was wiped down beforehand, then the underwear was applied, then the strangulation occurred, then her bladder released. The wound (which would still be bleeding even if she was wiped down beforehand) was bleeding from the interior, hence, no reddish stains found on the "exterior."

    Also, JR could just have easily been the abuser, for the same reasons a lot of child abusers are. It's been reported that there was never any love -- either physical or emotional -- shared between the two, according to the housekeepers.
     
  17. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,721
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Userid,
    If you are correct then Coroner Meyer has no basis for assuming that JonBenet has been wiped down, since the wound would still be bleeding.

    hence, no reddish stains found on the "exterior." Your reasoning is the inverse of Coroner Meyer's.

    He thinks absence of red stains is caused by wiping down and not infrequent bleeding from the interior.

    I think I'll go with Coroner Meyer on this one.


    .
     
  18. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,180
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ^ No, you're simply misinterpreting the report to fit your misguided narrative.

    The only thing the report states, is that the red drops found on the bloomies were not coming from any exterior wound. That's it.
     
  19. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,721
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Userid,
    Nice try, but no cigar.

    Autopsy Report, verbatim extract
    Coroner Meyer observes:

    1. red stains in the crotch area of the panties.

    2. exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area.

    3. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

    For your delectation Coroner Meyer is opining that someone has wiped JonBenet down, plain and simple.

    If she had been wiped down before being dressed in the size-12's then they should not exhibit red stains.

    .
     
  20. Userid

    Userid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,180
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ^ First, I admitted she was wiped down; I never disagreed with that point.

    Second: there still could have been blood drops that occurred after being wiped down. That autopsy quote you keep using doesn't prove otherwise in the slightest. It simply proves that the drops hadn't come from an exterior wound. Remember, the Bloomies were many sizes too large, so the fact that the sections "next to the drops" were not also stained proves nothing definitively. Those "sections" were the sections that were looked at after the body was a) moved by JR b) carried upstairs by JR c) moved by LA d) moved and bagged by the paramedics and e) moved to the autopsy table. So in other words, the sections that were next to her body at the time they were studied by the doctor were not the same sections that were next to her when the bleeding occurred.

    But even if you don't buy that: even if the drops came from inside, that doesn't necessarily mean that there would be staining on both the bloomies and the matching exterior of the skin regardless. The autopsy report's main point in documenting this is to prove that the bleeding started internally and that the drops were not from an exterior wound; that's it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice