who is on the top of your suspect lis...

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#349 Mar 16, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi RT,
While the autopsy reports indicates that JB was previously molested, I doubt that they can prove it. However, IF she was previously molested, then obviously, the molestation didn't come from an intruder.
In this case, as much knowledge as we have on it, I don't think the claim that she was "raped and murdered" can be proven. She was obviously murdered, but the molestation could have come from an incident prior to the visit to the White's home the day before.
CC
“After viewing the slides, Spitz repeated his opinion: the injury to JonBenét’s vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death – not earlier.” PMPT; p. 777

“Photographs of her injured hymen taken at the autopsy indicated to some experts a recent tear, fresh bleeding, and no healing. Logic suggested that JonBenét had been penetrated almost concurrently with her death.” PMPT; p. 780

Feb. 15 - JonBenet Ramsey was the apparent victim of a forceful sexual attack in the minutes before she was strangled to death - an attack that left her body scraped and bruised, according to a partial autopsy report released Friday by a Boulder County judge.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm
…

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#350 Mar 16, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi CC:D
Yes I know the molestation could have happened before the murder, that's kind of my point. SOMEBODY KNEW and tried to cover it up by poking her with paintbrush. I don't know if you read this, but in the beginning they said the molestion prior to murder occured within 48-72 hours. Makes you wonder why parents weren't cooperative in telling whom they came across in that time. But hey, they couldn't remember when they bathed their 6 year old last,.. can't expect them to recall a day or two before their child was slain, can we?
Evidence of prior molestation was not conclusive, in other words the possibility of alternative explanations exist. Thomas; p. 228

Let’s just save time and say that there was prior molestation. By who? We don’t know. Who knew about it? We don’t know. Is it connected in any way to the murder? We don’t know. So, how can we say that fear of discovery at autopsy served as motivation for the Ramseys? We can’t.

If somebody was trying to cover up prior molestation with a recent molestation, then why did they uncover up the signs of the recent by wiping and redressing the victim? This makes no sense.
How does a ransom note explain a sexual assault and a dead body in a house with locked doors and no sign of forced entry? It doesn’t. So, assuming RDI, why would the parents write one? Answer: they wouldn’t.
…

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#351 Mar 16, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the woman who said she heard a scream also said that it may have been a metpahysical or supernatural scream from JonBenet after shewas murdered. The Rameys would not have risked someone seeing them stage the 'break in'. Incidentally neighbors did report seeing lights on all night. I guess there must have been a flashlight shortage in the mid nineties so the 'intruders' while ever so careful in other ways were forced to turn on the lights and risk being detected.
And, that women’s husband reported hearing something that sounded like metal scraping against concrete.

It is not correct to say that, assuming RDI, the Ramseys would not risk some particular behavior or act. You don’t; know what they would or would not risk. Regardless, there is no rick in saying that the doors, or a door was unlocked. If you are trying to convince someone that another person entered and exited your home then you have to provide a means or explanation for that entry/exit.
…

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#352 Mar 16, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess that's why the Ramseys told police they passed out an inordinate amount of house keys. Take your pick, the neighbor with Alzheimer's, former contractors, the White's, the Fernie's, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker..they had their bases covered!
The broken window IMO was broken for staging purposes, but when JR went downstairs for some 40 minutes that morning, probably realized in the light of day that the spider webs were undisturbed, so he cleaned up the glass and covered his a**. Not that hard.
There is no evidence that the window was broken that night and no evidence that it was cleaned up, and no time between the 911 call and the arrival of the police for such cleanup to take place.

If Ramsey noticed “in the light of day”(after the police had already been to the basement!) that the spider webs were not disturbed, then all he had to do was disturb them. As you say, not that hard. Easier than cleaning up and hiding broken glass!
…

AK

Since: May 11

AOL

#353 Mar 16, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence that the window was broken that night and no evidence that it was cleaned up, and no time between the 911 call and the arrival of the police for such cleanup to take place.
If Ramsey noticed “in the light of day”(after the police had already been to the basement!) that the spider webs were not disturbed, then all he had to do was disturb them. As you say, not that hard. Easier than cleaning up and hiding broken glass!
…
AK
There's more evidence that it was broken that night then back in August! There were shards of glass on the suitcase they placed under the window and JR made a point to say the suitcase 'was out of place'. When did the glass get there if the suitcase wasn't usually under the window?
I'm sure JR's mouth was dry as the Sahara whilst he piddled around down there oh so quietly..the spider web and the ridiculous idea of crawling thru that window no doubt made him think better of it.
He didn't disturb the spider web because he knew he'd get busted on breaking that window in the first place. Through forensics, whether from breaking it from inside, or the fact that his underpants fibers weren't snagged on the old crumbling paint, the science doesn't lie. Oh yeah, there weren't strange fibers from an intruder, either.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#354 Mar 16, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
There's more evidence that it was broken that night then back in August! There were shards of glass on the suitcase they placed under the window and JR made a point to say the suitcase 'was out of place'. When did the glass get there if the suitcase wasn't usually under the window?
I'm sure JR's mouth was dry as the Sahara whilst he piddled around down there oh so quietly..the spider web and the ridiculous idea of crawling thru that window no doubt made him think better of it.
He didn't disturb the spider web because he knew he'd get busted on breaking that window in the first place. Through forensics, whether from breaking it from inside, or the fact that his underpants fibers weren't snagged on the old crumbling paint, the science doesn't lie. Oh yeah, there weren't strange fibers from an intruder, either.
iirc, White moved the suitcase, and White put the shard of glass on the suitcase, a very small shard of glass. A not unusual find considering the amount of broken glass that there must have originally been.

How could disturbing the spider web result in Ramsey being busted on breaking the window? Through forensics is sort of vague. What are imagining would have happened? if he can break a window and clean up and dispose of all that glass undetected then surely he could wipe away a little bit of spider web and get rid of that, too!

If there was evidence that the window was broken that night than BP would have had to report visible signs of forced entry. That didn’t happen.

So, we’re back here: How does a ransom note explain a sexual assault and a dead body in a house with locked doors and no sign of forced entry? It doesn’t. So, assuming RDI, why would the parents write one? Answer: they wouldn’t.
…

AK
The Truth Hurts

United States

#356 Mar 17, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would they out all those threats in the note if they were going to call 911 as soon as they did? It’s silly. Why would they even write the note if they weren’t going to dispose of the body, and if they wanted the police to believe that someone broke into their house why didn’t they stage a break-in, or at least tell them that the doors were unlocked?
…
AK
For one thing, they didn't call 911 "as soon as they did." Many hours had passed until the call was made. At that point, they pretty much had to call since they were due to be somewhere and couldn't very well show up without JB.

It's been explained to you why they wrote the note many times now. I don't know what to tell you. It's also been explained why they didn't dispose of the body, so again, I don't know what to tell you or why you aren't getting it.

You don't think John whining about the broken and allegedly open window with the suitcase under it was a staged break in?

Don't you recall John retracting his statement about all of the doors being locked later in the game? I do. Come on now. It was an "inside job." There's his explanation for it all. LHP was the first person they threw under the bus. I doubt that was a coincidence.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#357 Mar 17, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
For one thing, they didn't call 911 "as soon as they did." Many hours had passed until the call was made. At that point, they pretty much had to call since they were due to be somewhere and couldn't very well show up without JB.
It's been explained to you why they wrote the note many times now. I don't know what to tell you. It's also been explained why they didn't dispose of the body, so again, I don't know what to tell you or why you aren't getting it.
You don't think John whining about the broken and allegedly open window with the suitcase under it was a staged break in?
Don't you recall John retracting his statement about all of the doors being locked later in the game? I do. Come on now. It was an "inside job." There's his explanation for it all. LHP was the first person they threw under the bus. I doubt that was a coincidence.
I understand why they would or could not remove the body. This is not being disputed, so there’s nothing that I’m not getting. They couldn’t or wouldn’t get rid of the body. Agreed. This is why it is nonsensical for us to believe that they would write a ransom note which does nothing to explain a sexual assault and a dead body in a house with locked doors and no sign of forced entry.

In fact, no reasonable explanation for the Ramseys using a ransom note has ever been given (brothermoon’s explanation notwithstanding). On the other hand, it has been reasonably explained why they would NOT use a ransom note.

Ramsey may have later offered a different version regarding locked doors, but we’re not talking about later. We’re talking about that morning when the police arrived. That morning, even though they were supposedly trying to con the police into believing someone came into the house and stole away with their daughter the Ramseys told the police that all the doors were locked.

There is no evidence of a recent break-in through the basement window - its’ in the police report, no visible signs of forced entry - and certainly no evidence of a staged break-in.
…

AK

Since: May 11

AOL

#358 Mar 17, 2013
If you understand they couldn't or wouldn't take the body out of the house, then how come you don't understand how much worse it would have been for them without the RN? THINK about it..the police would have to be called due to the fact that people knew they had a daughter and would sooner or later have to explain her absence, and once the police came, would have to answer all kinds of questions and explain over and over how no signs of break in and a dead child.
They couldn't say she accidentally fell because of the previous molestation..so they created a "they", outsiders just familiar enough to explain what the Ramseys couldn't. The sexual molestation could be said to have been done by one of the 'foreign faction' who just happened to be a pedophile.
Just think of the Ramseys without a note, starting with the 911.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#359 Mar 17, 2013
They could have said or did anything that they wanted.

Why start with no note and 911? That’s crazy. Start with whatever the incident might have been that prompted the whole ordeal.

There’s no evidence that the parents were involved in or even aware of any previous sexual abuse. Jonbenet had been to the doctor enough times with no resultant problems so, even if they knew or were aware there is no reason to think that they would have had any concerns in this regard. The concern would have been the head blow.

The kids been injured somehow and that injury is the head blow. Now what? She’s dying, but we have to think that the Ramsey’s believed her to be dead; don’t we? If she’s just dying then she’s still alive and why wouldn’t they try to save her? So, let’s say they think she’s dead. Dead from a head blow. Now what?

At this point all they have is a kid who died from a bang on the head. There is no visible sign of the blow and therefore no reason to think that anything strange might appear on autopsy. So, what needs to be explained? How the kid got hit on the head. That’s all. That’s it.

So, make up the best story that you can and call an ambulance. If the police become involved it will happen at a later date.

So, we start with the head blow and we have no sexual assault and no asphyxiation and no ransom note and no notepad and no pen and no ligatures and no garrote and no tape and no paintbrush and no crime scene, etc. just a head blow and a call for an ambulance.
…

AK

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

#360 Mar 17, 2013
Hi AK,
Regarding the ransom note.
If you abuse your child, and she dies in the process, on a winter night, do you call the police and for an ambulance? IF you do, you will be charged and convicted of multiple charges.

So, you stage the scene,(AND they didn't do a very good job of it) to make it look like an intruder did it. One thing that would point to an intruder, would be a ransom note.
CC
The Truth Hurts

Farmington, MI

#361 Mar 17, 2013
So what if they call an ambulance, JB survives and lives to tell who cracked her over the head and why?

Whether you like it or not, there IS evidence that she had been molested sexually prior to that night.
You keep arguing and we keep telling you why they could not do what you suggested. It's because they KNEW about the prior abuse.
What part of that are you not understanding?
You may disagree with it but to keep acting like you don't understand what we are saying is getting really annoying.
Steve Eller

Bronx, NY

#362 Mar 17, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
So what if they call an ambulance, JB survives and lives to tell who cracked her over the head and why?
Whether you like it or not, there IS evidence that she had been molested sexually prior to that night.
You keep arguing and we keep telling you why they could not do what you suggested. It's because they KNEW about the prior abuse.
What part of that are you not understanding?
You may disagree with it but to keep acting like you don't understand what we are saying is getting really annoying.
Very helpful post. I think that it is just frustration on the part of the more cerebral IDI proponents. More and more information is coming out gradually but consistently debunking previous claims by the IDI supporters. Sooner or later IDI realize they have two choices, concede that RDI are right or shoot the messengers and distort the information coming out.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#363 Mar 17, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
So what if they call an ambulance, JB survives and lives to tell who cracked her over the head and why?
Whether you like it or not, there IS evidence that she had been molested sexually prior to that night.
You keep arguing and we keep telling you why they could not do what you suggested. It's because they KNEW about the prior abuse.
What part of that are you not understanding?
You may disagree with it but to keep acting like you don't understand what we are saying is getting really annoying.
Stage whatever you want, but a ransom note only makes sense if you get rid of the body because that’s the only thing that a ransom note explains – no body in the house. No entry/exit was staged and the doors were locked, so this makes the ransom note even more bizarre and unreasonable.

A ransom note doesn’t point to an intruder when there is no entry/exit point and no kidnapping.
…

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#364 Mar 17, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
So what if they call an ambulance, JB survives and lives to tell who cracked her over the head and why?
Whether you like it or not, there IS evidence that she had been molested sexually prior to that night.
You keep arguing and we keep telling you why they could not do what you suggested. It's because they KNEW about the prior abuse.
What part of that are you not understanding?
You may disagree with it but to keep acting like you don't understand what we are saying is getting really annoying.
Ah, but she’s dead before they call an ambulance, or at least they believe she’s dead.

I’ve already agreed to accept the premise of prior abuse. However, there is no evidence that the parents were involved in that or aware of that. Recent visits to the Dr. should have given them confidence, if they were aware, that there was nothing to worry about.

If the sexual assault that occurred at or near the point of death was not covered up by wiping and redressing, then we might be able to say that the assault was part of the staging, an attempt to make it look like a psycho killer had entered the house and had his way with her. If some entry/exit point had been provided for (unlocked door, etc) then we could say that they made it look like someone had entered/exited.

But, these crucial elements were absent and the ransom note doesn’t point to an intruder when there is no entry/exit point and no kidnapping, and a ransom n toe doesn’t explain a covered up sexual assault.
...

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#365 Mar 18, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
So what if they call an ambulance, JB survives and lives to tell who cracked her over the head and why?
Whether you like it or not, there IS evidence that she had been molested sexually prior to that night.
You keep arguing and we keep telling you why they could not do what you suggested. It's because they KNEW about the prior abuse.
What part of that are you not understanding?
You may disagree with it but to keep acting like you don't understand what we are saying is getting really annoying.
Understanding is not the issue. It is understood but since it isn't what some want to hear, the same old argument continues as if they don't "get it"

All anyone has to do, despite the claims of having "tried", is to look at this with an RDI perspective, whether that is what you believe or not, and then anyone would realize why the note was written. Any "accident" that they could come up with, along with an explanation would have to coincide with the type and severity of the injuries she sustained. Since the Ramseys don't know exactly what will be found during an autopsy (other than the vaginal prior trauma), claiming an accident would not have washed and all hell would have broken loose

The Ramseys did exactly what they NEEDED to do. Those who "don't understand" or get it don't understand intentionally and will never admit that the note makes all the sense in the world

There comes a time when discussion is futile about it with anyone who intentionally won't "get it"

It contradicts everything they believe so no, they won't understand it, get it, or admit the reality

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#366 Mar 18, 2013
Also, the assault WAS part of the staging. Wiping and redressing her had nothing to do with the assault or effort to cover it up.

Even the most naive of people understand that an autopsy will be performed and the prior sexual abuse would be found. Their overall naivety led them to believe that the new assault would somehow cover up the old assaults

It didn't

However would they have explained that?
Heloise

Manchester, UK

#367 Mar 18, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Understanding is not the issue. It is understood but since it isn't what some want to hear, the same old argument continues as if they don't "get it"
All anyone has to do, despite the claims of having "tried", is to look at this with an RDI perspective, whether that is what you believe or not, and then anyone would realize why the note was written. Any "accident" that they could come up with, along with an explanation would have to coincide with the type and severity of the injuries she sustained. Since the Ramseys don't know exactly what will be found during an autopsy (other than the vaginal prior trauma), claiming an accident would not have washed and all hell would have broken loose
The Ramseys did exactly what they NEEDED to do. Those who "don't understand" or get it don't understand intentionally and will never admit that the note makes all the sense in the world
There comes a time when discussion is futile about it with anyone who intentionally won't "get it"
It contradicts everything they believe so no, they won't understand it, get it, or admit the reality
I agree with that, Caps. I would also add that the Ramseys had a carefully constructed facade of perfection and wouldn't have wanted the world to think there had been any negligence or rough treatment that would cause an accident of this sort. JMO, of course. A terrible accident at a highly emotional time for a troubled woman is what I personally think happened.
Steve Eller

United States

#368 Mar 18, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Understanding is not the issue. It is understood but since it isn't what some want to hear, the same old argument continues as if they don't "get it"
All anyone has to do, despite the claims of having "tried", is to look at this with an RDI perspective, whether that is what you believe or not, and then anyone would realize why the note was written. Any "accident" that they could come up with, along with an explanation would have to coincide with the type and severity of the injuries she sustained. Since the Ramseys don't know exactly what will be found during an autopsy (other than the vaginal prior trauma), claiming an accident would not have washed and all hell would have broken loose
The Ramseys did exactly what they NEEDED to do. Those who "don't understand" or get it don't understand intentionally and will never admit that the note makes all the sense in the world
There comes a time when discussion is futile about it with anyone who intentionally won't "get it"
It contradicts everything they believe so no, they won't understand it, get it, or admit the reality
Well said. Regarding the crime scene, If there is so ransom note police start searching house top to bottom immediately. Police question everyone in House immediately. No hiding behind 'grief and dismay'. Body found immediately. No time to correct mistakes.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#369 Mar 18, 2013
Ii'll bet they were wetting their pants when Rick French went to the basement, and later totally amazed her didn't find the body.
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. Regarding the crime scene, If there is so ransom note police start searching house top to bottom immediately. Police question everyone in House immediately. No hiding behind 'grief and dismay'. Body found immediately. No time to correct mistakes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why would the Ramsey's do so many stupid things... 38 min 43_Holding 320
News JonBenet Ramsey Investigator -- My Theory Burke... 39 min Miz Adventure 156
The Evil Super Family 44 min Miz Adventure 169
Stines phone records 54 min Miz Adventure 11
Irene Pasch weds James d. Ramsey 1 hr Kauna 1
News JonBenet Family Attorney: CBS Lawsuit Coming So... 12 hr KCinNYC 7
S.B.T.C: Weird coincidence? (Mar '10) 13 hr DedRed 356
More from around the web