Prior Sexual Abuse ... Key To Case?

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by YumYum012, Oct 16, 2006.

  1. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    While researching other stuff, I stumbled upon what I believe is an interesting discussion concerning the subject of "Prior Sexual Abuse" as it relates to the Ramsey case. The discussion was at Cybersleuths at a time when Krebs & Fiends had been monopolizing the JW forum. CS was a refreshing alternative at that time, and a place where you could discuss stuff without being hounded by rabid Krebsies. Here is the link to the discussion at CS in Aug, 2000:

    http://www.cybersleuths.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic&f=1&t=001429&go=older


    The thread begins at the BOTTOM of the page and works it's way to the top. Please try to overlook some of my (Robin hat) more excessive language. I was young :D

    I post this here becuz I believe that the issue of prior sexual abuse is CRITICAL to this case ... and is an issue that Lacy, Tracey, LimpWood and others will NEVER acknowledge ... for obvious reasons.

    BTW ... Moab does some EXCELLENT research here!


    ...YumYum
     
  2. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    Did John Ramsey share some personality traits with John Karr? Here's a post that I made on the linked thread:


    Sound like Karr?


    I miss Zaniah, Cherbrock ... and even Criminy. There's lots of thought provoking, provocative stuff in this discussion. I hope that some of you will read the thread ... it'll raise some questions.


    ...YumYum
     
  3. Spade

    Spade Member

    Yum-Yum

    deleted
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2006
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Michael Tracey

    :floor:
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Ok, seriously, I have always felt that one of the most telling and evasive RST issues is that they actually try to convince people that it's just a COINCIDENCE that JonBenet was molested the night she was murdered in a very strange way--foreign object/paintbrush, and that she ALSO HAD VAGINAL INJURIES THAT WERE CHRONIC/INFLICTED BEFORE THAT NIGHT.

    Yeah, what a COINCIDENCE! Her bubble bath caused it! In spite of the FACT that there is evidence Dr. Beuf had told Patsy WHEN JONBENET WAS EXAMINED BY BEUF A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE PAST WITH "CHRONIC VAGINITIS" NOT TO USE BUBBLEBATH WITH THE CHILD.

    Yeah, Patsy just IGNORED HIM and continued to use the bubble bath, in spite of the vaginitis it caused.... Wouldn't ANY good mom?

    Unless...THAT'S NOT WHAT CAUSED IT. duh

    How can anyone ignore the FACT that the child had a PAINTBRUSH SHOVED UP HER THE NIGHT SHE WAS MURDERED is a pretty good reason to CONNECT IT TO THE CHRONIC VAGINAL INJURIES SHE ALSO BORE THAT WERE DAYS OR EVEN WEEKS OLD.

    Come on. Get real. That's a "coincidence" that I'm not buying. It's laughable to refuse to even CONSIDER that could be RELATED TO THE MURDER. It's STUPID when we all KNOW that children are COMMONLY murdered to cover up just this kind of evidence that would land ONE OF THEIR INNER CIRCLE IN PRISON.

    Anyone who denies this FACTUAL EVIDENCE is NOT looking for the killer. He/she is looking for an INTRUDER and ONLY and intruder. If the INTRUDER didn't do it, then WHO IS LEFT? They aren't going there, no matter HOW much evidence points to those who had PRIOR ACCESS and ABILITY to molest the child.

    That NEITHER JOHN NOR PATSY EVER demanded a full investigation of THE PRIOR VAGINAL INJURIES says EVERYTHING I need to know about them and what they REALLY wanted out of any INVESTIGATION into the murder: NO QUESTIONS, NO ANSWERS, AND NO SOLUTION TO HOW THAT HAPPENED AND WHO DID THIS TO THEIR CHILD.
     
  6. Spade

    Spade Member

    Please read it all

    deleted by spade
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2006
  7. INSIGHT

    INSIGHT Banned - TOS Violation

    Well Spade...

    This is the follow up for Spades reprint of an interview with Patsy... and... I DOUBT THAT A 9 OR 10 YEAR OLD CHILD COULD HARBOR SUCH A THING FOR A YEAR AND A HALF....PR STATED. If ANYONE would accuse my son of killing his sister, I would have ripped their heads off, NOBODY touches MY KIDS. She almosts gives him away, Patsy gives her annology. OHMYGOD! AH... Momma said I could have done this, but she doesn't know how I could be dealing with it...... :rs:
     
  8. wombat

    wombat Member

    20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't feel that I
    21 failed to cooperate with the police. I mean, I
    22 called them the morning that my child was
    23 missing. You know, I didn't call the fire
    24 department, I didn't call the security company
    25 or Ellis Armistead. I called the Boulder Police
    0596
    1 Department, okay. They were in my home from
    2 early morning until days later, I understand.
    3 They asked me questions. I told them everything
    4 that I could do to help them. I had no idea
    5 that we would ever be even remotely accused of
    6 being involved in this.


    This is an admission of guilt. She is saying that she started cooperating with the police when she called them. That means she wasn't calling them so that they could find the missing JonBenet, but to do the "right thing" for the process she was engaged in, the coverup.
     
  9. heymom

    heymom Member

    I think the most revealing statement from this interview is when Patsy says, "I mean, I knew..." and then cuts herself off just before she blabs something she will deeply regret.

    Heymm
     
  10. sboyd

    sboyd Member

    HeyMom,

    You are the first person I have heard bring that up. I was reading that part of the transcript to my son a few months back and when I got to the "I knew" part, my son said, "stop, what did she say".

    I agree with you Hey Mom. That is why lawyers tell their client to keep their mouths shut. You really have to read and reread the interviews because there are a number of times that Patsy is caught. Especially when she tells Haney, not once, but three times, that she saw the heart at JonBenet's palm "that morning". The next day she says she would like to clarify and says she probably read it in the autopsy report. However, at the same time, John is being interviewed down the hall and he says "we do not read the autopsy reports".
     
  11. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Thanks YumYum for the link. I have read the whole thread and couldn't agree more on what you said there. Especially this:
    This is exactly my theory too. JB had been sexually abused before, so the question is - who had been her abuser?
    I believe John helped Patsy in the cover-up because he too had something to hide: the signs of chronic abuse, which is why a paintbrush was jabbed into the child's vagina. To suggest to medical examiners that, should the other signs of (chronic) abuse be discovered during an autopsy, it had all come from the sexual predator.
    Patsy may or may not have known about the abuse, she may have suspected something but decided to turn a blind eye to it. I'm undecided as to whether she definitely knew.

    The vaginal wound bled a little, which means JB was not yet dead when she sustained it. She was probably already in a deep coma.

    Why do you think the stager of the scene wiped JB's genital area? Wouldn't it have been more convincing if part of the blood hadn't been wiped off, if the purpose was to create a gory, cruel-looking scenario?
    The person who wiped JB seems to have been John Ramsey, for fibers from his shirt were found in the crotch area of the size 12 underwear.

    Was the wiping an act of 'undoing'?

    Or was her genital area wiped because the Ramseys wanted to dump the body outside and were concernded about leaving no treacherous blood trail in their home?

    Or did the stager wipe the blood off because he wanted to inspect whether the inflicted wound would look convincing enough?
     
  12. heymom

    heymom Member

    Good spotting! I didn't realize she referred to the heart as having seen it "that morning." What a huge clue!!

    Here's another clue, which comes out clearly when it's read in print. Patsy continuously calls her husband "John Ramsey," not "John." In the South, in general, when you use both a person's first and last name, or their first and middle names or all 3, they are in trouble, or you are expressing some level of contempt for that person. One other possibility is that it is a type of endearment, as in, "Why, John Ramsey, what ah you thankin...?" BUt it's very unusual to have a wife call her husband that in an interview. I'm trying to imagine my own usage of my husband's first AND last names together like that, and I simply cannot.

    Next, she refers to JonBenet as "This child" and says that "This child was the most precious THING..." etc. To me, that says that JonBenet wasn't truly seen as a person, but a thing, and one that she didn't or couldn't even name.

    One more thing - when Patsy is talking about when her friend tells her that people might think she and John Ramsey (see how I did that??? hee hee) might have been involved, she says they were discussing thanking people for notes, and whatever, and she uses the term "la de da de da." Now, in that context, it's like saying, "Oh, and I have to tell people thank you for their kindness, blah blah blah." As if it's just nothing and she doesn't feel it's important at all, in fact, if you read that passage out loud, it's frankly insulting. As if the people who are grieving for JonBenet and reaching out to the family are just a pain in the butt.

    Oops, no, I have one more thing. Some people think that because Patsy becomes vehement when the detectives bring up Burke as perhaps having done the killing, that means that Burke really did kill JonBenet. I think it means that she KNOWS who killed JonBenet, and it wasn't Burke. She is definite about knowing that Burke DID NOT kill JonBenet, so she knows who did it, and I don't think she did it. I really don't think Patsy has the self-control not to incriminate herself. I am beginning to think that John really did the deed and Patsy helped him cover it up. She "knew" something about the abuse. Patsy'd been calling the doctor, going to see the doctor, JonBenet was having trouble with vaginal infections, and was wetting the bed. The doctor put his records under lock and key probably before JonBenet's body was ever found. That says to me that sexual abuse was the issue underlying the whole thing.

    If the police or law enforcement had ever taken Burke in, as if to charge him with the crime, she would have talked.

    Heymom

    p.s. Someone else here on this forum pointed out the "I mean, I knew..." statement to me a while back, so I can't take credit for that. But thanks!
     
  13. heymom

    heymom Member

    Oh, and BTW, thanks for posting that transcript again, Spade!
     
  14. Spade

    Spade Member

    From books

    deleted
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2006
  15. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    wow

    I had often thought about the word "chronic" used in the autopsy report and felt that there was something going on for at least a few days before JBR was murdered but this casts such a definite light on the whole issue that I really don't see how anyone could deny that there was past violation of her vagina of some sort, other than masturbation or supposed bubble bath or even the dreaded water erosion one former poster theorized about (was it Lake?)

    When people ask why the parents wouldn't just call 911 if there was an accident, they have the answer right in the opinion of these doctors. JBR had injuries that couldn't be explained away. These injuries had to be covered up. That is why it wasn't just staged as a kidnapping.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2006
  16. BluesStrat

    BluesStrat BANNED !!!!!

    Sure, I agree with Krugman if you require a smoking gun to believe someone was shot. But then again, by his standard of logic, "the only way to confirm sexual abuse" is to have it recorded on video tape.
     
  17. heymom

    heymom Member

    The doctor's medical records might well be the smoking gun. If those were ever released, he would go to jail for protecting the abuser. It is illegal NOT to report child abuse. He has a reason for locking up the records and keeping them locked up. He's protecting his own hide, IMO.
     
  18. Tril

    Tril Member

    Would little kids playing doctor be categorized as sexual abuse?
     
  19. heymom

    heymom Member

    If that included sticking things or fingers inside each other, yes. Looking at each other's privates, probably not. Anything that leaves evidence would be considered abuse.

    Little kids playing doctor can be used as a cover-up of abuse, and regularly is.

    Heymom
     
  20. sboyd

    sboyd Member


    I never believed she was sexually molested. HOWEVER, someone did this to her and someone did it to her before that night. Little girls don't just get all messed up inside by playing doctor. The maid did say she would hear Patsy screaming at Jon Benet in the bathroom (on a regular basis) and JonBenet screaming and crying at the same time. Maybe she was giving her douches, which, is abuse.

    I lean more towards that than sexual abuse. The injuries could have happened that way and Patsy had said she was concerned about the infections because JonBenet was alway wet. She was probably trying to clean her and doing it with douching because the infections were ongoing.

    Unless, you want to believe it was John. I don't believe he is going to risk everything to rape JonBenet.
     
  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