Let's throw down, jams

Ohhhh no ya don't! Ya just don't get to NOT POST a new idea that maybe nobody else has thought about yet. Or even if somebody has, this case has slowed to a crawl and somebody needs to shake things up now! Sooo, we'll all be waiting with baited breath to hear what your idea about the paintbrush is. Just suck it up and get past the frustration and lay it on us. We'll take it anyway you care to dish it out to us koldkase just please I beg of you....post your thoughts on the paintbrush. I think my life just may depend on it. (ok there, dramatic enough fer ya? )Get to postin' now!!

 

Okay, okay! Let me get past supper and I'll jump right on it. But gosh, it may be a bit...disappointing...and I'm worried about how you'll react to that.... Have you had your meds today...? If not, Moab will administer them now, so you'll be ready.... :sleep:

 

Yay!!...... I'll be happy to take my meds, Moabs meds and anybody else's meds who care to offer. Don't think I'll be disapointed in whatever thought you had. At least we are all still here tossing around ideas and thoughts ,and that koldkase, is what really matters. Enjoy your supper!:cheerful:

 

I'm cringing as I read your excellent account of this tragedy Cherokee. To think of this little six year old girl being so badly injured before she died, without anyone coming to her rescue. Plus I'm still stunned that Patsy and John Ramsey got away with it. I honestly don't know if there is anyone out there who can set this record straight(?). I don't know how the people concerned in assisting with setting the Ramseys free can sleep at night(?).

 

Oooops. Supper did me in and I just got back.... Sorry.... :blush:

Okay, here is my little, teensy, weensy epiphany, which I haven't posted about because it's just not set in stone. There are lots of arguments against it meaning anything, as usual in this case, but it just occurred to me and so now I am pondering it because it makes sense.

One problem I had early on in the case against the Ramseys, for maybe the first couple of years, was that I simply could not make head nor tails out of any motivation for ANYONE, much less the parents, jamming that paintbrush into the child. I had suspected the older brother JAR, frankly, when the murder details were first reported, because of the molestation. I figured the parents were covering for him. This was long before the books, of course, and long before I was online and knew much about the various "alibis" of the family.

Then I came online and found out THE UNREFUTED EVIDENCE of the autopsy, which in fact reveals that JonBenet had prior vaginal injuries--whatever anyone believes to have caused them. They were THERE and no one, not even jams, denies that. How deep in denial does the RST have to be to close their eyes to the OBVIOUS connection to the PAINTBRUSH used on the child that night, I ask? Too much coincidence, and the explanations they give for the prior injuries are absurd. But I digress....

So I have long suspected that the parent/s used the paintbrush on JonBenet that night to cover up the prior molestation--which you all know I believe, of course. That's all that makes sense to me. There is no other LOGICAL reason to do such a thing to the child. It certainly wasn't done with the idea of giving "pleasure" to the child, as pedophiles actually believe they are doing in their illegal and immoral assaults on children. The "sadistic" killer explanation is also unreasonable because of the "caring" for the body done after she was dead, when laid out in the celler room.

So if the Ramseys knew about the prior molestation (which of course I believe they did, whether JonBenet told them or whether through finding "blood" in her undies, however they found out), and if they used the paintbrush to cover that up so they could escape to their lawyers before LE knew it, hoping maybe LE would NEVER know it--well, that is the most logical reason for using the paintbrush on the child, to me.... This is, of course, still speculation, but the paintbrush was used on the child to penetrate her, and here is why I believe that and what that tells me about something else that DIDN'T happen that night.



(Phone ringing, be right back. Continued in next post.)

 

Okay...where was I? Oh yes: ...Of course...speculation [about why it was used], but the paintbrush was used on the child to penetrate her, and here is why I believe that and what that tells me about something else that DIDN'T happen that night.

First, a quick factoid that I think is often overlooked because we have, again, Patsy's memory lapse to impede the TRUTH being known: Patsy called Dr. Beuf in Dec., 1996, three times within an hour, after his office hours. That date actually is fuzzy, because of different sources--can't remember them all at the moment--saying these calls were on Dec. 7th or Dec. 17th, I think were the dates in question. [I have spent time looking for corroboration of these dates online, etc., and haven't found exactly what I'm looking for as things have changed a lot over time, but I'll try again later. ] At any rate, I believe the accepted date of these calls is Dec. 17th, as Patsy was asked about these in the LE interviews at some point.

Since it seems three calls to the pediatrician after hours would be memorable, especially in the context of what happened less than 10 days later, I find this another suspect "memory lapse" from Patsy. John and Patsy were also out of town early in Dec., with the Stines in New York, when the Archulettas again "hosted" the Ramsey children for the Christmas parade festivities in which they appeared. Nedra and Don Paugh were in Boulder taking care of the children during this Ramsey vacation, as well. Patsy and JonBenet were also in Georgia during Thanksgiving for that holiday prior to all the events of Dec., as well as some pageant activities in Rome, Georgia, which involved Patsy buying a pageant gown for JonBenet that ended up being the one in which JonBenet was buried. I bring all this up to point out that JonBenet was in and out of her parents' direct care at various points during the holidays from Thanksgiving until her death. During this time, Patsy was rather determined to talk to Dr. Beuf after hours, as well, though WE don't know why. Add in this: One would think, given the evidence which is indisputable, that the Ramseys would have been racking their brains to figure out who MIGHT have molested JonBenet prior to the night she was murdered. The fact that they not only didn't consider it important or suspect tells me a whole lot about what they actually knew about how she got those prior vaginal injuries. JMO, of course, but too much coincidence when a child is murdered doesn't stand up for me.

So having said all that as set up for my "epiphany", I was posting somewhere on this case a few weeks ago about the paintbrush evidence, and while writing my thoughts out for the millionth time on this, it hit me: If someone were using the paintbrush on JonBenet that night to cover up prior molestation, then it would seem to me there was no actual penetration by any molester that night BEFORE the paintbrush was used on her.

The reasoning I am pondering is this: Let's say, for the sake of argument, the Ramseys have this night from hell, starting with the head blow. Speculation as to who delivered that head blow is that it was, of course in this scenario, one of the three Ramseys in the home with JonBenet. One theory is that Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and hit JonBenet in the head when she was swinging at John, or some variation on that. And here is where my "epiphany" may or may not wash: if John had already penetrated JonBenet, or if in fact one of the others had done so that night, WHY would it be necessary to use the paintbrush? The paintbrush, in this theory, was used to COVER UP that the child had been molested prior to that night. But if she was already pentrated that night, by the molester, then why do it AGAIN with the paintbrush? No need at all.

So, putting aside the arguments as to how this is a flawed revelation, follow with me: If the murder orginated with a head blow, accidental or otherwise, and the prior molestation also needed to be covered up or there would be hard questions from LE about that, the paintbrush was used to STAGE a child molester/predator/intruder coming into the home, molesting the child THAT NIGHT and then murdering her. But if she had already BEEN molested that night, then why do it again WITH THE PAINTBRUSH? No need. At all.

And someone just said--Chero?--that the birefringement material came from either the paintbrush being used intact on the child or from a digit after it was broken. I believe it was used before it was broken because it would have been much shorter once the "handle" section was removed. Add in the fact that the TIP of the paintbrush is still missing. It wasn't taken as a "souvenir", as the RST likes to believe, but because it had BLOOD ON IT. Even the Ramseys would have known that blood would have been detected and found to be JonBenet's. Then the "molestation" wouldn't seem so much like a child molester, but more LIKE STAGING. At least, that's the most logical explanation to me, as I pointed out earlier that child molesters are trying to have what they consider a pleasant experience with the child--even PERV Karr says this. And now that I think of it...so must have the person who used the paintbrush on JonBenet HAVE KNOWN. Hmmmm....

So my epiphany, if it is one, is that there was no penetration, at least, before whatever events transpired that led to the head blow, paintbrush insertion, and strangulation, the latter two actions done to cover up the first, and the prior molestation.

If this has any merit, then we have some things to ponder about what happened. This would alter or eliminate some theories, of course, if this were true. It's worth thinking considering, at any rate, I think.

Okay, that's more than you wanted me to say, I know, but you KNOW me...and you did ask! :blush:

I know there are counter-arguments to be made here, and I hope some of you will make them. I look forward to your ideas about this.

 

I believe

I believe some explanation is in order because I think people have failed to understand what I was trying to say. In the post above I was simply trying to point out that it would have made sense to stage this as a crime involving molestation rather than trying to hide the molestation by wiping her down or whatever because the molestation would have been found at autopsy and then staging as a kidnapping would be totally dumb. I did not say that it was staged as a sexual crime.

Indeed, 1 person could have had the idea of staging it as a sexually motivated crime and another person came back and wiped her down etc.
The circumstances of the crime and staging make little if no sense and leads me to believe some significant portion of the puzzle is still missing. 2 people staging but not synchronizing with each other could be a small part of what makes it all so weird.
In a later post I said some believed the paintbrush may have been used to hide prior molestation. They may well have attempted to hide chronic molestation with use of a fresh wound.

 

Ah, I knew SOMEONE had mentioned this, but couldn't remember exactly who and was trying to finish in a time crunch--ho ho ho, and all that time of year stuff going on.

So...are you saying you think the paintbrush WAS used to hide the chronic injuries? Or not?

That's why I think the paintbrush was used, if I didn't make myself clear. I see no other reason for it, and certainly no other reason her parent/s would do such a thing if not out of desperation to cover up what had been done to her before that night.

And that was my epiphany: if it was done to hide prior molestation, then there was no penetration that night leading up to the violent events. One argument I can make to the contrary is that someone could have been in the process of molesting her, but didn't penetrate her yet. No way to know that so far as I can determine. So the paintbrush was used to hide the previous molestation/penetrations.

You see, to me, the reason a paintbrush was used was because the person doing this staging couldn't bring him/herself to do it as a molester would--with the fingers. Which is more graphic than I want to get, but it is a reason that answers the question, why the paintbrush at all?

As for why she was wiped down, that could have been for other reasons: "caring" for the body was how John Douglas once described such acts, before he took up with Team Ramsey, at any rate; fear of fingerprints/evidence left on the skin in her blood; "undoing" the crime, again as described by Douglas in the past. I also believe that her body was not "displayed" in some shocking pose for a staging effect because they knew they were calling over strangers, friends, and who knew who might "find" her first. I don't think they could do that to her, or to themselves.

 

sigh

I really wish I knew what I really thought. I sometimes feel like my avatar - chasing my own tail round and round. I think the paintbrush could have been used to hide prior chronic abuse because as you point out - what would be the point of doing that if there was already fresh damage from that night? But then I think, why use a piece of paintbrush at all? I can see that someone might not want to use a finger but wouldn't there be other items around that would be a more reasonable choice? (don't ask me what that would be cause I just don't want to think about it - yuck) If JBR's hymen was already previously damaged before that night then i doubt a finger used for molestation would cause bleeding however the end of a paintbrush might.

My last post wasn't directed at you KK - it was in response to those posts that seemed to be telling me it wasn't staged as a sexually motivated crime when I didn't mean to say that it was - just that it would have made more sense if they had staged it that way. It certainly would allow suspicion to fall on members of the family though so the idea would seem dangerous to the stager so the kidnapping thing was staged to point away from them.

 

I feel your pain, Texan, I truly do. We all go round and round with this, which is why we're still here. Unlike sane people who have the good sense to stop chasing their tails at some point.... hahaha Maybe we're just more stubborn than most.

But your last post makes me think you have expressed how it all actually happened, more or less: one thing led to another which led to another, as they went along trying to cover up this and then realized they needed to cover up that...and voila. So confusing and mixed up, they've kept everyone trying to figure it out for 12 years.

As I see it, there were two possible ways it all unfolded. One, as you described: Head blow--OH, if we take her to the hospital, they'll see she's been molested and "someone" is going to prison; phone calls--she's dying and one or two people are going into state custody; time to cut our losses--ransom note, staging, 911. In this scenario, what I wonder is if they thought she was dead when they strangled her. I doubt it, but I imagine they knew it was only a matter of time, and time was of the essence, as they had a flight plan and any unexplained "deviation" from that plan would surely put the lie to all they were doing.

The other theory that I have been pondering harks back to Dr. Wecht's book and what he says about the time between the head blow and strangulation.

First, let me say his theory has one flaw that is so obvious, I can't believe he missed it: he says someone was playing sex games, erotic asphyxiation, with JonBenet and didn't mean to kill her, but her heart was stopped when the vagus nerve was compressed. So this theory of Wecht's puts me in mind that he thinks it was an adult, as I doubt children would be sophisticated enough to engage in this because I don't think they'd be likely to have the ability to think through all the elements of this kind of sick sexual game--unless they were imitating something they'd seen someone else do, a thought I haven't explored.

The problem with Wecht's theory here is that, if it was an ADULT doing this, and that adult never meant to actually kill the child, that was one stupid adult. This has been said before: people who practice autoerotic or erotic asphyxiation use something UNDER the "noose" around their neck to cushion the tender neck skin and muscles, etc., to prevent BRUISING. They KNOW that people will SEE those and they do have jobs and family and such, in most cases. Sometimes they wear turtlenecks...hmmmm.... Okay, I'm getting myself into a whole 'nother territory here.... I've always thought there was a LOT of creepiness in the many pageant costumes JonBenet wore that had "choker" collars...and Patsy and her SCARVES...always the scarves.... But I digress...again....

So why would an adult put that cord around JonBenet's neck for EA "play" and not even put a towel or anything protective for her neck under it? The bruising is there. No way around that. JonBenet was a child who was very scrutinized, by her parents, the public in her many pageant activities and performances, family friends and activities. It makes no sense to think an adult would forget about the potential for bruises if he was into that kind of sick activity, especially with a child who would be CERTAIN to get him caught. So that theory just won't work for me. Nah, even if Patsy and John were members of some child sex ring, as Nancy Krebs wants everyone to believe, they'd never have done this without protecting the neck tissue.

But another version of this sequence of events, if Wecht is right, might: What if the person who put that garrote around her neck and strangled her, delivering the head blow during this when she screamed, wasn't actually "playing" a sex game, but just playing? That person might not have the ability to form intent to kill. That person wouldn't be thinking of things like bruising. That person also may or may not have been playing "doctor" with the child, as well, maybe before that night, but not that night. Remember that JonBenet sometimes did go sleep in Burke's room when she wet her bed, her mother said. This would explain the pineapple in the intestines, from the bowl on the table. It would explain why Patsy wrote the note, as well--talk about public disgrace and ruination for life. I don't like this version, I have to tell you. It makes my heart hurt to even imagine it, more than other theories, I guess because in this case, the villain is simply Fate, and as SuperDave said recently at WS, the staging and all afterward simply snowballed. The parents decided they were sticking with their story and the ransom note, and everyone else who suffered be damned, they were "saving" theirs.

Well, just another theory, but until the truth is told in this murder, until all those who are innocent are released from the stigma of being "suspects" in this murder, all will have this hanging over their heads.

What I hate most, though, is thinking of the abuse JonBenet lived with in her short life, the absolute brutality of her death. She truly was treated with no respect by the person/s who did this to her. By turning her murder into a tabloid windfall and abandoning her so throughly instead of witniessing for her in her awful abuse and death, JonBenet's family did her another great wrong, IMO. They never protested Smit displaying her autopsy photos on TV for the world to see, captured on the Internet forever. They never protested Smit showing them to strangers, reporters, giving copies to untold numbers of ego-boosting people like jams. Whoever served the RST demon of lies and secrecy, their actions have never been questioned by the Ramseys. The Ramseys abandoned JonBenet AT THE VERY LEAST, even Lin Wood implied on TV, TO SAVE THEIR OWN NECKS. That's the legacy they have to live with for generations.

 

[All quotes: KK]

I believe the stager of the scene used the paintbrush stick because she wanted to cause an acute "sexual assault-type" injury to mislead LE.
This type of injury was to direct the attention away from the parents and toward a "sexual predator".

That Patsy used the paintbrush to inflict the wound was a random choice imo. (The evidence links Patsy to the staging of the scene because her jacket fibers were found in the neck ligature, in the paint tray and on the duct tape). She might as well have used any other 'suitable' object catching her eye.

And since the broken paintbrush had no blood on either end, indeed the evidence points to the pointed intact end having been used to inflict the acute vaginal injury.

But the stager may not have been guided by cold planning and reason throughout because she was the parent of the victim.
So on some 'parental' impulse, Patsy may have redressed JonBenet and put a blanket over her.

Another explanation is that the scene was restaged.
Maybe they originally wanted to dump the body outside without a ransom note ("abducted from her bed by a sexual predator"), but then, deeming it to risky, switched to a kidnapping for ransom scenario which implied a written note.
They left the garrote on the victim because it should look like a bizarre "foreign faction killing method".

 

In the stager's eyes, the fresh damage from that night may not have looked "dramatic" enough to misdirect LE. Imo that was the reason why the stager inflicted the acute genital injury.

 

Both stories are highly suspect imo.
Re # 1) for example - assuming the Ramseys would have admitted they lied, then they still would have to explain to LE WHY they lied.
If it were you, how would you have explained this to LE?

 

I have to say that I also feel that if the paintbrush was used to inflict the injury, that it was done to hide prior molestation. They KNEW an autopsy would likely uncover certain injuries, and a broken (eroded in this case) hymen.
A pedophile would not use an object to penetrate his victim, IMO. They'd use part of themselves. If not a penis, then a finger. The physical contact would be important to a pedophile, using an object is too removed from what they desire- to have sexual contact with a child. In this case, no need to be "furtive" or hidden about it. She was in the basement, at the complete mercy of whoever she was with. They murdered her. Why be "hands-off" as far as molesting her? If DNA is an issue- there are condoms, though I can't think of one single case that I have heard of child rape/murder where a condom was used to prevent DNA from being collected. These murdered children are abused and just tossed away, left in the woods, on the side of a road, in a garbage bag, buried in grave somewhere, etc.
Pedophile killers that are intruders do NOT cover their victims with their own blanket (that they had to take the time to search for before finding it in a basement dryer), do NOT wipe the victims blood from their thighs, nor redress them. They abuse them, kill them, and leave. Usually in a matter of minutes.

 

I agree, DeeDee. It simply makes no sense at all that a stranger/intruder would have done all this. It's clearly staging in so many ways, by someone who loved her enough to want to protect her dignity when she was found by "caring" for her body after the violence that took her life and placing her on her blanket, wrapping it "papoose-like", etc.

Of course, Rashomon, we'll never know what the killer/molester was thinking that night. It could be something we've imagined, or something we haven't. All we can be certain about is what the evidence DOES tell us was done to the child, where, how, etc. The madness of that night will remain with those who took part in it, unless one of them talks eventually. Even then, we may never know about it.

 

Thanks KoldKase for posting that. Makes perfect sense to me.

So then if there were no molestation THAT night yet PR and/or JR thought evidence of PRIOR molestation needed to be covered up then that means either one or both of them KNEW she had been molested at some point prior. And taking that a step further, if it was not JR or any family member they would go this far to cover it up for, wouldn't they have reported or somehow handled this molestation before that night? This goes back to,.. either JR ,PR or BR had been molesting her and JR and/or PR knew about it, or someone else not living in the house did it...but they still knew about it and used the paintbrush to cover it up. So who would they cover it up for? Either it was one of them and that person knew it needed to be covered up and used the paintbrush, or it was someone from outside the house. That also goes back to who, which one, JR or PR did the deed with that paintbrush?

BTW, I myself do not think BR was doing this to JB. Just MO.

 

We know of the prior molestation, but there were also signs of acute molestation, which happened that night. Now, the abrasions, hyperemia, red blood cells and other internal vaginal injuries, as well as blood noted on the forchette of the vagina COULD have been caused by the paintbrush, but could also have been caused by a digital penetration. We don't really know which happened that night, or if BOTH happened that night. We do know that the erosion of the hymen, the separation of the labia (which is normally still fused closed in a child of that age) and the exposure of the vaginal rugae (which is normally covered by an intact hymen) are all indications that there had been some sort of intrusion into the vagina previous to that night. The erosion especially would have had to have taken place over several incidents. In a deep penetration, with a penis particularly, if there is an intact hymen present, it is torn. Not eroded. The erosion is more to be expected if there were repeated digital penetrations. There was also bruising noted in the area where the hymen was eroded. It seemed like the pressure from a digital penetration, especially if repeated, caused the bruising as well.

 

Karen, here's the problem with not believing it could have been Burke: a large percentage of child molestations are done by older siblings. I'm wondering more everyday if the person we REALLY don't want to think did this isn't a parent.

DeeDee, you really know your stuff medically. Thank you so much for explaining things as clearly as you do.

As to the possibilities of what could have happened, you're right. More than one possibility exists. Without hearing the experts testify under oath, we're pretty much on our own, and we just can't say positively ONLY this happened, or ONLY that happened, or BOTH.

I did say, and I guess it's worth repeating, that it simply seems common sense to me that using a paintbrush to cover up a prior molestion from days or longer before the murder wouldn't be necessary if the molestation that night involved penetration BEFORE the paintbrush was used. I know that is assuming a lot, as well. So yeah, no way to know. Just another logical guess.

 

The forensic evidence implicates Patsy, since fibers from the jacket she had been wearing to the Whites' were found in the tote from which the paintbrush was taken.

Since the wooden splinter was found in precisely the same location as the acute wound, imo it points to the paintbrush having been used to inflict it.

 

DeeDee, does the autopsy report mention the bruising? I recall Dr. Meyer naming the acute wound "abrasion", but it's been a while since I've read the report.