Revisiting an Old Friend

That's the only thing that makes sense to me. While some argue that there was no prior sexual abuse, the best reason they can come up with is that her chronic vaginal injuries were from bubble bath or riding her bike. The one medical doctor who said that there is no proof of prior abuse doesn't dispute the chronic vaginal injuries, only said that there is no proof of how she got them. Meaning she might have done it to herself or some other explanation--like playing doctor or some such childhood event which wouldn't be a criminal molestation if another child was involved, I guess he meant. However she got them, they were real and documented. According to Dr. Wecht and another forum doctor who translated the autopsy for us on another forum into lay terms, the hymen was mostly gone, as well.

But think about it. If you believe Patsy wrote the note, that one or both of the Rams were involved in the murder, then you have to assume they knew about the molestation. I asked myself for a long time why anyone would shove a paintbrush up a child's vagina, especially if her parents were involved. Even if you believe there was some kind of "accident" that led to the cover up, it makes no sense that they'd do something so unnecessary just for STAGING that would involve something so vile as using the paintbrush on her in that way--UNLESS they knew she had been sexually abused and THAT was what they were REALLY trying to cover up. There is no other reason I can imagine that would inspire them to think, Oh, we're staging a kidnapping and murder...let's shove a paintbrush up her to be extra convincing! I don't think so.

I think if the head blow was an accident of some kind, or in the heat of a moment of uncontrolled rage, we're missing the source of that rage.

After reading Marilyn Van Derbur's book Miss America By Day, it became clear to me this could be the whole impetus for the horror of that night. Incest is the biggest taboo. Ask yourself what kind of attitude does a woman have toward incest who would say JonBenet was "a little molested." Most of us would be screaming bloody murder if we thought anyone was touching our child inappropriately, much less penetrating her vagina. But a woman who could say "a little molested" might be someone who has been rationalizing incest for a very long time.

I once had a school friend whom I later learned was molested her entire teen years by her stepfather. That's the first I even knew about such monsters. Her mother not only knew, but threatened TO KILL THEM BOTH if she caught them when the then 13 year old finally told her what was happening. If you met this woman, you'd have no idea.... She herself was a beautiful and classy woman when I knew them. But there it is: she lives with that SOB to this day.

My friend also told me her stepfather's family had a long, generational history of incest, with his father molesting his own sisters. Here's what may surprise you: those sisters protected the men in that family fiercely from any kind of intervention by the law. Other children were molested that my friend eventually found out about, as well, by other men in the family. Truly shocking.

I also had a neighboring family that had a family incester. I had to grow up and learn about all this to put some incidents I experienced as a child together with my mother telling me the very old man had been caught with one of his great grandchildren a few years ago. The old pervert never got to me, but he did and said some inappropriate things that I now can identify with his history: who knows how many children in that family he molested? But one thing I do know: once I told his wife about something nasty he'd said to me, and she brushed it off entirely. See what I mean? Not once was LE ever called on this man. I'd bet money his victims were told not to speak of it and shut down.

Is anyone here reading the Terri Hatcher "coming out" about her sexual abuse as a child? Did you see her on TV crying her eyes out when speaking about this at a public event recently? That's what this does to children: they become adults who spend their lives dealing with it. Hatcher is in her 40s. Now that she's speaking about it, dealing with it, she's really a mess. The Vanity Fair article on her this month is worth a read on this topic, because that's when she first went public. Her molester is in prison for abusing another child, and Terri testified in that case as an adult. But that's the way this goes. The topic is so taboo, those adults in the family who know hide it and any child or woman who wants to speak out risks being ostracized by the family. The abused child ends up feeling guilty and betrayed for life. It's awful for them.

My opinion is JonBenet either was killed to keep her quiet, or was not taken to the hospital to treat her head injury because of the knowledge the abuse would be found and LE would be called. The paintbrush molestation is the key to me. There is no other reason I can imagine that would cause the Ramseys to do that, even if they were covering up an accidental head blow initially. All they did would still have held the same if it was ONLY a head blow they were covering. But the chronic vaginal injuries had to be accounted for, whether they were part of the initial crime or simply a crisis the family was trying to deal with that led to such tensions and violence. If there were nothing to hang their defense on as to why those injuries were there, the secret would be out.

But how many secrets? That's the question I ask. John is not the only person on the list of possible molesters. Looking at Nedra's behavior and response, looking at Patsy's list in DOI of things she tried to be good as, I wonder: first, Patsy lists "daughter." Before mother, before wife, professional, etc.

The autopsy tells the tale. RST won't even consider the chronic injuries as related to the murder. The Ramsey's reactions to being told by LE about the injuries as proof of prior molestation are quite revealing. Deny deny deny. Why would they dismiss this so rabidly if they really wanted to find an intruder...when simply taking the fact that this "intruder" had gotten to JB before that night would narrow the list of suspects down and go a looooong way to help LE to catch the "intruder." But they aren't going there, are they? Nope. Patsy's own lawyers and investigators hadn't even MENTIONED to Patsy by JUNE 1998 that LE believed there was a prior molestation of JB. They left that to Haney to tell Patsy, according to the interview transcripts. HOWZAT? They're supposed to be doing an INVESTIGATION for the Rams' lawyers, looking for that KILLER, but they don't even ask THE ONE PERSON WHO WOULD KNOW who could have molested JB before that night? Right. BS. Deny deny deny.

[PS gotta run, please excuse typos until I get a chance to edit, thank youse vury mush]

 

Chero and I were talking about this while I was staying with her. She mooted that the dictionary turned to the incest page could have been Patsy or John showing Burke what the word meant, after learning that he and JB had been indulging in "doctor play".

In the context of Burke possibly playing doctors with JB over a long period of time (and we know from a housekeeper, I think, that she had caught them doing this) and maybe JB telling Patsy, it's possible that Patsy or John took Burke into the office and got out the dictionary, showing him what the word meant and explaining that it was a wrong thing to do.

Assuming the death of JB was caused by Patsy in an accidental situation, the prior molestation was possibly something she felt she had to cover up, to protect Burke, in addition to protecting herself for the accident.

I believe without a doubt that JB was molested prior to her death, the evidence supports that.

 

JB's hymen was mostly gone; therefore I don't believe that she got her chronic vaginal injuries merely from playing doctor.

I asked myself exactly the same question too.

It is the key to me too.

Exactly. Maybe Patsy's rage was connected to the abuse? Suppose she caught John molesting JB, but her rage was directed at JB, and not at John in the first place. There exist mothers who attack their daughters instead of their husbands when finding out about abuse.
Another possibility is that Patsy's rage was not connected to the abuse initially, but since she knew JB suffered from sexual abuse, it had to be covered up by using the paintbrush handle on her.

 

I have considered if Patsy herself was an abused child. Remember, Haney asked Patsy about that at the very end of his interrogation of her in 1998. He didn't pull those questions out of the blue that day, did he? Consultants and experts had been working with LE on this case for a year and a half. The questions put to Patsy, including the timing, were carefully planned in advance.

I googled West Virginia and incest the other day. I really didn't know that much about the state, but that it's considered more rural and unsophisticated than many. But I'm reading a book by a forensic anthropologist, Teasing Secrets from the Dead, and the author works in Kentucky, so I'm getting an insight into mountainous, regional communities like West Virginia. There was a t-shirt made up by a designer company not long ago that caused quite a stir in W.V.: something like "In West Virginia, it's all relative." Even the governor got in an uproar over it.

But it rings a bell, doesn't it? I've been wondering about this for a long time now. As I've said many times, Marilyn Van Derbur's book explains the unimagineable tension and secrecy involved in keeping incest hidden in the family.

I believe the autopsy findings support the theory that JonBenet was being molested by someone in her life. Since the paintbrush was so brutally used on her when she was bludgeoned and strangled, how can the prior vaginal injuries be ignored or dismissed as not relevant? The level of violence exerted on JonBenet, the overkill, the brutality that was not necessary to end her life two times over...this was personal. This was rage-driven, IMO.

 

From what I was able to glean from the content of the note, I'd be willing to bet that JonBenet herself said or did something to provoke that rage from one of the "two gentlemen" who did "particulary like" her.

-Tea

 

I believe the "Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded" from the note echoes this quite nicely.

-Tea

 

Oh! Great find, IT4M! I believe you are exactly right.

Today, you're officially crowned the Guttah Queen for a Day. :rrcrown:

Get five crowns and you win a 3-day binge supply of Nyquil!

 

Goody! Does this mean I get to refer to you guys as "peasants"?

:in a regal, yet haughty tone of voice:

Ah, 'tis been a fortnight. Peasant BobC, regale me with one of your tales of ribaldry.

-Tea

 

I'm beginning to think it possible that Patsy herself might have sexually abused JB. But if it was so, John's behavior is enigmatic to me. For it would mean that this man has been covering up for his wife who not only molested, but also killed his daughter. What are John's motives for covering up if he was in no way involved in this himself? Is public image so important for these people that they would do anything to keep it up? Or did he take part in the cover-up for Burke's sake, to spare the boy having to realize that his own mother molested and killed his sister?