Justice Watch Discussion Board "Ramsey Denials of previous abuse" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Ramsey Denials of previous abuse, Ryder, 21:22:23, 7/04/2000 I agree, maxi, 21:32:28, 7/04/2000, (#1) Another Great Post, Ryder, Paralegal, 21:42:54, 7/04/2000, (#2) the biggest clue, Ryder, 21:47:03, 7/04/2000, (#3) Autopsy Evidence, Paralegal, 21:58:01, 7/04/2000, (#4) if my child were sexually violated, Edie Pratt, 22:13:31, 7/04/2000, (#5) Ryder, your point is well taken......, sds, 05:21:00, 7/05/2000, (#6) What has always puzzled me,, v_p, 06:11:23, 7/05/2000, (#7) Take me to the movies!, Luvsa Mystery, 07:31:01, 7/05/2000, (#9) Great Point Ryder, frankg, 07:15:57, 7/05/2000, (#8) Ryder,, Ev, 07:31:57, 7/05/2000, (#10) Luvsa Mystery, Starling, 08:46:11, 7/05/2000, (#14) Starling, Luvsa Mystery, 10:01:06, 7/05/2000, (#18) Starling,, filomena, 09:33:49, 7/05/2000, (#17) like mother like daughter.., Dianne E., 08:26:40, 7/05/2000, (#11) Excellent thread Ryder, Ribaldone, 08:47:46, 7/05/2000, (#15) Hello Ryder and all, Msracoon, 08:42:42, 7/05/2000, (#13) slightly, fly, 08:36:31, 7/05/2000, (#12) Frankg, Starling, 09:08:04, 7/05/2000, (#16) the denial has a purpose, Sylvia, 10:20:13, 7/05/2000, (#19) ................................................................... "Ramsey Denials of previous abuse" Posted by Ryder on 21:30:38 7/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:30:38, 7/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:26:40, 7/04/2000 As I watched the LKL interview for a second time, I was struck by the emphatic denials of both Ramseys regarding previous vaginal trauma caused to JonBenet. In another thread, we discussed the fact that no one other than the Ramseys and Dr. Beuf have gone on record as flatly denying any previous vaginal trauma. I started this thread, not to re-hash this issue of whether or not the evidence points to previous vaginal trauma but rather to consider this question from another point of view: namely the reaction of the Ramseys to something that the medical experts claim to be a fact. Here's what's bothering me: If I imagine myself to have been in the Ramsey's shoes and knew that I was innocent of: a] any involvement in my daughter's death b] any involvement in previous vaginal trauma caused to her I think that my reactions here would be totally different than that of the Ramseys. First of all, I would genuinely be interested in knowing what the medical experts had to say about this issue. If I was told that there WAS previous vaginal trauma and I KNEW that I had nothing to do with it and FURTHER believed that neither did my spouse, I would not deny the existence of any such abuse. My reaction would be to start combing through all the people who would have had the opportunity to have caused such trauma. I say this because it seems to me that although one would expect the parents and older siblings to be carefully looked at with regard to this issue, it is also a fact that no doubt any six year old child could have been left in the care of another adult, could have spent time ALONE with any number of people - either professionals, acquaintances, baby sitters, friends of the family, whatever who could have had the opportunity to inflict such abuse. Personally, I would not be motivated to say: "That's a lie!" but rather to ask: "Who could have done that to my child, even prior to her death?" My point is that the Ramsey's categorical denial of this is highly suspicious. Why counter the medical facts in the first place rather than work with them to identify the abuser? Children have been known to have been abused by people other than their immediate family, and the Ramseys could hardly KNOW for sure that "it is a lie", particularly when the doctors (except the pediatrician) claim otherwise. The fact that they deny the medical evidence suggests to me that they are deeply threatened by it and have not even considered that it is particularly their reaction to this evidence which MOST incriminates them. Like I say, if it were me, I would say:"All right, what son of a #*#*#! did this to my daughter?" and I would start a long list of all those who had the opportunity to do so. I think I would also wonder WHY the child's pediatrician was the sole exception to the general medical opinion. That is, I'd wonder about that if I didn't feel that I had exerted any pressure on him to take the stand he does. Edited to add: I just don't understand why the Ramseys feel compelled to justify certain things: 1] absolutely NO previous vaginal trauma 2] this really WAS a kidnapping at the outset 3] this really WAS someone out to get JR, jealous of him (someone should start a thread about this Rams obsession that everyone and their uncle is jealous of them) 4] the garotte WAS for real etc. etc. I mean WHY justify any of the above, unless you cannot even imagine any of it incriminating anyone but one's self? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "I agree" Posted by maxi on 21:32:28 7/04/2000 Citing the opinion a pediatrician who never did more than a cursory exam of JBR's external genitals and dismissing an entire panel of pediatric experts is strange. I'd be looking at every person who was ever alone with JBR as a possible suspect in her molestation, if not her murder. Once again, the Ramseys seem focused on how information in the case makes them look, rather than how it might lead to the murderer. It's sad to see people so wrapped up in themselves. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Another Great Post, Ryder" Posted by Paralegal on 21:42:54 7/04/2000 I agree with you, this kind of denial by the Rams has been the only consistent thing in their behavior. They take this stance over everything that makes them look guilty, no matter how many experts stand together in an opinion. What's that old saying? Admit nothing, deny everything and demand evidence...Or was it divide and conquer? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "the biggest clue" Posted by Ryder on 21:48:19 7/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:48:19, 7/04/2000 JR never tires of drawing attention to the "major clues/gifts" which can identify the killer. Well, the more I think of this, the more I think that the biggest clue is that the perp had had at least one prior abusive run-in with JB (sexual or punitive). AND for an innocent parent to back track in memory in order to figure out exactly WHO was around during the previous vaginal trauma should not be that difficult a task. But I don't hear them pressing the rewind button to figure out how known medical fact came to be. I just hear them say "destroy the tape" - there was nothing before that night. Well, JR and PR, we KNOW that there was something prior to that night, now how about you help us figure out how to work with the evidence rather than deny it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Autopsy Evidence" Posted by Paralegal on 21:58:01 7/04/2000 suggests that chronic vaginal trauma would suggest at least one previous sexual encounter with someone somehow sometime before her death. I read Cyril Wecht's book analyzing the autopsy report and have to agree with him on this issue. And I agree with you, if that was my child and a bunch of forensic experts told me she'd been chronically abused, hell would hath no fury to stop me from finding out who! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "if my child were sexually violated" Posted by Edie Pratt on 22:13:31 7/04/2000 and murdered, I KNOW I would want the death penalty. I wouldn't shut up about that, I can assure you. Did you happen to catch the little tug-o-war on the subject? When it first happened, and they were questioned by Brian Cabell about the punishment, JR said he "um, would expect the full, um, extent of the law." Now, he doesn't believe in the death penalty because of ALL those innocent people who have fried by mistake. LOL! Does he really believe that? And, does he think his answer means that he's choosing his punishment, like reading the wine list? "I'll have the Life Sentence, thank you." What an arrogant s.o.b. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Ryder, your point is well taken......" Posted by sds on 05:21:00 7/05/2000 I have always thought that the Ram's flat denial of previous sexual abuse just makes them look more quilty. When someone is denying a given that is a medical fact, you have to wonder why. I can still hear JR's whiney voice saying that those were the "most hurtful inuendos". You are right, Eddie Pratt, what an arogant s*b he is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "What has always puzzled me," Posted by v_p on 06:11:23 7/05/2000 they never fail to include "pedophile" in their profile of the killer. I clearly remember LKL asking JR if she had been sexually molested and JR said he didn't know, he hadn't seen the autopsy. Then why 'go along' with the pedophile angle John???? Oh, I forget, they just do as they're told. If it were my daughter, and I were, (help me Jesus), Patsy, JR would be the first person I'd look at concerning the sexual abuse. Then I'd make a list of names and asking questions of any and everyone who had been in contact with JBR. It would certainly occur to me that there were several people helping JBR with wiping herself ... I'd start with them. I agree with you Ryder, they protest too much. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Take me to the movies!" Posted by Luvsa Mystery on 07:31:01 7/05/2000 Remember the prologue in PMPT where the gardener is recalling JB crying because her daddy was often away from home? I would think that if JR were abusing JB, she'd be happier when he was away rather than tearful. His frequent absences must have been par for the course -- so I'd think she'd have been used to his comings and goings. What would cause her to be sorrowful over something so usual and expected? Could it be because she hated being alone with PR? I was raised by an abusive mother. I hated her to touch me and I hated to touch her. Even though I eventually forgave her, I couldn't stand her to touch me even until her dying day. I have the old 8mm home movies that my father loved to film way back then. And in them it is very apparent how I felt about her. She would reach out to grab me by the hand, or arm to pull me into the shot or to form a tight family group and every time I would shrug her off or pull away to avoid her touch. In the movies, I'm never looking at her. I makes me wonder now how other adults failed to notice how I obviously felt about her. My mother characterized me as obstinate, rebellious, too independent and spoiled, so, I suppose, that's what the other adults believed too. On the other hand, I practically worshipped my father and in the old home movies I am seen often riding on his shoulders and/or smiling up at him with obvious adoration. The point I'm getting to is this: I'd love to see the Rs home movies!!! The picture of PR holding JB by the arm Christmas morning chills me -- but imagine how much better it would be to see home movies and to see how JB interacted with her parents and siblings. A picture's worth a thousand words. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Great Point Ryder" Posted by frankg on 07:15:57 7/05/2000 The question now is are they in denial because... (A) They are the source of the injury? (B) They are covering for someone? (C) They are in denial because they don't want to admit that something like this could happen to their daughter? "C" would probably be what they would want to establish during damage control, but given all that's happened I find this very unlikely. "A" is what I think the majority here might believe. But given the MW story, I think "B" also has some potential. Regardless, I would agree their denial of what has basically been confirmed by several experts is significant. Also, experts consulting on the case have indicated the trauma was milder than one might expect from a six year old being assaulted by an adult male. I'm wondering if this might indicate either abuse by a female or a child? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Ryder," Posted by Ev on 07:31:57 7/05/2000 I agree with you completely. What parent would not want to know 100% of the medical details about that could possibly have happened to their child? I would be a raving maniac mother to hear that someone had been molesting my little daughter up to and at her death. I would plant myself down at the police station so as not to miss one iota of anything happening there and my mind would be reeling with the possible suspects. I would see that the police were interviewing each one and taking tests. NO ONE would be getting by with this crime!! I would see to that to my dying day. (And I would not be on national TV shows making fun of any possible scenarios put forth by others. I would entertain any and all possibilities until this person was rotting in jail.) That pair definitely march to a different drummer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Luvsa Mystery" Posted by Starling on 08:46:11 7/05/2000 Luvsa Mystery said: "Remember the prologue in PMPT where the gardener is recalling JB crying because her daddy was often away from home? I would think that if JR were abusing JB, she'd be happier when he was away rather than tearful. His frequent absences must have been par for the course -- so I'd think she'd have been used to his comings and goings. What would cause her to be sorrowful over something so usual and expected? Could it be because she hated being alone with PR?" You know I've thought about this also. John Ramsey being away alot was a usual and expected part of the Ramsey's lives. At first, I too wondered if JonBenet didn't like being alone with Patsy. I thought that until I read what John Ramsey had to say about his oldest daughter Beth crying her eyes out, in a school cafeteria because her dad was a few minutes late for a lunch date he promised her. He tells the story in DIO, and I immediately related it to JonBenet crying in front of the gardener. Two little girls - two worlds away, both experiencing the exact same emotions. Thing is - Patsy Ramsey wasn't around when Beth was standing around crying. In light of this fact, I wonder if: a) Beth and JonBenet were just tender-hearted girls both missing their dad. Or b) Was John Ramsey somehow controlling these little girls and wrecking havic with their emotions? A is the easy answer, but a case can easily be made for B. We have all witnessed for ourselves how John Ramsey controls, not only situations but people themselves since JonBenet's murder occurred. With the pattern of control we've all witnessed - it then becomes possible to believe that John Ramsey may have been controlling situations and people alot longer than we would initially expect. Knowing that JonBenet Ramsey suffered from some form of chronic abuse, and the fact that John Ramsey has not been cleared in connection with his daughters death - dismissing him as the culprit would be an injustice to JonBenet. John Ramsey likes us to think that their is nothing in his or Patsy past to suggest they would be the monster that destroyed JonBenet. But if John Ramsey was JonBenet's abuser, when would John Ramsey feel most threatened that she might say something? The biggest threat would be when he wasn't home because he wouldn't be there to control. It would then make sense that he would say things to her before he left, that would make her think twice about telling anyone, anything. He would also keep in close contact with her, when he was away. It is a well known fact, that John Ramsey has always called his children, every night, while away - something his friends have noted about his personality. Something they believe makes him to be a "good father." But then again, maybe all those phone calls had a sinister motivation behind them. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Starling" Posted by Luvsa Mystery on 10:01:06 7/05/2000 You make some very valid points. What intrigues me about all this is how we all seem to bring our preconceived notions to bear on this case. IMO the OJ case was lost before it began. The jurors, IMO, had preconceived notions about the LAPD and their prejudices against blacks. Likewise, I readily admit I cannot divest myself of my own life experiences and they tint my glasses. Since I was the "apple of my father's eye" and felt unloved by my abusive mother, consequently, I have, all of my life, been more prone to trust men and to have a better rapport with them than I do with women. Fortunately (for that reason) I didn't have a daughter. Unlike many of you, I don't have a solid theory about this case. My opinion of who the perpetrator could be oscillates between Patsy, Burke, and John, and in that order. Which probably relates to the fact that my mother was not good to me. And relates to the fact that my older brother bullied me (perhaps because he was jealous of my rapport with my father and because my mother allowed it.) And to the fact that my father was very good to me. I have never had an intruder enter my home, ever. And so -- perhaps for that very reason the intruder theory makes no sense to me at all. And I've never had a bad experience with police, so, I suppose, I'm more likely to trust the PD than those who have. Which makes me wonder, how relevant are our musings about such things? I suspect they are worthless and are a waste of time. It is irrelevant to say: "If I were them, I do thus and so." We are not them and if we were indeed them, no doubt we do exactly the same things they are doing -- if indeed we were truly them and not just ourselves in a similar situation. And I sincerely doubt that anyone knows themselves so well as to forecast how they would react in any given situation. I guess I'm lecturing myself a bit here. I'm trying to tell myself to stick with hard, cold evidence and to stop trying to guess what the characters (in this tragic play) should have done, or would or wouldn't have done. I'm curious too, Starling, what your (as well as others on this forum) relationships were like with your parents and siblings. Of course, you needn't tell me. I'm just saying, I'm curious. Thanks for you response to my post. :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Starling," Posted by filomena on 09:33:49 7/05/2000 I really think you've got something there. I had been thinking about JR somehow controlling those two little girls' emotions as to evoke the deppressing "I miss and want my Daddy" syndrome. Its makes me sick to think that this could have happened. Also,it was Melinda who was crying in the crock when asked about her father. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "like mother like daughter.." Posted by Dianne E. on 08:26:40 7/05/2000 ..wasn't it on the Geraldo show that MawPawed said JonBenet was "slightly molested" or some such denial words?, how are you slightly or sorta molested? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Excellent thread Ryder" Posted by Ribaldone on 08:47:46 7/05/2000 and I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have posted to this topic in the past and I feel exactly as you do. A parent who is innocent of sexual abuse would be outraged and devastated to hear that their child had been sexually abused prior to her murder. My first thought would be, if she was sexually abused the night of her murder and prior to that night (possibly as few as 3 days prior), it is likely, or very possible, that the person who violated her is the killer. That seems like an obvious assumption to me -- a place to start. It doesn't mean the molester definitely is the killer, but with no other information to go on, I would assume that this was probably the case. I would question every person she may have had contact with in the past few weeks of her life and I would NEVER NEVER rest until I found out who molested my child. On the contrary, the Ramseys don't believe it, don't want to talk about it, and don't seem to care that so many experts stated via affidavidt that she was sexually abused prior to her death. Why would they all lie? Do the Ramseys think ALL of these pediatric experts are just stupid? And if so, on what do the Ramseys base their opinions of these experts? By their own admission, they don't even know who all the experts are. I have tried and tried to come up with a satisfactory explanation for the Ramsey's behavior, but I cannot. IMO, there is no explanation other than one or both of them are well-aware of her prior abuse, because one or both of them were inflicting it. Luvsa Mystery, I am so sorry to hear about your abusive mother and I agree with you that Patsy Ramseys could very likely be the abuser. Maybe both of them "had a turn." I don't know, but I do know that she was abused and, IMO, one of her parents are responsible. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Hello Ryder and all" Posted by Msracoon on 08:42:42 7/05/2000 Thank you for bringing this up. This has been, all along, in the back of my mind, kind of a nagging little thing. It's not really a little thing. It is really a beeeg point and I thank you for making it plain for all to see. Ms.Rac. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "slightly" Posted by fly on 08:36:31 7/05/2000 DianneE - Perhaps she was just referring to the relatively minimal nature of the damage - from something like a finger, rather than the more extensive damage that would accompany penetration by an adult penis? She didn't have to mean it was not molestation, or even an insignificant event, as you seem to want to imply. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Frankg" Posted by Starling on 09:08:04 7/05/2000 "The question now is are they in denial because... (A) They are the source of the injury? (B) They are covering for someone? (C) They are in denial because they don't want to admit that something like this could happen to their daughter?" A - Neither John or Patsy are cleared as either being the source for those injuries or for her murder (if they are not related). B - Personally I just don't see this as being very probable any longer. Burke was cleared and he is the only other person prooven beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be in the home that night. I also don't see the Ramsey's risking their reputations and all the money they have spent during the course of the investigation on anyone, other than theirselves. What I do see is two people trying to stay out of the gas chamber. C - They do strongly deny she was abused before that night. In my mind, they have to! Once people associate an event of abuse before the night of her death, to the night of her death - the Ramsey's have major problems convincing anyone of their innocense. And that is exactly what has happened. "Also, experts consulting on the case have indicated the trauma was milder than one might expect from a six year old being assaulted by an adult male. I'm wondering if this might indicate either abuse by a female or a child?" Hopefully you will keep an open mind that the seemingly gentleness of her abuse was caused by a man who knew it was in his best interest to be gentle. Any type of pedophile, wheather it be a situational, fixated or regressed type personality all have a process, in which they do these things. Their process/technique of their own individuality, pathes the way for not only harder prosecutions but is what allows them to get by undetected during and after their initial assaults. Just something to think about. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "the denial has a purpose" Posted by Sylvia on 10:20:13 7/05/2000 As already explained in my post, the denial serves the purpose of shifting the complete guilt to PR instead of JR. He was the cause, the ended it and he's bailing out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE