u/WritingLoose2011

One of the biggest contradictions in this case is John Ramsey’s attitude toward evidence that JonBenét may have been sexually abused before the night she was murdered.

This was not an internet theory. Dr John Meyer, Dr Andrew Sirotnak, Dr John McCann, Dr James Monteleone, Dr Valerie Rao, Dr Robert Kirschner and Dr Cyril Wecht were among the experts who identified prior genital trauma or concluded that the findings were consistent with previous molestation.

Sure, there were differing views. Differing vies is what defines this case. But when that many qualified experts find evidence pointing in the same direction, it should have become an enormous investigative lead.

John could know that he had never abused JonBenét. What he could not possibly know was that nobody else had.

Yet when prior molestation was raised publicly, John responded-“JonBenét and I had a very close relationship.”

Why does he make it about him?

Especially when, regarding the murder, John later said-“We have become suspicious of everyone.”

He was willing to consider people such as the Whites, Jeff Merrick and Bill McReynolds as possible suspects, people who already knew the family and had prior contact with JonBenét.

So which is it? For the murder- suspect everyone. For prior sexual abuse-why are you accusing me?

If he believes that these people were capable of entering the house and sexually assaulting and murdering JonBenét on Christmas night, why was John seemingly so certain none of them could have abused her before Christmas night?

That makes no sense.

And there is another revealing contrast.

John has kept the stun-gun theory alive for decades despite substantial disagreement over whether a stun gun caused the marks on JonBenét.

Fair enough. Disputed evidence can still be worth pursuing. But then why treat disagreement among experts as a reason to dismiss the evidence of prior sexual abuse?

That starts to look like a remarkable bait-and-switch.

He didn't have to believe the doctors. He only had to consider that they might be right.

An innocent parent would simply say-

“I hope they're wrong. But if they're right, find out who had access to her. It could identify her killer.”

Instead, this particular subject seems almost uniquely off limits.

John will discuss intruders, broken windows, suspicious friends, Santa Claus, pageant predators, stun guns and virtually every other theory pointing outside the house.

But evidence that JonBenét may have been sexually abused before the night of the murder?

That is the lead he seems least willing to entertain or discuss.

That matters, because prior sexual abuse is also one of the few possibilities that could help explain why such extraordinary staging may have been necessary in the first place.

Why was this the lead John seemingly didn’t want anyone to follow or talk about?

“Every action needs to be prompted by a motive.” Leonardo da Vinci

For me, motive is one of the biggest problems with most theories.

If the crime scene was staged, then the obvious question is- What were they trying so desperately to hide?

Because this was not a simple cover up.

You have a three page ransom note, a fake kidnapping scenario, restraints, duct tape, strangulation and the body left hidden in the basement.

That is an extraordinary amount of staging.

And it is worth remembering that the ransom note itself appears full of language and ideas reminiscent of movies. The staging may have been influenced by the same thing.

John himself said, “I liked Harrison Ford movies.” In Presumed Innocent, Harrison Ford's character describes a staged murder "Gives her what for with some heavy instrument. Decides to make it look like rape… He ties her up... Opens the latches to make it look like someone slipped in."

Now look at some of the usual motives given for that staging.

1.Patsy lost her temper over bedwetting.

Even if you accept that she caused the head injury, why does that require turning an accident into an elaborate kidnapping and apparent sexually motivated murder?

There were much simpler options.

2.Burke hit JonBenét during an argument.

Same problem.

If Burke accidentally or impulsively hit her, why not claim she fell, had an accident, or otherwise try to explain the head injury?

Why invent an outside predator?

The parents may have panicked after an accident, and panic can explain lying, but it does not really explain this particular lie.

Why create a crime scene that makes your daughter's death look far more sinister than the event you are supposedly trying to cover up?

The intruder theory has almost the opposite problem. If an intruder really entered the house to sexually assault or kill JonBenét, there is far less reason for that person to then stage the scene to point towards an intruder.

So what motive actually fits the staging?

=Prior sexual abuse.

Several experts interpreted JonBenét's injuries as consistent with sexual abuse occurring before the night she died.

That does not tell us who was responsible, when it happened or exactly what happened, but it potentially gives the staging a motive big enough to explain what we see.

If somebody in that house either already knew about prior sexual abuse, or discovered sexual abuse that night, they suddenly had much more to conceal than a head injury.

They had to explain the death. They had to explain the sexual injuries.

And potentially they had to stop investigators discovering evidence that the abuse had started before that night.

The obvious solution?

= Create an outside offender.

A sexually motivated intruder who kidnapped, assaulted and murdered JonBenét.

Now the staging has a purpose.

To me, that leaves three broad household scenarios that make more sense than the standard accident followed by panic theory.

1. John did it all

If John was responsible for the sexual abuse and then JonBenét's death, the motive for staging is pretty obvious.

Create an unknown outside predator and point everything away from himself.

The motive fits the staging.

1. Patsy caught John

This is basically the scenario described in the Diane Hallis story.

Hallis, who worked at Access Graphics, said she received a phone call from a woman claiming that Patsy caught John sexually abusing JonBenét, tried to strike John and accidentally struck JonBenét instead http://www.acandyrose.com/s-diane-hallis.htm

Hallis reportedly later passed a polygraph concerning her account of receiving the call.

As a theory it solves an important problem.

Patsy and John would not simply be covering up an accidental head injury.

They would potentially be trying to conceal sexual abuse, the circumstances of JonBenét's death and everything that exposure would mean for the family.

Suddenly the scale of the staging makes a lot more sense.

1. Patsy or John caught Burke, or discovered what Burke had done

I think a Burke theory can work too, but only if the sexual abuse is part of what happened that night.

If Patsy or John caught Burke engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with JonBenét, or discovered evidence of it around the time of the head injury, then once again they have something much bigger to conceal.

They are not simply protecting Burke because he hit his sister.

They are potentially trying to conceal sexual abuse within the family as well as JonBenét's death.

Again, the invented outside sexual predator now has a purpose.

There is still a problem with this scenario though.

If the medical evidence does point to prior abuse, simply catching Burke doing something that night does not necessarily explain why the parents would go to such extraordinary lengths.

For the Burke scenario to explain both the staging and the prior abuse evidence, you probably have to add another element.

That they already knew, suspected or discovered that this was not the first incident. That is possible, but it is another assumption.

Scenarios 1 and 2 explain that part more directly.

And that is really my point.

You can argue over whether John, Patsy or Burke was responsible.

But the common factor in the household scenarios that best explain the staging is sexual abuse.

Without it, I struggle to find a motive that matches what happened afterwards.

A head injury alone does not require a fake kidnapping.

An accidental death does not require an outside sexual predator.

Protecting a child who lashed out does not obviously require turning the scene into something this elaborate.

But concealing sexual abuse within the family?

That potentially explains why simply calling an ambulance, explaining away an injury or coming up with a straightforward accident story was not an option.

They needed someone outside the family to be responsible for everything.

And one thing I keep coming back to is John's response to the evidence of possible prior abuse.

If prior abuse could have provided one of the clearest possible motives for JonBenét's murder, why was he so quick to dismiss it rather than demand that investigators pursue it as far as they possibly could?

Because establishing motive matters.

Which brings me back to the question-

What were they trying to hide that was so much worse than an accidental head injury?

To me, prior sexual abuse is the most plausible answer.