Debunking Case Myth #2

[watson]

HI everyone, thought I'd take a break from just trying to follow the evidence wherever it leads (yes I know, but I think I do), and look at some of the pet theories (I call them, case myths) media, and people have made up in this case over the years, and see if anyone wants to explain or convince us of them, if they can, or expose them as myths that lead us all astray.
Myth #2....A pedophile did it.
Source....The media early on, before all the facts were in, John Ramsey's team in later years.
Has it been 'proved' that a pedophile did it?
Answer....No...never.
Is there any indication a pedophile 'might' have been involved?
Answer....Depending on your point of view, very little or none at all. All we've got is a minor sexual assault 'at or near' the time of death, where the victim was penetrated by a finger or finger like object, either by a hand slid down inside her pants, or her pants were pulled down, then put back in place. There was no other evidence of sexual contact, and yes, no one knows that the victim did not penetrate herself 'near' the time of death, or earlier that day. That's it. End of story. That's the sum basis of the pedophile did it myth. Am I correct? That's all the ammo people who 'buy' this myth have on their side, right?
What about the other side?
Is there any indication a pedophile was NOT involved?
Answer....Yes, 3 major things.
1.) In the killers 3 page letter, he 'never' mentioned the victims name once. He 'never' mentioned sex or lust, never mentioned the victim 'at all' except as a possession of John Ramsey's. From the writings of real pedophiles (Carr from Thailand comes to mind) we all know these freaks are totally obssessed with their victims, can't help but refer to them as 'love'/ sex, and lust objects. The fact this killer wrote 3 pages 'during' the crime and never mentioned anything even close to sex, lust, 'love' or 'even her name, indicates no way a pedophile involved. 2.) The sexual assault in this case was very minor, it can't even be ruled out that it was not self inflicted. If a pedophile did it, why didn't he sexually assault more? He had the opportunity, the time, as a pedophile 'sex' with the victim was the whole point. The fact the victim wasn't raped, sodomized, found nude, and not otherwise sexually assaulted indicates, the killer was not a lust driven pedophile, but a casual molester at best. 3.) There was a demand for money and supposed kidnapping involved. Pedophiles don't usually grab their lust object then write a kidnapping letter, and offer to sell that 'object' back. In the very rare cases that's happened, the pedophile actually TOOK the victim and ACTUALLY tried to collect the money. Given how rare a pedophile abduction for money is, and since the killer never took the victim, nor even 'tried' to collect the money, a pedophile for profit can be ruled out too.
So, there you have it. No 'proof' ever that a pedophile did this. Only the 1 slight indication (of the minor sexual assault) that a pedophile 'could' even 'possibly' be involved, and 3 good reasons to rule out pedophile involvement. So, if all this is correct, why does this myth persist? Can't it be rejected as just a myth?

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by watson

HI everyone, thought I'd take a break from just trying to follow the evidence wherever it leads (yes I know, but I think I do), and look at some of the pet theories (I call them, case myths) media, and people have made up in this case over the years, and see if anyone wants to explain or convince us of them, if they can, or expose them as myths that lead us all astray.
Myth #2....A pedophile did it.
Source....The media early on, before all the facts were in, John Ramsey's team in later years.
Has it been 'proved' that a pedophile did it?
Answer....No...never.
Is there any indication a pedophile 'might' have been involved?
Answer....Depending on your point of view, very little or none at all. All we've got is a minor sexual assault 'at or near' the time of death, where the victim was penetrated by a finger or finger like object, either by a hand slid down inside her pants, or her pants were pulled down, then put back in place. There was no other evidence of sexual contact, and yes, no one knows that the victim did not penetrate herself 'near' the time of death, or earlier that day. That's it. End of story. That's the sum basis of the pedophile did it myth. Am I correct? That's all the ammo people who 'buy' this myth have on their side, right?
What about the other side?
Is there any indication a pedophile was NOT involved?
Answer....Yes, 3 major things.
1.) In the killers 3 page letter, he 'never' mentioned the victims name once. He 'never' mentioned sex or lust, never mentioned the victim 'at all' except as a possession of John Ramsey's. From the writings of real pedophiles (Carr from Thailand comes to mind) we all know these freaks are totally obssessed with their victims, can't help but refer to them as 'love'/ sex, and lust objects. The fact this killer wrote 3 pages 'during' the crime and never mentioned anything even close to sex, lust, 'love' or 'even her name, indicates no way a pedophile involved. 2.) The sexual assault in this case was very minor, it can't even be ruled out that it was not self inflicted. If a pedophile did it, why didn't he sexually assault more? He had the opportunity, the time, as a pedophile 'sex' with the victim was the whole point. The fact the victim wasn't raped, sodomized, found nude, and not otherwise sexually assaulted indicates, the killer was not a lust driven pedophile, but a casual molester at best. 3.) There was a demand for money and supposed kidnapping involved. Pedophiles don't usually grab their lust object then write a kidnapping letter, and offer to sell that 'object' back. In the very rare cases that's happened, the pedophile actually TOOK the victim and ACTUALLY tried to collect the money. Given how rare a pedophile abduction for money is, and since the killer never took the victim, nor even 'tried' to collect the money, a pedophile for profit can be ruled out too.
So, there you have it. No 'proof' ever that a pedophile did this. Only the 1 slight indication (of the minor sexual assault) that a pedophile 'could' even 'possibly' be involved, and 3 good reasons to rule out pedophile involvement. So, if all this is correct, why does this myth persist? Can't it be rejected as just a myth?

Just a couple of thoughts on this. I do not believe, under any circumstances or theories, that JB jabbed herself with a paintbrush handle.

Also, I have never thought that a pedophile was involved, in that more was not done to her. I think the final act of violence against her was more of a "see what I did to your daughter" kind of thing. I think had it been a pedophile, she would have been raped, as in intercourse. IMO

[andU]

Since we don't have access to all of the evidence, I don't think we should declare anything on or off limits. All we can go by is what evidence has been made public and hope that it was real evidence, not a hook meant for the perps/pervs.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by whiskey

I do believe this crime was committed by a pedophile. No proof, but it seems obvious since he sexually assaulted a 6-year old.

This is like saying "I think the crime was committed by a kidnapper because they left a ransom note." or "I think the crime was committed by a Produce Manager from Safeway because there was pineapple left on the table."

I don't think it's as simple as that.

I think we must remember this crime scene was staged ~ whoever staged it wanted it to appear to be something it wasn't in order to cover up what it really was. (Whew - that was a mouthful).

[Athena]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

This is like saying "I think the crime was committed by a kidnapper because they left a ransom note." or "I think the crime was committed by a Produce Manager from Safeway because there was pineapple left on the table."

I don't think it's as simple as that.

I think we must remember this crime scene was staged ~ whoever staged it wanted it to appear to be something it wasn't in order to cover up what it really was. (Whew - that was a mouthful).

Did you say that all in one breath? LOL

[Kor]

Originally Posted by Zoey

Just a couple of thoughts on this. I do not believe, under any circumstances or theories, that JB jabbed herself with a paintbrush handle.

Also, I have never thought that a pedophile was involved, in that more was not done to her. I think the final act of violence against her was more of a "see what I did to your daughter" kind of thing. I think had it been a pedophile, she would have been raped, as in intercourse. IMO

If it was a pedophile, would it be killer's first time sexual assault on JB because no evidences of intercourse since the killer might had freak out after the blood appeared from using paintbrush stick attempting to loose the vagina? Or did the killer expected JB did experienced sexual intercourse with someone before base on killer's eyes, believing JB act or being sexy during her pageants indicated that? The wiped down with cloth on JB's crotch has to explain why the unidentified DNA found mixed with her blood or on her skin probably from killer's saliva, it looks like the killer wanted to eliminate any his physical evidences on the scene. IMO

It reminds me of Mr.Cruel from Australia, who bathed his victims after having sex assaulted with them to remove any physical evidences of him, also kept his victims blindfolded during the whole time until after he let them go back home. Of course, he decided to stop letting his victims go home alive after 4th time, I think, then started killing every time after he done with the sex assaulting on his next victims.

[watson]

OK so, I still don't see any 'proof', 'evidence' or argument a pedophile did this, that would 'convince' anyone. Come on! 'Beliefs' are fine in religion class, but this is the matter of a real life little girl who was in fact murdered in that home in Boulder Colorado on Christmas night 1996. If you really have reason or proof to believe or convince the rest of us that a pedophile actually did this real life crime.... then give,.... with the evidence and proof. I'm not trying to defeat the arguments or picked positions of anyone....just trying to address 'case myths' that have been put out (possibly to mislead, but not by posters). With all due respect to posters and their 'beliefs'....what 'proof', evidence, or fact, or anything in the case' do you put forth to to show the rest of us, a pedophile did it,.......... because so far, the evidence indicates no way a pedophile. Like I said it's a case 'myth'.
PS...to Whiskey....a very large number (unfortunately) of 6 year olds (and younger or older) are molested by others, including Catholic priests, family members, youth counselors, teachers, football coaches, and relatives, just look at any molestation website. Molestation can be in the family, church, school, and does not HAVE to be a pedophile freak, am I right on this?

[shill]

There are those that believe JB was being molested prior to the killing and that the sexual attack was some sort of cover up to silence JB and to point suspicion at an unknown pedophile.

But if the head blow wasn't part of the plan, but a panicked response, then who is to say that a sexual attack would have continued or she would have been kidnapped and abused later?