I have finsihed the SCR about the family in Sheffield and had some time to process what was in the review. I can appreciate that the family (in particularly mum seems to have tried to access support from multiple services) but it still remains as to where the two oldest have learned this behaviour from to start with. I find it hard to beleive that they have just had these thoughts off the bat.
I read that the oldest had an ongoing problem with pornography and accept he may have seen something along similar lines but i still cant fathom the idea he would wamt to try this out himself - its one thing to view it but another to then physically act this out ( in particular on his own siblings). So who have they learned this from? The report says that dad wasnt all that involved with their upbringing so then did other family members? and its someone else in the family who has abused the children who then have in turn abused siblings. I still have many questions regarding this that the report did not address.
I also feel differently about the agencies involved - it sounds as if that the agencies involved were actively involved with the family with the possible exception of the school who didnt appear to be as proactive ( for the most part at least and assuming this is an accurate account - and not covering for agency failings) . MAST seemed to cop for some of the flack which tbh i find a little unfair as their remit doesnt include dealing with young people and excessive porn consumption - they are more focused towards families/ dealing with misper cases and attendance . This to me suggests there is a definate gap within agencies for dealing with young people and potential sexual issues.
Anyway - i still fail to find any sympathy for the parents actions and i am unable to fathom why they both felt death was a better solution than going into care. I understand they both had difficulties from being in care and in foster homes but to then murder them is something else.
JonBenet Ramsey case
I know this is a very old case but i have spent all week listening to the podcast someone recommended in this thread whereby the podast team are convinced that it was an intruder who killed JonBenet. Despite listening to the case putforward on the podcast i remain unconvinced by the majority of their theories. I have a lot of thoughts so i am bullet pointing each one ( so it doesnt become a thought purge):-
- I still belive that someone in the Ramsey family is responsible for her death. For a town that did not deal with murder crimes / serious crime what is the odds of this happening and expecially at xmas when most people will be at home ( although i do know that in the USA they do not have boxing day as a bank holiday like we do).
- Lou Smit - who was funding this guy to do detective work? The podcast said he lost his DA job so if this was his life work then where did his income from? Did John Ramsey fund him?
- I did not know that there had been a suitcase underneath a window and that there was broken glass on said suitcase. This could lend itself to the suggestion that there was indeed an intruder but could also have been broken by the perp to get out of the house? Could also have been broken for ages as by all accounts no one accessed this part of the house at all.
- I find it BEYOND crazy that no one thought to check every single room in the house whilst looking for JonBenet (including the police). If the house was that large ( which suggests it could be as the Ramseys were worth several million dollars) then it makes sense to look in very bloody corner twice over.
- JonBenet was stun gunned twice (face and back) would suggest that this was to silence her so the assault could take place - yet the podcasters are suggesting JonBenet was alive throughout her ordeal and was then killed afterwards. Sorry - this makes no sense to me? why use a stun gun at all then? Does this then mean that JonBenet's killer was in fact not only a p..d..o.phile but also a necrophiliac? It is possible but its a stretch for me.
- The podcasters mention a family called the Hendersons -if they would have turned up on my door randomly accusing me of such a crime i would have punched them into next week. Its one thing for a step mum ( yes not even their biological parent) to be a theif and fired from the company she was embezalling from to then getting her step sons to then sexually assault/kill JonBenet. There is no correlation between theiving and murder. They should not have even made this list that Lou Smit has made. THIS THEORY IS BEYOND LUDICROUS. This is a very serious accusation to make about two men who are not even biologically linked to this woman ( the embezzler).
- I cant get past the fact that the ransom note was written in the house itself on one of their notepads and the fact it is 2.5 pages long. Who in the right mind is assualting/murdering a child and then writing a note about it to leave for the family. I also find it very odd that they asked for 118 thousand dollars. This amount is very specific. Who else other than the family would know about this? Find it hard to believe a random would know this was John Ramsey's bonus of the year.
- I remain convinced that someone in this family is guilty of murdering JonBenet. It is possible its a crime that has gone seriously wrong - so perhaps the perp wanted to assault her so used the stun gun yet something went wrong and killed her in a panic.