Who Killed JonBenet ?

[cantaloupe]

That head injury has bothered me too. It is so big, it looks like a blow from an angry person. Wonder how much force it would take to cause such an injury on a six year old.

Whoever inflicted it wanted to BE SURE the girl was dead, or otherwise it was the result of a very bad fall or something. It certainly wasn't a "tap" just to make sure she was dead. Either the killer thought JB was dead from the strangling, and was so startled when she wasn't that he hit JB in mortal fear, or it was a very angry move--or a VERY severe fall.

Could it possibly have occured when someone threw JB's body on the floor?

[irishlady]

btw magnolia this is great thread to get going cos we can sit at our computers forever and argue on each little piece of information but to see people's theorys make's it very interesting reading and also makes thing a lot clearer...for me anyway

[Magnolia01]

Thanks! I was hoping it would be helpful to others as well as myself :) And yeah, the arguing each detail gets in the way of exploring the entire picture more clearly. Just muddies the already murky waters for me anyway ;)

Cantaloupe: I posted on another thread regarding your two theories MINUS the ransom note....do you mind if I copy those here?

[cantaloupe]

not at all Magnolia. This is a great thread.

[trt]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
Irishlady....thanks for that perspective.

I've always wondered about that head injury too. Whether it came before or after strangulation noone seems to really know and the ME didn't say. I saw the autopsy photo of this poor child's skull :( and was amazed at the size of that fracture. It makes sense to me that an accident of some sort would have caused the initial injury and rendered JB unconscious. All the other pieces fit into place with this theory. I'm still on the fence on WHO fractured her skull though :confused:

I'm still convinced the blow came first. I posted this on the board yesterday before it was archived.

"Cause of death statements include: 1) the single most important disease/injury that initiated events causing death ("underlying cause of death"); the most important complications/disorders that followed the underlying cause of death and preceded death ("immediate and intermediate cause(s)"); and other significant conditions (diseases/injuries), that contributed to death but did not result in the underlying cause of death."

http://www.netautopsy.org/pracguid.htm"

So it could be that the blow came first, but did not kill her(would have eventually), but the strangulation was the direct cause, the violent act that cause her to completely expire.

[Magnolia01]

Thanks cantaloupe! Interesting way to view the ransom note.

cantaloupe
Member

Registered: Aug 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 461


I went back and reread the ransom note--somebody, maybe docg, talked about how the note sounded.

OK, assumption: ramsey's innocent

1. The note writer seems to be someone who is very pleased to now be in control and telling the Ramsey's what to do. Someone who thinks the balance of power has shifted in his favor. Someone who may have been sick and tired of his position in life or at work vis a vis the Ramseys.

2. The note has some truly outrageous elements that point to someone with delusions of grandeur. It makes some ridiculous remarks about foreign factions, etc- that are quite implausible---perhaps showing us that the person isn't too smart or has read too many conspiracy novels? It also has the ring of a young person--the movie images, the "movie type" plot line of several conspirators, foreign factions. In fact it sounds almost like something a teen age boy who plays too much Xbox would dream up.

3. It vascillates between formal---Mr Ramsey, attache, law encforcement countermeasures---and too casual---John, outsmart us, fat cat.

4. The money amount--again this is pointing me in the direction of a young person who would think that's a lot of dough.

5. The tone is quite mocking. The person is really enjoying that the tables are turned.

6. The level of detail---brown paper bag, precise call times----speaks to me of someone who has watched too many episodes of Baretta. It's so stylized that it almost isn't real.

My conclusion--look for a young adolescent or young adult male who perhaps did some casual work for the Ramseys and perhaps felt resentful about what he got paid or how he was treated. Also maybe he was the child of a Ramsey employee or acquaintance who had some less than delightful interactions with the Ramseys. Also, maybe the boyfriend, brother, or husband of a female in a similar situation. ???


JMO.

I'll make a stab at thinking about the letter with the Ramseys guilty.


cantaloupe
Member

Registered: Aug 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 461


OK assumption: the Ramseys are guilty.

1. The note is long, implying that the writer wasn't worried about the time it took to write it, implying that they knew they wouldn't be interrrupted.

2. It clearly is trying to point the direction of the investigation out of the house, perhaps giving the killers time to get rid of the body.

3. It almost works too hard to create an image of someone who hated the Ramseys. Most kidnap notes don't try to explain WHY the kidnapper took the person, just what to do to get them back. It's working too hard to set up a motive.

4. The note gives so many detailed instructions it's almost as though the writer knew that he wasn't going to have a chance to call. Most kidnappers don't want to give so much info up front becuase it aids the police in their investigation. You keep it simple stupid if you are really serious about the crime.

5. The word "hence" is quite interesting and rarely used in casual conversation. It points to an organized and educated mind, a "cause-effect" linear thinking. John's job in computers would tend to that kind of thinking.

6. The note almost sounds like it was composed by more than one person, perhaps one person dictating to another, with the "logical" parts dictated by one individual and the more fanciful parts by another. The crossed out word also implies collaboration about exactly how to say something so that it would be construed a certain way.

7. The percentages are also interesting---the exactness, the precision. Not sure what it means, but it is interesting.

again JMO

[Magnolia01]

Another thought:

After reading the autopsy report (and some other documents, can't remember which) I am feeling fairly certain this was NOT a case of murder due to sexual molestation. The reason I say that is....forgive me for the graphics....is that it appears there was only "digital penetration". There seems to be no evidence of any kind of rape/sodomy/violent sex.

Again turns my attention to someone in or close to the family.

Just a thought I needed to put down before reading some more. This strikes me as odd. :read:

[cantaloupe]

I have to agree with you Magnolia, which then blows the idea of the garotte as being used in a sexual fashion. Which then points away from a lot of the speculation about the mind of the killer as being involved with a lot of fantasy around using the garotte.

Interesting. Looking at all this information with a fresh eye is kind of taking me away from a lot of assumptions I made early on about pedophilia, elaborate fantasies, etc. If the motive wasn't sexual then what was all of that knotting and stuff about?

Maybe a simple hanging?

The digital penetration also sounds almost "curious" probing, and not something done for pleasure.

I'm leaning more and more towards a young adult male. I'm not sure if there were any potential suspects who fit that profile, but I am going to do some digging and find out.

[irishlady]

have to agree with you cantaloupe,when i read about the digital penetration i immediately thought it was something a young person would do to maybe a sibling they were jealous of?

[irishlady]

sorry magnolia this thread was not intended for debate and there i go....won't happen again promise:(

[bullmoose]

I just want to add my voice to those praising cantalope's dueling theories; to me they both make good sense with what facts are known about the murder. The two theories will, in one form or another live on until the case is definitively proven, one way or another. Which is not likely to happen,IMO. Here's another theory that would explain the extreme oddness of the note: the killer/s was/were college students up at CU. As you probably know Ward Churchill, the wacko imatation Indian who is a hater of the US, teaches up there. I would assume that there is an anti-capitalist current that runs strongly up there; therefor my theory is that it was some wacko student/s that did it. The note shows that whoever wrote it didn't know that John Ramsey wasn't from the south. I think whoever wrote it was a movie buff; hence all the movie lines. Whoever wrote it was conceited as hell, and was comfortable writing a note that makes no sense, to throw off the cops from ever figuring it out. To me, it smells like a college student/s striking a blow against the capitalist pigs of the establishment, or whatever. IMHO:biggrin: bullmoose

[bullmoose]

I think they are trying to, but he's "tenured" so I don't think they got him yet. buumoose

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by irishlady
sorry magnolia this thread was not intended for debate and there i go....won't happen again promise:(

No apology necessary! I don't own these boards, but I do appreciate that you and others understand the purpose of this thread for sure.

I am certainly enjoying everyone's input here and am seeing things I'd never thought about. Going back to the autopsy report for a look see regarding "penetration".....least I think that's where I read it :confused:

[msgatorslayer]

An IDI, the Ramsey's woke up earlier than the alarm because they heard the intruder leaving. Finding their Daughter dead, they panicked, thought for sure that they would be blamed. And planned a cover up to make it look like an IDI even though, a IDI.

:biggrin:

I really have no theory but needed to pull something outta the ole gator tail.

[Magnolia01]

The "ole gator's tail" take on it :D too funny.

I do wonder how in the world these people did not hear SOMETHING going on in the house? I mean I know it's a BIG house but still..........:confused: It makes sense something woke them up early.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I was not aware of digital penetration. I thought the penetration was done with a part of the paintbrush handle.

There were cellulose fibers found inside of JB that could have come from either the broken paintbrush or from a finger that had picked up the fibers while breaking the paintbrush.

[Magnolia01]

Can someone refresh my memory here? It wasn't on the autopsy report regarding the "digital penetration"......I'm thinking a deposition from an FBI source maybe?

In the meantime, still searching :shrug:

[Lianasmom]

My theory is that it was clearly an intruder, as evidenced by the ransom note and simply the sadistic, obviously premeditated killing of JB. The ransom note proves that it couldn't have been the parents, or Burke for that matter, due to the writer's obvious fantasies being carried out in the note, quoting kidnapping/ransom note scenes from movies, the writer's mistaken assumption that John Ramsey was from the south and his failure to use JB's name in the note, either because he didn't know it or didn't know how to spell it. I'm not convinced the killer was a pedophile, but possibly just used the broken paintbrush stick to torture JB. Since the evidence points to the strangulation occuring first, then the head blow, in order for one or both of the parents to have been involved would mean they are psychotic killers and there simply isn't proof of that. Plus, I think if one even so much as suspected the other, the marriage wouldn't have lasted 10 more years until Patsy's death.

So, I believe the killer was at best slightly acquainted with the Ramseys, but probably just somewhat familiar with them. John's company had billion $ parties, probably mentions of it in various business journals/newspapers, the Ramseys had a beautiful daughter some might have viewed as flaunted. I think the perp was a family member or friend of someone who worked with John in a support staff capacity and this employee probably went home and talked about the rich Ramseys and their daughter who participated in beauty pagents, giving the perp ideas to carry out his fantasies (he has a problem discerning fact from fiction, glorifies criminal behavior, including terrorism and is probably an extreme conspiracy theorist; because he doesn't live in the real world, he is very bold, which explains his gall to move about the house, write the ransom note on the Ramsey note pad, etc. He also saw John's paystub referencing $118k). The perp got into the house either by an unlocked door or window or attended their open house that Christmas and managed to slip away and hide. He possibly came and went or was even there for days. He's possibly in another part of the country now, in prison or dead.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Great post, Lianasmom!

[Magnolia01]

The thought that the killer could have been an intruder and remained in the house for a few days undetected.........eeeww.....chills up my spine!

Wow, interesting theories. So many angles to look at.

Must be off for the night, as I'm falling asleep with laptop in hand :D

Have a good evening all!

Maggie :)

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
The thought that the killer could have been an intruder and remained in the house for a few days undetected.........eeeww.....chills up my spine!

Wow, interesting theories. So many angles to look at.

Must be off for the night, as I'm falling asleep with laptop in hand :D

Have a good evening all!

Maggie :)

There was a case several months ago (NYC?) in which a valet parking attendant became obsessed with one of his regular women clients, had a copy of her apartment key made, entered her apartment, set up a video camera trained on her bed, hid under the bed, and was there for 3 days and nights until discovered by the woman's boyfriend!!! And that was an apartment! The Ramseys house afforded any number of places to hide. And there were 22 keys to the house, only 6 accounted for after the murder. And the window had been broken since October! It's very possible.

MOO

[harz]

my theories still in air, not yet really strong ones. I have a interesting dvd movie, Arlington Road with Jeff Bridges in. Alot of things from this movie reminds me of this JonBenet's case. Like when Ramseys are still to be blamed, Jeff as a teacher during his class said in the movie, "We don't want the others, we need the name, because it gives us our security back" while talking about an American terrorist who blew up IRS building was being set up by some other extremists who were neighbors to this teacher. I forgot alot other good stuff the teacher said, but still very interesting when thinking of this case. I recommend you watch this movie if you haven't. :seeya:

[cantaloupe]

I've been thinking about that "practice note." As far as I can tell, it was IN the notepad--not torn out--and it simply said

Mr. and Mrs Ramsey.

The handwriting must have been similar to the actual note for the police to consider it a practice note.

But what if it wasn't?

What if it was simply Patsy doodling sometime earlier and it has nothing to do with the actual ransom note?

We already know that Patsy's writing looked like the ransom note, but so did John Karr's and probably so does a lot of other people's.

I know that sometimes when I am on the phone I will doodle on a pad of paper, and sometimes I write my name, sometimes I write my husband's name, and sometimes I draw.

Maybe Patsy just didn't remember doing it on that note pad.


I sure would like to know more about this notepad/notebook or whatever it was. I still can't quite dissect that part of the evidence and what it means.

I still think that if John Ramsey actually found the notepad and voluntarily turned it over to the police, that he was not aware that the ransom note had been written from that pad. It is just too stupid to give the police such incriminating evidence that points to yourself.

But then how did an intruder find the notepad if it wasn't "in plain view?" Surely the police would have found it earlier if it were just laying out and the killer used some of the paper to write the note. Where did John go get that pad from??? And what are the odds of the killer using the exact same pad that John just happens to voluntarily give the police?

[Magnolia01]

OK......It was CYRIL WECHT who I was referring to regarding "digital penetration" and the nature of JB's injuries (not the autopsy report):

he noted items that supported the likelihood of chronic sexual abuse—that is, her vaginal injury had not occurred at the time of the crime. It may have been done by a finger or some object, not via outright rape, but he believed it was clear that before the murder someone had behaved inappropriately with the child.

People both inside and outside of the investigation reacted to that statement.

Yet as more of the autopsy report was released, he felt more certain of his analysis, and recent events appear to bear him out.

"I have learned that the police called in three separate child sexual abuse experts," he reports. "They separately and independently came to the same conclusion that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. Not that I needed anybody to hold my hand, but for saying that same thing I took abuse on national television from self-appointed Ramsey defenders and sycophants. But it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, a little girl with half of the hymen gone and she's dead, and you've got a tiny abrasion, a tiny contusion and a chronic inflammation of vaginal mucosa. That means it happened more than 72 hours earlier; we don't know how long, or how often it was repeated, but chronic means it wasn't from that night. This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/cyril_wecht/6.html

The reason this was important to me was because I really don't think the "rape" aspect of this murder was the primary cause of the deadly assault.

[MissOtisRegrets]

If JonBenet had been digitally penetrated in the past, I wonder if there is a connection between that and her habit of asking others to clean her after she went to the bathroom, rather than do it, herself. Apparently, she would ask anybody and would sit on the toilet and call until someone came. When the body was found, though her pants were soiled, her body had been cleaned of both urine and blood (some was found smeared), and a Barbie nightgown (for change of clothing?) was found next to her.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
If JonBenet had been digitally penetrated in the past, I wonder if there is a connection between that and her habit of asking others to clean her after she went to the bathroom, rather than do it, herself. Apparently, she would ask anybody and would sit on the toilet and call until someone came. When the body was found, though her pants were soiled, her body had been cleaned of both urine and blood (some was found smeared), and a Barbie nightgown (for change of clothing?) was found next to her.

And her arms were raised over her head as though she were about to have her top taken off to change.

[Magnolia01]

Good point ms. gator :)

I guess what disturbs me the most is that a six year old child is actually COMFORTABLE letting others clean her up. Most six year olds seem to be much more private, and have indeed been instructed by their PARENTS to never let anyone touch them in any kind of matter......especially with wiping! :eek:

(not accusing anyone YET, still gathering information ;))

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
If JonBenet had been digitally penetrated in the past, I wonder if there is a connection between that and her habit of asking others to clean her after she went to the bathroom, rather than do it, herself. Apparently, she would ask anybody and would sit on the toilet and call until someone came. When the body was found, though her pants were soiled, her body had been cleaned of both urine and blood (some was found smeared), and a Barbie nightgown (for change of clothing?) was found next to her.

12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.)


http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

That "apparently" you referred to is simply gossip IMO. She went to school and NEVER was that mentioned by her teachers or anyone else.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
Good point ms. gator :)

I guess what disturbs me the most is that a six year old child is actually COMFORTABLE letting others clean her up. Most six year olds seem to be much more private, and have indeed been instructed by their PARENTS to never let anyone touch them in any kind of matter......especially with wiping! :eek:

(not accusing anyone YET, still gathering information ;))

Do you really believe that gossip knowing she went to school and was in pageants and no one else mentioned that "habit".

[Magnolia01]

Hi breezy, not sure WHAT I believe at this point. I have some ideas, but nothing concrete yet. :shrug: That's why I am reading all the theories.

What's your theory?

[trt]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Do you really believe that gossip knowing she went to school and was in pageants and no one else mentioned that "habit".

I thought it was Priscilla White that mentioned this, that she would call and that Fleet had done so and changed her underwear at times? I think someone mentioned it on the other board as suspicious regarding Fleet? That Patsy mentioned in DOI that he was like Mr. Mom so it wasn't unusual?

Maybe she didn't do number 2s at school or other places...my daughter tries to make a point not to until she comes home. Maybe she only asked people she felt comfortable with. JMO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
Hi breezy, not sure WHAT I believe at this point. I have some ideas, but nothing concrete yet. :shrug: That's why I am reading all the theories.

What's your theory?

Because there were so many untrue "leaks" put out by the BPD and Thomas leading the pack, some people were so willing to "tell their story" to the tabloids for money and thought they had to make it "juicey", talking heads that STILL to this day repeat proven lies as fact and BPD did not follow up on other leads we just don't know the truth. IMO neither of the Ramseys are guilty and what was done to them is disgusting.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by trt


I thought it was Priscilla White that mentioned this, that she would call and that Fleet had done so and changed her underwear at times? I think someone mentioned it on the other board as suspicious regarding Fleet? That Patsy mentioned in DOI that he was like Mr. Mom so it wasn't unusual?

Maybe she didn't do number 2s at school or other places...my daughter tries to make a point not to until she comes home. Maybe she only asked people she felt comfortable with. JMO

Many people "mentioned" things that were not proven.

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Because there were so many untrue "leaks" put out by the BPD and Thomas leading the pack, some people were so willing to "tell their story" to the tabloids for money and thought they had to make it "juicey", talking heads that STILL to this day repeat proven lies as fact and BPD did not follow up on other leads we just don't know the truth. IMO neither of the Ramseys are guilty and what was done to them is disgusting.

I agree with you regarding the BPD and others willing to tell "stories". That's why I want to look at this from a fresh perspective and try to glean nothing but the facts. And there ARE cold, hard facts that cannot be changed or ignored. Autopsy report, DNA evidence, ransom note etc. I think most people can look at that and draw some kind of intelligent conclusion as to WHO they think did this. May not be scientific, but works for me!

Whether or not the Ramsey's were involved in this crime, it IS a shame what was done to them....if they were guilty, they should have been punished; if they were not guilty, they should have been given some kind of closure to this mystery.

[trt]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Many people "mentioned" things that were not proven.

What motivation would Fleet and Priscilla have to lie about that?

Why wouldn't Patsy correct that?

[Magnolia01]

I hear ya robin....now if indeed all that is true, I just cannot see a grown man putting himself in that position :eek:

Personally, I'd rather my daughter come home with filthy undies than have ANYONE touch her!! I'm not a prude either but that's just too much to comprehend. (Thank goodness my DD is 14 now!! ;))

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


This is way O/T, and I am not a prude - but even I have a problem with Fleet changing JonBenet's undies or "cleaning" her. I think I would have called a female to do the job, but that's JMO.

You are darn right about that. But I wonder if that is more telling of the culture that we are living in today versus in 96? Back then, while it wasn't unheard of to have a pedophile, it wasn't as prevolent as we see it today, so maybe people(especially those in a more privileged circle) would not think that anything would be remiss by allowing that? JMO

[Magnolia01]

I don't think so trt.......my daughter was four at the time JB was killed. We had just completed potty training not too long before that time. I was very conscientious about those kinds of things and I think my friends were too. Not sure if I was the odd one out, but I don't think so? I didn't exactly relish the idea of even teachers in preschool/sunday school changing her :shrug:

Now, the Ramsey's traveled in social circles far different than mine. Still, just can't imagine.

[trt]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
I don't think so trt.......my daughter was four at the time JB was killed. We had just completed potty training not too long before that time. I was very conscientious about those kinds of things and I think my friends were too. Not sure if I was the odd one out, but I don't think so? I didn't exactly relish the idea of even teachers in preschool/sunday school changing her :shrug:

Now, the Ramsey's traveled in social circles far different than mine. Still, just can't imagine.


Well, you having a child would know better than me. I was 17 at the time and in my first year of college, so who knows. First kid didn't come until 19. I just remember a more lax attitude about close friends and loved ones when it came to the kids, moreso than now, for sure. But, like I said, you had the baby, so what do I know, lolol.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by breezy1234


12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.)


http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

That "apparently" you referred to is simply gossip IMO. She went to school and NEVER was that mentioned by her teachers or anyone else. Thank you for this post....that was one thing I was hung up on....I've heard so many things on these boards...I am glad to hear she probably was not previously sexually abused!

[Athena]

Fleet White is my #1 suspect and the more I think about him and his 'protesteth too much', the fact that he was allowed to wipe JonBenet during visits, the fact that he had a key, the fact that he was in the basement ALONE prior to JR and picked up the broken glass and put it on the suitcase, the fact that he picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket, the fact that he knew more than he should have about John's business, the fact not only was he interviewed by the BPD but he interjected himself into interviews 18 times, the fact that as a friend he was too quick to side with Thomas, the fact that the woman came forward and said she knew him as a member of a sex ring and she was raped as a child but declared unstable (wonder why); the fact that he refused to testify in the Grand Jury (until he found out he was not going to be cross-examined) and the fact that he even with a subpoena refused to testify at Miller's trial and used the lame excuse that it was for justice and last but not least his long rambling letters much like the "ransom" note. The list goes on and on.

I believe John Ramsey started putting all these pieces together and stands to reason why there was a huge rift between them. And let us not forget the other friends in the circle that reported Fleet had started acting peculiar. JMHO

Yes - before anyone asks -- these are FACTS - not speculation, not innuendo but FACTS.

MOO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by Athena
Fleet White is my #1 suspect and the more I think about him and his 'protesteth too much', the fact that he was allowed to wipe JonBenet during visits, the fact that he had a key, the fact that he was in the basement ALONE prior to JR and picked up the broken glass and put it on the suitcase, the fact that he picked up the duct tape and placed it on the blanket, the fact that he knew more than he should have about John's business, the fact not only was he interviewed by the BPD but he interjected himself into interviews 18 times, the fact that as a friend he was too quick to side with Thomas, the fact that the woman came forward and said she knew him as a member of a sex ring and she was raped as a child but declared unstable (wonder why); the fact that he refused to testify in the Grand Jury (until he found out he was not going to be cross-examined) and the fact that he even with a subpoena refused to testify at Miller's trial and used the lame excuse that it was for justice and last but not least his long rambling letters much like the "ransom" note. The list goes on and on.

I believe John Ramsey started putting all these pieces together and stands to reason why there was a huge rift between them. And let us not forget the other friends in the circle that reported Fleet had started acting peculiar. JMHO

Yes - before anyone asks -- these are FACTS - not speculation, not innuendo but FACTS.

MOO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we go again with Fleet White. I just can't believe you are bringing up the "sex ring" (I read about that) involving some woman that a few posters on an Internet chose to "befriend" and then go after Fleet White in an attempt to smear his name, and point suspicion towards him, which by the way came down to absolutely nothing.

Please remember Athena, the FACT is that both Fleet White and his wife were cleared as suspects by the BPD as they fully cooperated and became "key witnesses". That is a very important fact.

Also, another fact you might want to keep in mind is that whatever the White's know they have kept to themselves surrounding the events from their dinner party to the time they were called to the Ramsey's home. They have never spoken publicly about things we don't know and have only speculated about. They have not sold their story to anyone. That means it will be good one day if it is ever needed.

IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Here we go again with Fleet White. I just can't believe you are bringing up the "sex ring" (I read about that) involving some woman that a few posters on an Internet chose to "befriend" and then go after Fleet White in an attempt to smear his name, and point suspicion towards him, which by the way came down to absolutely nothing.

Please remember Athena, the FACT is that both Fleet White and his wife were cleared as suspects by the BPD as they fully cooperated and became "key witnesses". That is a very important fact.

Also, another fact you might want to keep in mind is that whatever the White's know they have kept to themselves surrounding the events from their dinner party to the time they were called to the Ramsey's home. They have never spoken publicly about things we don't know and have only speculated about. They have not sold their story to anyone. That means it will be good one day if it is ever needed.

IMO

This is MY opinion and sure someone who interjects themselves into 18 interviews would definitely become key witnesses. Why would they speak publicly -- no need to. His letters are public record. This is only MY opinion and I stand by what I believe. The facts I posted above are FACTS very easily accessed - no speculation; no innuendos. The only thing that is speculation is MY belief that he is a #1 suspect. MOO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by Athena


This is MY opinion and sure someone who interjects themselves into 18 interviews would definitely become key witnesses. Why would they speak publicly -- no need to. His letters are public record. This is only MY opinion and I stand by what I believe. The facts I posted above are FACTS very easily accessed - no speculation; no innuendos. The only thing that is speculation is MY belief that he is a #1 suspect. MOO

What 18 interviews do you think made Fleet White a "key witness"?

You have no idea what information was shared with the BPD, or what caused them to name Fleet White a "key witness", as they stated he was fully cooperative.

IMO

[jerzeegirl]

is fleet whites interviews out there on the net? Ive read his rant, but thats about it. Ive never seen any of his interviews with the BPD.

[sturetroll]

I don't think FW did it, because I think the ransom-note was written by a woman.

[sturetroll]

Just wonder to as what motive Fleets would have. Do they have a little girl doing pageants, too?

I met my husband's cousin's son with his three children on an overseas flight. Mom not there.

His 4 year old daughter asked me to come along to the bathroom and wipe. I guess she did, because I was the closest woman to her. Rather a woman than a man. "MOOMMY!!"

Remember those days...

[Athena]

Originally posted by trt


You are darn right about that. But I wonder if that is more telling of the culture that we are living in today versus in 96? Back then, while it wasn't unheard of to have a pedophile, it wasn't as prevolent as we see it today, so maybe people(especially those in a more privileged circle) would not think that anything would be remiss by allowing that? JMO

My daughter was born in 1989 and I can assure you that it was just as prevalent then as it is now. I had my children fingerprinted by a Company called SafetyKids which was mandatory for the pre-school she entered in 1992. They would not even take children 3 or older if they could not go to the bathroom by themselves due to insurance rates. None of their teachers were allowed to touch a child in the bathroom - just make sure they went in and came out safely. If a child became sick the parent was called or the emergency contact to tend to the child (ie: diarhhea). It was also a little later than this that NannyCams became popular. My children were taught very very early on that NOONE was allowed to touch their private parts period for whatever reason. JMO

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


What 18 interviews do you think made Fleet White a "key witness"?

You have no idea what information was shared with the BPD, or what caused them to name Fleet White a "key witness", as they stated he was fully cooperative.

IMO

OH... I'm SURE HE WAS......:rolleyes:

[Devotion]

Originally posted by sturetroll
I don't think FW did it, because I think the ransom-note was written by a woman.
:read: IMO: Agreed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to reach that conclusion after reading the letter...jmo

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by sturetroll
I don't think FW did it, because I think the ransom-note was written by a woman.

Not to me. It was a well rehearsed note by a male with a testosterone problem! and probably a small penis.

[Jadedblueeyes]

I believe this was a highly prolonged and well thought out plan. Critiqued, changed and rearranged until the killer was satisfied before he did the actual crime.

I believe he is a white male, way above normal intelligence, a loner but very unassuming.

I think this murder and how it was done was to cause as much long lasting suffering to the Ramsey family especially John Ramsey. I find this killer cold, calculating, methodical, patient, and fully committed to his mission. JB was merely a tool used in this murderers twisted game. He used a life like a business uses their power for a takeover. IMO he was taking back his control he felt JR had taken away from him.

Imo, he had no feels of remorse or regret and he did the things to JB that he did to leave an indelible visual and scars that would never heal in the Ramsey hearts. He wanted them crushed and it came to pass.

I think he was in that home for hours and calmly wrote the ransom note he had gone over in his head a gazillion times before he arrived there.

His purpose imo was to take the Shinning Star away from the Ramseys. The one they doted on...the one that brought them notice...the one that was so pure and so breathtakingly beautiful.

His note was so ingenious...imo nothing at all about him but distancing himself away from all of this. He calculated every word knowing it would not be understood. He also let them know they could not trust him or catch him because JB wasn't really out "there" as he had left her for John and Patsy to see what he had done but HE WAS long gone and they had no clue to who he was.

I think he took the rest of the paintbrush as a token...a rememberance.......imo he still has it and cherishes it. It is validation of what he did and how he got away with it.

I don't think this case will ever be solved.

IMO

Ocean

[sturetroll]

Originally posted by DixieChick


Not to me. It was a well rehearsed note by a male with a testosterone problem! and probably a small penis. And skinny long white fingers??..or more like very short and chubby?:eek:

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by sturetroll
And skinny long white fingers??..or more like very short and chubby?:eek:

Short skinny fingers. ;)

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes
I believe this was a highly prolonged and well thought out plan. Critiqued, changed and rearranged until the killer was satisfied before he did the actual crime.

I believe he is a white male, way above normal intelligence, a loner but very unassuming.

I think this murder and how it was done was to cause as much long lasting suffering to the Ramsey family especially John Ramsey. I find this killer cold, calculating, methodical, patient, and fully committed to his mission. JB was merely a tool used in this murderers twisted game. He used a life like a business uses their power for a takeover. IMO he was taking back his control he felt JR had taken away from him.

Imo, he had no feels of remorse or regret and he did the things to JB that he did to leave an indelible visual and scars that would never heal in the Ramsey hearts. He wanted them crushed and it came to pass.

I think he was in that home for hours and calmly wrote the ransom note he had gone over in his head a gazillion times before he arrived there.

His purpose imo was to take the Shinning Star away from the Ramseys. The one they doted on...the one that brought them notice...the one that was so pure and so breathtakingly beautiful.

His note was so ingenious...imo nothing at all about him but distancing himself away from all of this. He calculated every word knowing it would not be understood. He also let them know they could not trust him or catch him because JB wasn't really out "there" as he had left her for John and Patsy to see what he had done but HE WAS long gone and they had no clue to who he was.

I think he took the rest of the paintbrush as a token...a rememberance.......imo he still has it and cherishes it. It is validation of what he did and how he got away with it.

I don't think this case will ever be solved.

IMO

Ocean

Ocean, I think we are seeing the same person, tho I think he is most interested in producing his own real life perfect murder mystery. The Ramsey's were his perfect cast. He couldn't bring himself to name JonBenet in the note. She was only an extension of his prey. Unemotional, calculating, Evil Monster.

[sturetroll]

Originally posted by DixieChick


Short skinny fingers. ;) HEHE:)

[rashomon]

Every intruder theory is seriously flawed because it doesn't explain the Ramseys' extremely suspicios behavior right from the start. For example, they showed no reaction when the deadline had passed at 10 am. Innocent parents not receiving the promised call from the kidnappers would probably have become frantic with fear, but the Ramseys didn't even comment on it. While waiting for the kidnappers to call, they never stood together to comfort each other, but were in separate rooms. This struck the detectives as pretty odd too.

Despite the ransom note author's threat that their daughter would be beheaded if they talked to anyone, they called tons of people over to their house. This tells me that they knew there had been no kidnapping, for they had written the note themselves.

Their non-cooperation with the police is a red flag too, and doesn't fit with an intruder theory.

The Ramseys' staged scenario doesn't pass the sniffing test. It reeked right from the start.

[sturetroll]

Rich people get away with stuff that doesnt even pass the smell test anywhere else..

[Devotion]

Originally posted by sturetroll
Rich people get away with stuff that doesnt even pass the smell test anywhere else..
:shrug: IMO: You are right about that, money, fame &/or so called religion, and people get away with stuff that doesn't began to pass a smell test..jmo

[Devotion]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
OK......It was CYRIL WECHT who I was referring to regarding "digital penetration" and the nature of JB's injuries (not the autopsy report):

he noted items that supported the likelihood of chronic sexual abuse—that is, her vaginal injury had not occurred at the time of the crime. It may have been done by a finger or some object, not via outright rape, but he believed it was clear that before the murder someone had behaved inappropriately with the child.

People both inside and outside of the investigation reacted to that statement.

Yet as more of the autopsy report was released, he felt more certain of his analysis, and recent events appear to bear him out.

"I have learned that the police called in three separate child sexual abuse experts," he reports. "They separately and independently came to the same conclusion that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. Not that I needed anybody to hold my hand, but for saying that same thing I took abuse on national television from self-appointed Ramsey defenders and sycophants. But it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, a little girl with half of the hymen gone and she's dead, and you've got a tiny abrasion, a tiny contusion and a chronic inflammation of vaginal mucosa. That means it happened more than 72 hours earlier; we don't know how long, or how often it was repeated, but chronic means it wasn't from that night. This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/cyril_wecht/6.html

The reason this was important to me was because I really don't think the "rape" aspect of this murder was the primary cause of the deadly assault.
:shrug: IMO: I have always found the 30 visits to the doctor was very strange..and a clue to who..
If the bubble bath caused a problem WHY was it not taken from the bathroom after the first visit to the doctor?
Speaking of childrens doctors, I raised 4 daughters. Taking each of them to a Pediatrician & or family doctor, when needed..
Never did any doctor ever touch or look at my childrens "private area" in any manor in order to see if they had been sexually molested, when they were there for a bladder infection. So...
I suspect JonB's doctor possibly didn't closely inspect her either.....my opinion/guessing

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Your kids pediatrician never checked their genitals? Even when they had a bladder infection? Our pediatricians have always looked at our kids genitals during their routine checkups when they were little. They never said why they checked, but I would think any good pediatrician would. After all, little girls can get yeast infections and any child can be molested.

Children are not routinely subject to internal gynecological exams. Unless JonBenet was INTERNALLY examined there would be no evidence. Her pediatrician didn't do his job IMO he never even considered the possibility of sexual abuse.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I've always thought that John & Patsy signing an affidavit allowing JonBenet's pediatrician to talk about her medical records indicated they had nothing to hide. JMO

:rolleyes: The Ramsey's knew the doctor had no knowledge of prior abuse, cause he never looked

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Your kids pediatrician never checked their genitals? Even when they had a bladder infection? Our pediatricians have always looked at our kids genitals during their routine checkups when they were little. They never said why they checked, but I would think any good pediatrician would. After all, little girls can get yeast infections and any child can be molested.

The only time my child's genitals were ever looked at was when he was an infant.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


That's a pretty strong statement to make. IMO

Yes, it is and I stand by it.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by Arizona




So all children should be subject to genital exams just because a dr should suspect it?

#1 I would think after the chronic problems this child was experiencing the pediatrician should have referred her to a specialist and considered the possibility !

#2 As a parent of a child with this condition I would STOP the BUBBLE BATHS

#3 As a parent I would demand medical attention to FIX the problem and determine the cause

30 trips to the ped? and it NEVER raised a flag.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you for this post....that was one thing I was hung up on....I've heard so many things on these boards...I am glad to hear she probably was not previously sexually abused!
Breezy is totally wrong. A top flight panel of seven pediatric experts consulted on the case almost unanimously agreed that JB had been the victim of prior sexual abuse. And Breezy knows this very well, but she is a rabid Rmsey supporter shutting her eyes to the truth.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by Arizona




Infections of this kind can be caused by many things. To say the dr should have considered sexual abuse is a bit much.

So you feel Patsy took JonBenet to the dr and told the dr "I brought my child here, but I dont care if you cant find and cure the problem?"

Yes. She continued to use bubble bath despite medical advice not to.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Obviously, you were there in the bathroom while JonBenet took those baths, so you'd know that for sure. :rolleyes:

According to Pasty, JonBenet wasn't bathed all that often and how hard is it to REMOVE the bubble bath from the bathroom?

[Athena]

Originally posted by Nancy#1Fan


The only time my child's genitals were ever looked at was when he was an infant.

My son is 17 and his genitals are checked???? My son jokes about it all the time and I am no longer allowed in the exam room now.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by Athena


My son is 17 and his genitals are checked???? My son jokes about it all the time and I am no longer allowed in the exam room now.

How about when he was SIX?

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by Arizona




Where did you quote Patsy as saying JonBenet didnt bathe all that often?

I do recall Patsy or John said JonBenet did not wash her hands very often.

depositions....Patsy couldn't even recall the last time she had bathed. Patsy even took her to the White's Christmas Party without bathing her...........and that was AFTER she had soiled herself

poor child

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Is that your proof Patsy continuted to use bubble bath for JonBenet?

Not just bubble baths cause UTI's are other vaginal problems in little girls - there is more info in the article. Also my daughter has allegies and she could not even take a bath and sit in soapy water. After her bath we'd have to turn on the shower to rinse her well. Even antibiotics can cause irritation. jmo

Vulvar and Vaginal Irritation

While little girls escape foreskin infections, sometimes they do develop irritations of the vulva and vaginal area, leaving the area red and sore. "Prepubertal girls lack estrogen, which protects the mucous membranes of the genital area," explains Nieman, "so it's easier for irritation and inflammation to take place." Going without undies, skipping synthetic panties in favour of cotton, avoiding bubble bath (which can irritate sensitive tissues) and promptly removing wet bathing suits may aid in prevention. If these strategies fail, it's relatively common for doctors to suggest a short-term prescription for a topical estrogen cream. While giving a little girl an adult hormone might sound worrisome, the dose is small, and little is absorbed into the bloodstream.


http://www.todaysparent.com/healthsafety/part/article.jsp?content=4198&page=1

[Athena]

Originally posted by Nancy#1Fan


How about when he was SIX?

I guess I wasn't clear -- since I meant it was still continuing even at the age of 17 -- just had a physical in August.

At every annual physical and if there was a specific complaint then it would be done then as well. He also checked my daughter EVERY physical and of course with specific complaints.

I always thought this was routine - I know it is by our pediatrician.

[Athena]

Originally posted by victims feel
D, the lack of appropriate responding to health concerns is suspect to me for sure...often parents like the R are often NOT suspect for any abuse including sexual. Doctors do nor usually look until the PARENT asks them to look for signs of molestation...so if no word then no look. But 30 time and still using bubble bath reeks of outrageous neglect in my books.

Please point me to something that says all 30 visits were related to her vaginal area???

[Magnolia01]

Happy Saturday all :seeya:

I can say at this point, with a fair amount of certainty a few things I believe:

1. I just CANNOT imagine either J or P pushing a paintstick into JB's vagina, strangling her, NONE of that stuff. Not saying it's impossible! but more improbable if you will.

2. I CAN imagine a curious? jealous? raging? ten year old boy could do the things that were done to JB. I see alot of RAGE in this crime....and yes, I'm thinking of Burke. (and yes, I hate that I think that but I do!)

3. Based on evidence I've read, couldn't have been an intruder. Unless it were an intruder JB knew very well....can't imagine her succumbing to pineapple or a teddy bear or any other kind of "bribe" to get her where he/she/they wanted her. "Oh, she'll eat the pineapple while I'm molesting/killing her?"...nuh uh

4. I think that JB and Burke awoke during the night, maybe looked at their Christmas loot, went to the kitchen, had a snack (pineapple for JB), Burke was furious for as yet some unknown reason. Maybe she got more presents, better presents, more attention etc.? (I have an older brother who was jealous of me as a child and trust me, his anger got out of control and I was threatened more than once that he'd kill me. People tended not to believe that as he seemed SO docile and gentle a person!)

5. I believe that based on several experts opinions, there was proof that JB was molested prior to the night of the murder.

6. I can believe that Burke was playing "Doctor" with JB, it got out of hand.....she started fighting back.....he got angry, threw her against something.....fractured her skull.... Makes sense that all the instruments used were readily available in the home, they were not "expertly" used, more like an experiment gone awry. JR discovered the crime and was working on "fixing" everything when Patsy awoke.

7. J and P tried to protect Burke, and they made feeble attempts to write a note, hide the body, call 911 etc.

8. It's my opinion (not fact based) that MOST parents, upon finding their child like JB was found would KNOW NOT to touch her and get medical assistance ASAP! Most reasonable people know not to move an injured person, unless of course you already KNOW the person is dead. :eek:

9. They lawyered up very quickly because they knew the BPD was looking at SOMEONE inside that home as being the guilty party.

10. J and P were uncooperative. Even one of their best friends, Fleet White, was furious about the way they did not cooperate with investigations, hired lawyers etc.

Soooooo, that's where my thoughts are right now. I think now that Burke is older, he needs to be forced into talking about what he does/doesn't know. I would feel terrible if my thoughts aimed at him right now were totally off base....but I feel worse about the death of JB. Until he talks, I will always believe he played a role in this crime.

For those who think this is offensive, all I can say is this whole case is offensive. God bless JB :rose:

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I always thought it was routine, too. I guess we're just lucky in that we have excellent pediatricians. Too bad not all the posters have ones that are so conscientious!

Guess so MyrDawn. :shrug:

[Athena]

Originally posted by Arizona





:rolleyes:

This is very pathetic. Posting BS like this is why many people feel Patsy may be guilty.

This is the only way people like you know how to make her look guilty.

Patsy couldnt recall the last time JonBenet had bathed? Why dont you post it as it was stated as Patsy did not recall if JonBenet washed her hands or bathed or showered prior to going to bed dec 26th. There is no mention what-so-ever of Patsy saying she could not recall the last time Jonbenet had bathed.



http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/patsy_dep.html

Q. Do you know whether or not JonBenet had either washed her hands or had either bathed or showered prior to going to bed that night at any time on December 25th?

A. I can't recall.

It refers to one day - Christmas Day. I don't see a question where they asked if she bathed on Christmas Eve. When my children were younger they took their baths the night before. In addition to that Christmas Day is an exciting day for most children. Maybe she wasn't with JonBenet with every bathroom visit and doesn't know if she washed her hands. As far as the heart goes if it were drawn with a magic market it might fade with washing of the hands but not necessary come off. Hopefully my children washed their hands after going to the bathroom but I wasn't there. She also was asleep when they got home Christmas night. IMO this proves nothing. :shrug:

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I place very little value on "experts" who never examined the child. Armchair detectives second guessing what someone else observed....JMO

O/T Whatever happened about Dr. CWs multiple indictment on selling cadavers?

TIA

IMO

Ocean:seeya:

[Magnolia01]

Can we please keep the content of this thread at least CLOSE to it's original intention?

:no:

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by rashomon
Every intruder theory is seriously flawed because it doesn't explain the Ramseys' extremely suspicious behavior right from the start. For example, they showed no reaction when the deadline had passed at 10 am. Innocent parents not receiving the promised call from the kidnappers would probably have become frantic with fear, but the Ramseys didn't even comment on it. While waiting for the kidnappers to call, they never stood together to comfort each other, but were in separate rooms. This struck the detectives as pretty odd too.

Despite the ransom note author's threat that their daughter would be beheaded if they talked to anyone, they called tons of people over to their house. This tells me that they knew there had been no kidnapping, for they had written the note themselves.

Their non-cooperation with the police is a red flag too, and doesn't fit with an intruder theory.

The Ramseys' staged scenario doesn't pass the sniffing test. It reeked right from the start.

IMO it reeked because you wanted it to reek.

None of us really know how we would react if we thought we were being accused of the worst crime a parent can be accused of. Is it that the Ramseys were intelligent enough and wealthy enough to know their constitutional rights afforded to all people in this country that bothers you? Why? How would it stop the evidence from coming in and being known?

If LE is accusing me of something that can put me in prison for the rest of my life and even though I am innocent I am not stupid as I know people go to prison for something they did not do. I just saw a case yesterday on Forensic Files where two parents were sent to prison for murdering their daughter. They remained there for five years until it was proven they had been as innocent as they protested every minute from day one.

No family is a cookie cutter family. They grieve in their own way and in their own space ....sometimes it is with a friend sometimes it is with the two of each other.

I find nothing the Ramseys did that shows they had one thing to do with this. Nada and almost 10 years later.........NADA!

I do see whoever much tunnel vision by the inept BPD.

IMO

Ocean

[Athena]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


IMO it reeked because you wanted it to reek.

None of us really know how we would react if we thought we were being accused of the worst crime a parent can be accused of. Is it that the Ramseys were intelligent enough and wealthy enough to know their constitutional rights afforded to all people in this country that bothers you? Why? How would it stop the evidence from coming in and being known?

If LE is accusing me of something that can put me in prison for the rest of my life and even though I am innocent I am not stupid as I know people go to prison for something they did not do. I just saw a case yesterday on Forensic Files where two parents were sent to prison for murdering their daughter. They remained there for five years until it was proven they had been as innocent as they protested every minute from day one.

No family is a cookie cutter family. They grieve in their own way and in their own space ....sometimes it is with a friend sometimes it is with the two of each other.

I find nothing the Ramseys did that shows they had one thing to do with this. Nada and almost 10 years later.........NADA!

I do see whoever much tunnel vision by the inept BPD.

IMO

Ocean

:beer: i totally agree! JMO

[Magnolia01]

ADDITION BY FRESHWATER

In constructing a valid theory the elements (or building blocks) of theory must be consistent with known facts, if applied fit the time line of a case, and speculations be logically deduced from known facts of the case, criminological profiling, investigative teachniques, and stated assumptions about the nature of human motivation. Taken together if these basic steps are taken a plausible theory can be constructed and then debated on the merrits of the blocks that built the theory.

FH20 [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the clarification freshwater :cool:

[Athena]

Originally posted by victims feel
EXACTLY Nancy NEGLIGENCE all around on this one.. 30 visits for one child is outrageous, if they were poor CPS would have pulled that child ages ago...until an investigation said otherwise.

30 trips to a Dr in three years is NOT outrageous and they were all not related incidents -- do you have children? When an illness is diagnosed it usually requires a follow-up visit too!!!

So exactly what is your theory since I've only seen your comments injected into others' posts? Just curious. jmo

[docg]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
Can we please keep the content of this thread at least CLOSE to it's original intention?

:no:

I second the motion. Enough already with the bubble bath. No one will ever know for sure whether or not JonBenet was the victim of prior molestation.

From a legal point of view, however, the chronic vaginal injuries PLUS the fact that John's fibers were found in the victim's private parts plus the lack of any real intruder evidence PLUS the evidence of staging at the basement window PLUS the very serious problems with John's story about breaking the window earlier PLUS the handwriting similarities presented on Brugnatelli's website could be the basis for a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence. What counts is the preponderance of evidence, which IMO points strongly toward John for many reasons.

And by the way, there is NO evidence that anyone penetrated JonBenet's vagina with a paintbrush handle. That would have produced far more bleeding than was found. Birifringement materials from the handle were found in her vagina, probably transferred there via her attacker's finger.

[Magnolia01]

Hi doc!!

I too am curious about that paintbrush handle. I'm trying to remember who came up with that theory. It wasn't in the autopsy report, was it?

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by Arizona



This is new to me about John's fibers being found in JonBenet's private part. Where could I find this information at?


I would like to know this, too. Also, was it determined for certain that JB had been molested chronically? I thought the coroner did not mention that.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Arizona



This is new to me about John's fibers being found in JonBenet's private part. Where could I find this information at?

It not true, it was JUST a question to the ramseys from the keystone cops but nothing was ever shown to them or anyone else that was the case. As we all know cops can legally lie to suspects to get them to "confess".

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by victims feel
The neglect is criminal for sure N. Poor child is right...30 visits in 3 years is still too much for a supposed healthy child in a supposed well to do healthy family....too many visits ..emotional stress brings on many psychosomatic ailments too....

poor Jon Bonet:rose:

Strange that you know more than her doctor does. :rolleyes:

"JonBenet Ramsey's family has provided the district attorney a psychiatrist's videotaped interview with the girl's 10-year-old brother, a pediatrician's records and other information that they contend indicates the family has no history of sexual abuse, a source says.

The family has made Burke Ramsey's interview with the psychiatrist - who was selected by the Boulder County Department of Social Services - and all of JonBenet's medical records available to the prosecutor. They also allowed pediatrician Dr. Francesco Beuf and his nurses to speak with investigators.

"BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - JonBenet Ramsey did not have a history of sexual abuse, the 6-year-old girl's doctor and a family spokesman said after an autopsy indicated she was sexually assaulted and strangled.

Portions of the autopsy released Friday revealed ''chronic inflammation'' of the girl's vagina, ''which could be an indication'' of prior sexual abuse, family spokesman Patrick Korten said. ''In this case, it is not.''

JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the young beauty queen was sexually abused.

''I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse,'' Beuf said in an interview with KUSA-TV in Denver.

''I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse.

"DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of
them were for sinus infections and for colds.
DIANE SAWYER
And by majority you mean?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of
some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep
throats, sinus infections.
DIANE SAWYER
(VO) So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.
(From taped telephone conversation) How many times did you give her
a vaginal examination?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Well, it was five or six times in that three - year period.
DIANE SAWYER
(VO) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might
pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be
warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated
with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps
related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some
indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25
percent of children that age wet the bed. March 1995 -- abdominal
pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem. August 1996 --
another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said
everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this
number of complaints?
(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very
well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable
by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better.
But if you have four - year - old kids, you know how hard that is.
The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally
consistent with little girls her age.
DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER
Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual
abuse?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service
people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are
very acutely aware of.
DIANE SAWYER
(on camera) And some other notes. Dr Beuf says he last saw JonBenet
Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus
infection. A couple of other things. Dr Beuf says he has turned in
people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career,
and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality
changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that
with JonBenet Ramsey.
And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's
records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was
nothing unusual there for a girl her age.
"

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Page 514 - PM/PT - "The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBent's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belong to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."


Thank You!

Sheesh............where in the world does all of these incorrect information posts come from?

Thanks again for stating what "was" actually found.

IMO

Ocean

:seeya:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by victims feel
Excuse me?

If the bubble baths/vaginal irriation are the distraction to sexual abuse and that distrcation is used to cover up abuse that led to her death they are very important to this discussion and I for one will discuss them all I want if I deem them relevant.

The rest I agree with.

12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.)

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Page 514 - PM/PT - "The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBent's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belong to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."

thanks rosy....I sure couldn't remember reading that John's sweater fibers were found there. I appreciate your clarification.

[Magnolia01]

DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.

Says alot to me regarding abuse. He does NOT rule it out.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.

Says alot to me regarding abuse. He does NOT rule it out.

No, he rules out abuses by discerning many factors not just one tidbit. He stated clearly he saw no abuse of JonBenet of any kind. He was very clear.

And he has turned others in when he suspected abuse.

IMO

Ocean

[Magnolia01]

DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure ....

The above statement is enough to leave some reasonable doubt. If you were on a jury, you could NOT dismiss that one sentence.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
DIANE SAWYER
If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have
seen it?
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a
speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under
anesthesia.

Says alot to me regarding abuse. He does NOT rule it out.

OMG so should we *****ume she was even though nothing in her actions, personality a judges opinion or doctors exams say she was. :rolleyes:

No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.)

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure ....

The above statement is enough to leave some reasonable doubt. If you were on a jury, you could NOT dismiss that one sentence.

You could not give it any weight either if you were on that jury...it is not a factual result of anything. It is an unknown so therefore has no weight or validity to it either way.

IMO

Ocean

[Magnolia01]

Are you suggesting his testimony would be thrown out? I beg to differ!

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


I second the motion. Enough already with the bubble bath. No one will ever know for sure whether or not JonBenet was the victim of prior molestation.

From a legal point of view, however, the chronic vaginal injuries PLUS the fact that John's fibers were found in the victim's private parts plus the lack of any real intruder evidence PLUS the evidence of staging at the basement window PLUS the very serious problems with John's story about breaking the window earlier PLUS the handwriting similarities presented on Brugnatelli's website could be the basis for a prosecution based "on circumstantial evidence. What counts is the preponderance of evidence, which IMO points strongly toward John for many reasons.

And by the way, there is NO evidence that anyone penetrated JonBenet's vagina with a paintbrush handle. That would have produced far more bleeding than was found. Birifringement materials from the handle were found in her vagina, probably transferred there via her attacker's finger.

There was no absolute conclusion re: the penetration:

From PMPT:

"Logic suggested that a splinter of wood might have stuck to the perpetrator's finger before JBR was penetraed. It could also have broken off at the end of the paintbrush if the stick was used to penetrate her.

Photographs taken of her injured hymen appeared to be a recent tear, fresh bleeding, no healing. Logic suggested that JBR had been penetrated almost concurrently with her death."

[Magnolia01]

To stick to the absolute facts, here's the page of the autopsy report regarding vaginal trauma. I can't get past the "chronic inflammation" part personally.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html

Here is the other page regarding vaginal trauma, no mention of wood particles, unless I missed it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet4.html

Remember, the devil's in the details!!

[Athena]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
To stick to the absolute facts, here's the page of the autopsy report regarding vaginal trauma. I can't get past the "chronic inflammation" part personally.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html

Here is the other page regarding vaginal trauma, no mention of wood particles, unless I missed it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet4.html

Remember, the devil's in the details!!

I believe your issue is that you are translating "chronic inflammation" into chornic sexual abuse which are two very different diagnoses. Chronic inflamation can come come allergies, frequent UTI's, from antibiotics. It was concluded that the inflammation was not caused by sexual abuse as per the links provided to you above. Sounds like you don't want to get passed it because it conflicts with your theory. JMO

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by Athena


I believe your issue is that you are translating "chronic inflammation" into chornic sexual abuse which are two very different diagnoses. Chronic inflamation can come come allergies, frequent UTI's, from antibiotics. It was concluded that the inflammation was not caused by sexual abuse as per the links provided to you above. Sounds like you don't want to get passed it because it conflicts with your theory. JMO

Can you point to me where on the autopsy report states "inflammation not caused by sexual abuse"?

[bullmoose]

I do not know if Jonbenet was sexually abused over time; I cannot rule it out. I also cannot rule out periodic alien abduction of Jonbenet; flying saucers have been sighted all over the place, including over Boulder. Some people will dismiss the idea as ridiculous, but it is truly impossible to prove to everybodies satisfaction that it didn't. Such is also the case with the issue of sexual abuse. It is impossible to prove it didn't happen even in the face of a total lack of evidance to many, because of the underlying belief some have that the Ramseys must be guilty. I do not believe there was anything more sinister going on than Patsy Ramsey using the excellant health insurance that the Ramseys had to keep a close watch on her daughters asthma and urinary infections. When my daughter at that age had similar problems, we were told to give her cranberry juice to clear up the problem. I think it was something about the PH balance in her urinary tract; whatever, it worked. Obviously, we didn't have as good insurance. bullmoose

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
Are you suggesting his testimony would be thrown out? I beg to differ!

Absolutely not! His opinion would be that he thinks JonBenet was not a victim of chronic abuse and that the entire time he saw her he saw nothing to suggest that she was.

Since the autopsy report says the hymen was injured the night she was murdered further supports the Pediatrician's opinion that JB was not abused prior to the events around the time of her death. Two opinions agree that she was not abused prior to, her own doctor and the ME.

Other independent Doctors agreed with JBs own Pediatrician. There was nothing proving the inflammation was caused by sexual abuse. Many little girls have chronic inflammation at JBs age and it has nothing at all to do with abuse.

And the notion that she is to be abused but yet Patsy takes her to see a Pediatrician 30 times for various ailments is foolish thinking imo. When a child is being abused sexually they are not taken to a doctor so that the doctor can see it and notate the change in personality of the child and other factors they are trained to watch out for.

IMO

Ocean

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I do not know if Jonbenet was sexually abused over time; I cannot rule it out. I also cannot rule out periodic alien abduction of Jonbenet; flying saucers have been sighted all over the place, including over Boulder. Some people will dismiss the idea as ridiculous, but it is truly impossible to prove to everybodies satisfaction that it didn't. Such is also the case with the issue of sexual abuse. It is impossible to prove it didn't happen even in the face of a total lack of evidance to many, because of the underlying belief some have that the Ramseys must be guilty. I do not believe there was anything more sinister going on than Patsy Ramsey using the excellant health insurance that the Ramseys had to keep a close watch on her daughters asthma and urinary infections. When my daughter at that age had similar problems, we were told to give her cranberry juice to clear up the problem. I think it was something about the PH balance in her urinary tract; whatever, it worked. Obviously, we didn't have as good insurance. bullmoose


Exactly, bullmoose. One of my daughters consistently had bladder infections and still does in her 20's. We were always making a trip to the pediatrician. Along with the antibiotics she was told to drink cranberry juice. I don't think that many trips to the ped. was unusual at all....no way.

[girlinterrupted]

Originally posted by Athena


30 trips to a Dr in three years is NOT outrageous and they were all not related incidents -- do you have children? When an illness is diagnosed it usually requires a follow-up visit too!!!


Exactly! As a child, I went to the doctor at least 1-4 times per month for several years due to chronic urinary and kidney infections. Otherwise, I was a very healthy child.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by girlinterrupted


Exactly! As a child, I went to the doctor at least 1-4 times per month for several years due to chronic urinary and kidney infections. Otherwise, I was a very healthy child.

Believe me. If they were abusing their child or someone in the family was.........the last place on earth they would take them to would be to a Pediatrician.

They never take chances. Many times that is why a little abused child is very sickly as they have had no physicals or medical care from any doctors. Child abusers protect themselves at all times and the child is not given adequate care and attention by any outsider especially a Pediatrician trained to spot such abuses.

IMO

Ocean

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Exactly

Patsy's explanation about taking her to the doctor was (paraphrasing) "We had good insurance. When she was sick, why not take her to the doctor?"

How true and how many of us ever counted up how many times we took our children? We took them when they needed care...that could be three times in one week or every month or so. When they needed it we saw that it was done.

No abuser is going to expose themselves to the risk of detection and take their "abused" child to a doctor. THAT child will not get the care needed no matter what is wrong with them. As the abuser is about themselves and their secret that they will protect at all cost.

IMO

Ocean

[Arizona]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


Believe me. If they were abusing their child or someone in the family was.........the last place on earth they would take them to would be to a Pediatrician.

They never take chances. Many times that is why a little abused child is very sickly as they have had no physicals or medical care from any doctors. Child abusers protect themselves at all times and the child is not given adequate care and attention by any outsider especially a Pediatrician trained to spot such abuses.

IMO

Ocean



Good pont Ocean. But somehow I feel no matter the number of times Patsy took JonBenet (too few or too many) there would be some evil to it for some.

[bullmoose]

Absolutely, Arizona; as with the then BPD, when you have tunnel vision you turn any evidence to be proof of your foregone conclusion. bullmoose

[Athena]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
DR FRANCESCO BEUF
Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure ....

The above statement is enough to leave some reasonable doubt. If you were on a jury, you could NOT dismiss that one sentence.

You are kidding right? I've served on quite a few cases and I can assure you re: expert testimony. You have one that speaks for the State and the other that speaks for the Defense.

Unfortunately much expert testimony is a waste due to that fact. that each will say whatever their side wants them to say. For every negative there is a positive and their testimony becomes a wash. The only way that expert testimony is reliable is when there is a general consensus among all of them. Same here.

The reason Dr. Beuf could not be absolutely certain is because he didn't have to follow any procedures where child abuse is suspected because he had no reason to suspect there was. A juror would have picked up on that as well. jmo

[harz]

Anyone see this theory?
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/nebula/9337/canvas.html
It very interesting, if Patsy wrote the ransom note, then it would make sense John didn't know if he was one who gave the notepads & sharpie pens to police. Patsy would have been very ashamed if John were to find out what actually happened. Too bad we cannot ask Patsy about it today.

[Magnolia01]

ok ok OK, enough already!!....let's just PRETEND for just a moment that Patsy had NO inkling that JB might be being abused?

Just think about that for a moment before you reply, please.

[joanw_123]

Originally posted by watson
I'm going to go out on a limb here and just post a new and to some, radical view of this crime that IMO is based on the evidence and not on the early and incorrect interpretations of LE and the media, which have colored the case since. I think the reason this case never got solved was that these early mis-interpretations and assumptions sent this case off in the wrong dircetions and have led people to think of it only in those terms ever since. So, here goes, I'd be happy to back up or discuss any of these conclusions with proof among the evidence.
1.) The killer was planning on killing JB for some time prior to Dec.25th.
2.) The ransom letter was written hours, days, weeks, BEFORE the murder, as pre planned staging.
3.) JB's murder was actually a planned, ruthless execution of this little girl.
4.) The killer probably didn't plan to committ the crime that night but later the same week.
5.) There is no sign AT ALL that a pedophile did this crime.
6.) There is no sign AT ALL of the crime begin done in anger.
7.) The murder was cold blooded, passionless, deliberate, premeditated and well planned and thought out BEFORE the crime.
8.) Clear indications in the evidence have gone on mostly missed by everyone for 10 years, such as the murder cord was in fact a pair of shoe laces, and the so called 'garotte' was indeed a slip knot noose.
9.) The killers plan of execution murder covered by a fake kidnapping was ruined when the police arrived with the body still on the scene, this was NOT part of the killers plan.
Like I said, I'd be happy to discuss or prove any of these conclusions (space limited here).

5. I'm not sure how you conclude it wasn't done by a pedophile. There's evidence of her vagina being tampered with.
6. I'm surprised you think there was no anger involved. She had an 8" crack in her little skull. I think that was RAGE!

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by Magnolia01
ok ok OK, enough already!!....let's just PRETEND for just a moment that Patsy had NO inkling that JB might be being abused?

Just think about that for a moment before you reply, please.

I dont have to PRETEND.....there is nothing showing that Patsy Ramsey knew JB was being abused. Imo I dont think anyone abused JB before the night she died.

I have waited 5 minutes ............now what?:confused:

IMO

Ocean

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by joanw_123


5. I'm not sure how you conclude it wasn't done by a pedophile. There's evidence of her vagina being tampered with.
6. I'm surprised you think there was no anger involved. She had an 8" crack in her little skull. I think that was RAGE!

While I certainly do not agree with Watson's theory that it cant be a pedophile I do agree with them that imo I think this was a carried through murder, more methodical, goal oriented than passion or rage.

I think he hit her as hard as he could to merely end her life. Like a brutal person without a conscience that whacks defenseless animals in the head with one ferocious blow. Now he could have been angered at her I suppose if he thought she was dying much quicker than he wanted her too from the garrotte.........but passionate anger...for JB, I just don't see it.

I think this killer is cold as ice.

IMO

Ocean

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


I dont have to PRETEND.....there is nothing showing that Patsy Ramsey knew JB was being abused. Imo I dont think anyone abused JB before the night she died.

I have waited 5 minutes ............now what?:confused:

IMO

Ocean

You answered it best! There WAS NO inkling that JB had been previously "abused". That is exactly why Patsy never mentioned it to the pede., that is exactly why the pede. never investigated....he even admitted that he never followed that lead nor even suspected it.

Now, I'm willing to admit that it is possible it could have been John Ramsey....if there's more proof....but it's the rage in what was done to Jon Benet that lends itself to a theory of the brother perpetrating the crime.

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by joanw_123


5. I'm not sure how you conclude it wasn't done by a pedophile. There's evidence of her vagina being tampered with.
6. I'm surprised you think there was no anger involved. She had an 8" crack in her little skull. I think that was RAGE!

It wasn't until I read the autopsy report and viewed the autopsy photos that I realized this was a crime of "passion" and I use that term loosely....all inclusive of the word "rage". Anyone can read about the skull fracture, but until they have looked at that photograph, you just can't grasp the concept. It WAS rage.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by Magnolia01


You answered it best! There WAS NO inkling that JB had been previously "abused". That is exactly why Patsy never mentioned it to the pede., that is exactly why the pede. never investigated....he even admitted that he never followed that lead nor even suspected it.

Now, I'm willing to admit that it is possible it could have been John Ramsey....if there's more proof....but it's the rage in what was done to Jon Benet that lends itself to a theory of the brother perpetrating the crime.

The brother is a dead end street. Believe me as tunnel visioned as the BPD was.... to come out and say Burke was no longer a suspect had to gall them no end Im sure but they simply had nothing on this 9 year old kid who probably was a very nerdy and naive kid.:shrug:

I dont see rage........I see cold and determined.

IMO

Ocean

[Magnolia01]

You mean the killer was cold and determined? Sorry, not quite getting what you're trying to say?

(ps: thanks for discussing this with me instead of flaming/baiting me....we can all agree to disagree. This is a fact finding mission, not a debate! I think we all just want to find out the truth here, though I'm not sure we ever will :()

[Devotion]

Originally posted by breezy1234


12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.)

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

:read: IMO: Taken from www.acandyrose.com, the following:
SMF 44; PSMF 44.) Moreover, both parties agree the autopsy report reveals injury to JonBenet's genitalia consistent with a sexual assault shortly before her death. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.)

[Magnolia01]

Hi Devotion....I'm with you in that I do believe the sexual assault took place; however, I'm very skeptical about using the below mentioned case for reference.

I'm just not so sure that all of the testimony in that case reflects accurate data? Just not sure?? Not questioning you personally at all!! Just the information in that case as may be relevant to JB murder. Do you know more about the below civil case that might enlighten me? I'll continue reading up on it though it is rather lengthy!! ;)

Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case 1:00-CV-1187-JEC
Carnes Order March 31, 2003 (Page 11 thru 20)

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Devotion


:read: IMO: Taken from www.acandyrose.com, the following:
SMF 44; PSMF 44.) Moreover, both parties agree the autopsy report reveals injury to JonBenet's genitalia consistent with a sexual assault shortly before her death. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.)

Yes...................and, your point?

[Devotion]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magnolia01
To stick to the absolute facts, here's the page of the autopsy report regarding vaginal trauma. I can't get past the "chronic inflammation" part personally.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html

Here is the other page regarding vaginal trauma, no mention of wood particles, unless I missed it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet4.html

Remember, the devil's in the details!! [/
QUOTE]
:read: IMO: I have finished reading Dr. Cyril Wecht's book, Who killed JonBenet Ramsey.
Wecht does not believe that the evidence supports the notion that an intruder perpetrated JonB's murder.

The following is taken from his book,

"I have learned that the police called in three separate child sexual abuse experts," he reports. "They separately and independently came to the same conclusion that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. Not that I needed anybody to hold my hand, but for saying that same thing I took abuse on national television from self-appointed Ramsey defenders and sycophants. But it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, a little girl with half of the hymen gone and she's dead, and you've got a tiny abrasion, a tiny contusion and a chronic inflammation of vaginal mucosa. That means it happened more than 72 hours earlier; we don't know how long, or how often it was repeated, but chronic means it wasn't from that night. This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."
my opinion & taken from the book

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Devotion
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magnolia01
To stick to the absolute facts, here's the page of the autopsy report regarding vaginal trauma. I can't get past the "chronic inflammation" part personally.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html

Here is the other page regarding vaginal trauma, no mention of wood particles, unless I missed it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet4.html

Remember, the devil's in the details!! [/
QUOTE]
:read: IMO: I have finished reading Dr. Cyril Wecht's book, Who killed JonBenet Ramsey.
Wecht does not believe that the evidence supports the notion that an intruder perpetrated JonB's murder.

The following is taken from his book,

"I have learned that the police called in three separate child sexual abuse experts," he reports. "They separately and independently came to the same conclusion that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. Not that I needed anybody to hold my hand, but for saying that same thing I took abuse on national television from self-appointed Ramsey defenders and sycophants. But it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, a little girl with half of the hymen gone and she's dead, and you've got a tiny abrasion, a tiny contusion and a chronic inflammation of vaginal mucosa. That means it happened more than 72 hours earlier; we don't know how long, or how often it was repeated, but chronic means it wasn't from that night. This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."
my opinion & taken from the book

Moreover, both parties agree the autopsy report reveals injury to JonBenet's genitalia consistent with a sexual assault shortly before her death. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.)

The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.)

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

[Devotion]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Yes, that is what it says.
:read: imo:
Is "acandyrose" about the Wolf vs Ramsey civil case??
SMF - Statement of Material Fact
PSMF - Plaintiff's Statement of Material Fact
PSDMF - Plaintiff's Statement Disputing Material Fact
Dep - Deposition
Def's - Defendants/Defense
Why was such a unsual name for a case in a murder case??..jmo: shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Devotion

:read: imo:
Is "acandyrose" about the Wolf vs Ramsey civil case??
SMF - Statement of Material Fact
PSMF - Plaintiff's Statement of Material Fact
PSDMF - Plaintiff's Statement Disputing Material Fact
Dep - Deposition
Def's - Defendants/Defense
Why was such a unsual name for a case in a murder case??..jmo: shrug:

It is just a site that has the documents. :shrug:

[SpazySazzyRazzy]

Originally posted by rashomon

Breezy is totally wrong. A top flight panel of seven pediatric experts consulted on the case almost unanimously agreed that JB had been the victim of prior sexual abuse. And Breezy knows this very well, but she is a rabid Rmsey supporter shutting her eyes to the truth.


Personally I don't care what a top flight of drs who consulted on the case believe. Did they consult as talking heads? I must have missed their ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY opinion.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by SpazySazzyRazzy



Personally I don't care what a top flight of drs who consulted on the case believe. Did they consult as talking heads? I must have missed their ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY opinion.

The ones I care about where the ones that had seen this child. either when living or when she was autopsied.

A talking head is just that .......a talking head.....and usually are wanting to write books and usually sensationalize their POV and slant to gather readers.

IMO

Ocean

[Magnolia01]

I am hesitant to use the documents regarding Wolf vs. Ramsey as a building/supporting block for the murder case of JB. Wolf v. Ramsey is a civil case regarding defamation. It just happens to have alot of information about Jon Benet Ramsey that has been gleaned from many sources. Those sources are not necessarily building blocks for the murder case since alot of information is based on the Judge's opinions.

It makes for an informative and interesting read though :D

[Athena]

If parents are really observant of their children and I believe Patsy was one, I see no reason to believe that Patsy would have at least suspected JonBenet of being abused if she had been or something would have thrown a red flag up for a Pediatrician.

This is just an opinion based on an experience that I had:

I have a niece that was in foster care (I am not going into any personal details). As her Aunt I was allowed visitation and was able to bring her home on weekends. I remember very vividly how I had run water for my niece's bath and when I put her in the bathtub she sat down and then jumped up and told me "she hurt" and started crying. Needless to say I was alarmed. I had no reason to believe that the foster home she was in was abusing her but I was not taking any chances. I proceeded to wash her while she was standing up and after the bath I examined her genitals (by no means am I a Doctor). I just noticed that she appeared red and irritated and having a daughter older than her I had never seen anything like it.

I made an appointment with my Pediatrician and took her the next morning. I had permission to obtain emergency medical care for her. Upon examination he did agree that her vulva was abnormal but it did not mean she was sexually abused however because she was not his patient, the fact that she was in foster care and not in my custody he was extremely reluctant to examine her further. He suggested I contact Social Services who was in charge of the foster care she was receiving. I did.

I took her to that afternoon and a Social Worker met me there. I was not in the room so I have no idea what the findings were nor would they tell me. This turned into a court case and I am not going further on it except to say my niece was removed from these foster parents and it was determined that she had been abused but the hymen was still in tact so did not appear to be penal penetration. (Thank God).

My point is if a child is being chronically sexually abused I do not believe for one second that it cannot be at least suspected unless a parent or caregiver is in total denial.

JMO

[nutmeg22]

On the subject that we were discussing yesterday of John wanting to fly immediately to Atlanta and me wondering why he would not demand some protection for his family or be worried about his other children, especially Burke...after reading some more of PMPT, I see that the Ramseys were fearful of letting Burke return to school in January. They had hired security and also had the school monitor Burke whenever he was on the playground or wherever he was at school. This seems to be a very normal reaction to what had happened to JonBenet.

[jerzeegirl]

but was john fearful of burkes life or was he protecting him from the media. I mean, both should have been a concern but im wondering what john was thinking.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
but was john fearful of burkes life or was he protecting him from the media. I mean, both should have been a concern but im wondering what john was thinking.


You make a good point, jerzeegirl, and I was so sleepy last night when I was reading, I will have to go back and find the pages that described Burke's return to school. Back later.

[nutmeg22]

I am paraphrasing here, it seems that the principal of Burke's school felt he, Burke, should be back in class toward the end of January. The Ramseys, especially Patsy, were very concerned about Burke's safety AND also the issue of the media being able to contact him at school. She felt that whoever had murdered JonBenet, might also be after Burke and she couldn't stand to lose another child. Even parents at his school volunteered to stand guard outside Burke's classroom!
so you are right, jerzeegirl, it was both a safety issue and an attempt to shield Burke from the media. At the same time, the author of PMPT makes the point that that the BPD felt that if the parents were trying to hide something and Burke may know something, why would they let him go back to school where he would be able to speak freely to anyone about what had happened. This is the author's take on how the police and FBI felt about Burke being back in school.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


No, he rules out abuses by discerning many factors not just one tidbit. He stated clearly he saw no abuse of JonBenet of any kind. He was very clear.

And he has turned others in when he suspected abuse.

IMO

Ocean

Do you really think that at that point in time he had any reason to check for "suspected abuse?" I'm sure he turned in others for it but I would be willing to bet that none of them were from affluent families. The fact that she had redness in her vaginal area and irritation was suspect, don't you think? But explain it away as it was caused from bubble baths. Easy enough. IMO
Nobody wants to think wealthy people can or will abuse their children. That's the kind of thing "poor folk do". I think that the Ramseys doctor is biased. Wouldn't look right for him now to say he could have been wrong because he never even really considered JB may have been abused.
Interesting that he locked all of JB's medical records away in a safety deposit box once the investigation began. (Source: Death of Innocence)

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Do you really think that at that point in time he had any reason to check for "suspected abuse?" I'm sure he turned in others for it but I would be willing to bet that none of them were from affluent families. The fact that she had redness in her vaginal area and irritation was suspect, don't you think? But explain it away as it was caused from bubble baths. Easy enough. IMO
Nobody wants to think wealthy people can or will abuse their children. That's the kind of thing "poor folk do". I think that the Ramseys doctor is biased. Wouldn't look right for him now to say he could have been wrong because he never even really considered JB may have been abused.
Interesting that he locked all of JB's medical records away in a safety deposit box once the investigation began. (Source: Death of Innocence)

No, it is not suspect. There are many reasons a little girl can have inflammation or redness in that area........it is hysterical to assume all of the time it is done from abuse. Look at what that would do to decent mothers and fathers who have done no such thing but are trying their level best to give their child the utmost medical attention? There must be supporting factors.

And one of the main glaring factors of children who are sexually abused is they are not taken to a doctor where the abuser runs a risk of detection. They don't even get normal medical care. I just read an article months back where women who were abused as children are more sickly than an adult female who was not abused and they said one of the main factors was that these type of children are medically neglected as the abuser is about protecting themselves at all cost to the children's health'.

IMO

Ocean

[Athena]

Originally posted by Devotion

:read: imo:
Is "acandyrose" about the Wolf vs Ramsey civil case??
SMF - Statement of Material Fact
PSMF - Plaintiff's Statement of Material Fact
PSDMF - Plaintiff's Statement Disputing Material Fact
Dep - Deposition
Def's - Defendants/Defense
Why was such a unsual name for a case in a murder case??..jmo: shrug:

You haven't looked at it? It is webpage that has ALL of the transcripts that are available on the Ramsey case period including the ones you describe above. Why don't you look at the page and you can see it yourself.

http://www.acandyrose.com

[Athena]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


No, it is not suspect. There are many reasons a little girl can have inflammation or redness in that area........it is hysterical to assume all of the time it is done from abuse. Look at what that would do to decent mothers and fathers who have done no such thing but are trying their level best to give their child the utmost medical attention? There must be supporting factors.

And one of the main glaring factors of children who are sexually abused is they are not taken to a doctor where the abuser runs a risk of detection. They don't even get normal medical care. I just read an article months back where women who were abused as children are more sickly than an adult female who was not abused and they said one of the main factors was that these type of children are medically neglected as the abuser is about protecting themselves at all cost to the children's health'.

IMO

Ocean

I concur. And for a mother to have taken a child for irritation in the vaginal area on more than a couple of occasions certainly does not reflect a mother who is afraid of what a Dr may find. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Do you really think that at that point in time he had any reason to check for "suspected abuse?" I'm sure he turned in others for it but I would be willing to bet that none of them were from affluent families. The fact that she had redness in her vaginal area and irritation was suspect, don't you think? But explain it away as it was caused from bubble baths. Easy enough. IMO
Nobody wants to think wealthy people can or will abuse their children. That's the kind of thing "poor folk do". I think that the Ramseys doctor is biased. Wouldn't look right for him now to say he could have been wrong because he never even really considered JB may have been abused.
Interesting that he locked all of JB's medical records away in a safety deposit box once the investigation began. (Source: Death of Innocence)

As much information that was leaked in this case including theft and break-ins; he was wise to lock them up. They could be subpoenead as well - so - so what he locked them up. jmo

[watson]

Who ever first posted the link of the civil suit Wolf v. Ramsey...thanks. BUT this case DOESN'T say JB was NOT 'chronically sexually abused' prior to the crime as is being mis-understood here! It just says that in this civil case the judge found NO PROOF sufficent for a court of law TO PROVE that the Ramsey's did it, or to PROVE in a court of law she was being abused. It DOES NOT say it was PROVED that she was not being abused!
This case was about that at some point the Ramsey's went of tv and said that a Boulder man Robert Wolf may have done the crime. Wolf sued the Ramsey's for libel claiming they ruined his reputation, but he stupidily made the basis of his suit, that the Ramsey's knew their statement about him was false, because THEY did it. To win his case then, he would have to prove in court the Ramsey's did the crime! (Something we all know is impossible for lack of uncontaminated evidence). Worse his 'proof' the Ramsey's did it, was discredited Boulder former detective Steve Thomas's book and the Ramsey's own tv statements. On the Ramsey's motion the judge through the case out of court (summary disposition), saying Thomas's book, the case facts contained therein, and their statements couldn't PROVE by law, the Ramsey's did the crime. THAT'S IT.
Somewhere in the written opinion (the PMDF format would not come up fully for me), the judge mentioned the alleged prior ongoing sexual abuse, and from the quote above said there was no LEGAL EVIDENCE submitted to the court to PROVE it. The court DID NOT rule such abuse DID NOT HAPPEN.
The clues of LIKELY abuse....the missing hymen, the vaginal scarring, the many doctors visits, the bed urination and defecation, the proven abuse on the night of the murder...still REMAIN. IMO any good LE or medical textbook will tell you these are clues of likely abuse, they do not PROVE it, nor are they LEGAL evidence........just clues and indications that she was possibly or likely being abused.

[Magnolia01]

Hope you have better luck than I have trying to explain this Watson. Thanks for more detail!!

[MissOtisRegrets]

JonBenet was sexually abused that night AFTER the decision was made to kill her. The paintbrush had already been broken, when she was penetrated.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


No, he rules out abuses by discerning many factors not just one tidbit. He stated clearly he saw no abuse of JonBenet of any kind. He was very clear.

And he has turned others in when he suspected abuse.

IMO

Ocean

He NEVER looked! JonBenet was a little actress taught to PREFORM on stage...how the hell would her pediatrician know anything about a change in personality?

He was obviously covering his own ass.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by watson
Who ever first posted the link of the civil suit Wolf v. Ramsey...thanks. BUT this case DOESN'T say JB was NOT 'chronically sexually abused' prior to the crime as is being mis-understood here! It just says that in this civil case the judge found NO PROOF sufficent for a court of law TO PROVE that the Ramsey's did it, or to PROVE in a court of law she was being abused. It DOES NOT say it was PROVED that she was not being abused!
This case was about that at some point the Ramsey's went of tv and said that a Boulder man Robert Wolf may have done the crime. Wolf sued the Ramsey's for libel claiming they ruined his reputation, but he stupidily made the basis of his suit, that the Ramsey's knew their statement about him was false, because THEY did it. To win his case then, he would have to prove in court the Ramsey's did the crime! (Something we all know is impossible for lack of uncontaminated evidence). Worse his 'proof' the Ramsey's did it, was discredited Boulder former detective Steve Thomas's book and the Ramsey's own tv statements. On the Ramsey's motion the judge through the case out of court (summary disposition), saying Thomas's book, the case facts contained therein, and their statements couldn't PROVE by law, the Ramsey's did the crime. THAT'S IT.
Somewhere in the written opinion (the PMDF format would not come up fully for me), the judge mentioned the alleged prior ongoing sexual abuse, and from the quote above said there was no LEGAL EVIDENCE submitted to the court to PROVE it. The court DID NOT rule such abuse DID NOT HAPPEN.
The clues of LIKELY abuse....the missing hymen, the vaginal scarring, the many doctors visits, the bed urination and defecation, the proven abuse on the night of the murder...still REMAIN. IMO any good LE or medical textbook will tell you these are clues of likely abuse, they do not PROVE it, nor are they LEGAL evidence........just clues and indications that she was possibly or likely being abused.

excellent post

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by Nancy#1Fan


He NEVER looked! JonBenet was a little actress taught to PREFORM on stage...how the hell would her pediatrician know anything about a change in personality?

He was obviously covering his own ass.

They are trained to spot such things.

And you have no factual support to your statements Nancy. None.

And saying you know what his intentions were is also without factual basis.

Pediatricians report their suspicions of child abuse all the time. They are required by law to do so.

He had no reason to do an internal exam of a 3-4-5 year old child. For that to be done on a small girl, she must be sedated.

IMO

Ocean

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by watson
just clues and indications that she was possibly or likely being abused.

I do not agree. It doesn't give more weight to JB being abused...far from it imo. If there is not sufficient evidence to show abuse there just isn't. It does not mean "more likely" that she was.

It has not been proven and I believe the reason that is ....because it never occurred.

If every parent has to face these false accusations if their child God forbid has genital inflammation or is not wiping themselves properly and they dare take them to a doctor for medical care then maybe it will mean something. Because it is a common problem for little girls.

Frankly I think it is a foolish and dangerous assumption. They take them often to the Pediatrician and knowing at any time he/she can do an in depth physical exam if he/she wanted? And you think that is logical for an abuser to do that or to allow that be done? To create a history and documentation on such "abused":rolleyes: child?? Imo, that borders on the absurd.

IMO

Ocean

[thesestars]

Hello Everyone,

I'm new here, and I have been enjoying all the different points of view and theories on who killed Jonbenet. Of course, like the rest of you, I have my theory...

... I got my money on Burke. I think he accidently killed Jonbenet in a fit of anger; Patsey may or may not have been present,

... but when Patsey discovered the mishap she followed her motherly instincts to protect both Burke and the family reputation, then

... she clevely contrived the ransome note to throw suspicion away from the family, and

... John following her orders, assisted in staging the bizaar crime scene.

As far as the BPD, well upside down cowboys comes to mind. I think they were just intimidated by the Ramseys' wealthly status; and their incompetence was due only to their lack of experience in investigating homicides, as well as their lack of up-to-date knowledge on how cases of missing children are to be investigated at the onset.

I think one day, Burke's behavior will again get the best of him, only this time with a girlfriend or wife, who won't be devoted on protecting him, and the truth will be known.

just another opinon

[MissOtisRegrets]

Hello Thesestars! The problem with that is that JonBenet was alive both at the time she was struck on the head and when the cord was tied around her neck. Therefore, neither could be a cover-up for her having been killed by the other.

[TuscanDreams]

I think that Patsy pushed JonBenet against a hard surface, like the sink in her bathroom. Then, she thought she was dead and staged the crime scene.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by TuscanDreams
I think that Patsy pushed JonBenet against a hard surface, like the sink in her bathroom. Then, she thought she was dead and staged the crime scene.

Then, why the ridiclously elaborate cover up and ransom note? Why not just say she found JonBenet on the bathroom floor, and JonBenet must have tripped and fallen and hit her head? Bathroom accidents are very common, and it would have aroused much less suspicion than that elaborate staging did.

[Nancy#1Fan]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


They are trained to spot such things.

And you have no factual support to your statements Nancy. None.

And saying you know what his intentions were is also without factual basis.

Pediatricians report their suspicions of child abuse all the time. They are required by law to do so.

He had no reason to do an internal exam of a 3-4-5 year old child. For that to be done on a small girl, she must be sedated.

IMO

Ocean

Do you have ANY idea the vast number of 6 year old girls that are sexually abused every year?

Most go undetected by their.... non abusing parent, teachers, and pediatricians!

Truth is, without significant visible external trauma or a self report no one can tell.

I am not saying that she WAS sexually abused on a regular basis. What I am saying is, her pediatrician certainly doesn't know, cause he never considered it.

[jmgos1]

What ever became of the notes Fleet was taking that morning?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by hohum


MONEY. He was jealous of the MONEY. And Priscilla was jealous of Patsy. Guess you never heard about that either.

Too much time spent on the pigtails. :lol:

Fleet was worth a LOT more than John. Why would he want another piddly six million? That's really not a LOT of money. Enough, but not a lot.

Priscilla was a beautiful woman in 1996. Why would she be jealous of Patsy?

No one I've ever heard of in this case had their hair in pigtails.

That doesn't hold up at all.

JMO

[jmgos1]

Originally posted by jmgos1
What ever became of the notes Fleet was taking that morning?

Forgot to add this was said by John Ramsey during his June 23, 1998 interview. 0178 starting on line 19

[rashomon]

Originally posted by SpazySazzyRazzy

Personally I don't care what a top flight of drs who consulted on the case believe. Did they consult as talking heads? I must have missed their ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY opinion.
These top flight doctors (among them a world-renowned pediatric expert on sexual child abuse) were not talking heads, but had examined slides of the damaged vaginal tissue of JB. And they almost unanimously agreed that the forensic evidence points to chronic sexual abuse:
JB's hymen was only represented by a rim of tissue going from the two to ten o'clock position, with thickening at the seven o'clock position. Irregularity at the edges of the hymen could be observed, the vaginal orifice measured one centimeter, which is twice as large for a child of JB's age. Parts of the vagina which are normally protected (the rugae) were exposed, and there was overall reddening and inflammation of the vaginal walls.

[amill]

I was reading the ransom note on the suspicious documents thread and something interesting caught my eye. In the first sentence I believe it says 'we' than a little farther down it says 'foreign'. Maybe I'm looking into this too much but maybe John Mark Karr did have some involvement in JonBenet's murder. Perhaps there was another person involved in this murder and JMK and this other person were inside the house and they both killed JB, this could easily explain the DNA not matching up with JMK, meaning that the other person (if there was one) is the one that murdered JB and JMK was so obsessed with her he is trying to take the wrap for it and trying to become 'a star' for lack of better terms.

Why the 'foreign' caught my eye is this, didn't JMK live in Bangkok when he was flown back to the US? If so, here is my theory: JMK had all of this planned out, he was so fascinated with children (a pervert) and fascinated with JonBenet Ramsey that he and possibly someone else killed JB, wrote the ransom note and JMK knew that he was going to go overseas so he wouldn't get caught and so that he would severe ties with this other person. Maybe JMK hired this person to help him kill JB, or maybe this other person is involved with the Ramsey family, perhaps a distant relative, that really doesn't have any direct contact with the family, easily explaining the exact amount of John Ramsey's bonus at work, just a thought.

I understand the JMK lived in the states for a while after this murder took place but it's all just wierd, the ransom note is odd to say the least, almost fictious and made up/fake.

All IMOO

[trt]

Originally posted by amill

I understand the JMK lived in the states for a while after this murder took place but it's all just wierd, the ransom note is odd to say the least, almost fictious and made up/fake.

All IMOO [/B]

I agree that the ransom note is made up, which is why I don't think any intruder would have any reason for doing so. As someone else pointed out, it couldn't be to *buy* time, because an intruder would have had to be pretty comfortable in the house to write a ransom note and a practice note before that, spend time finding and making things with which to carry out his crime, and taking the time to actually do his deed in the home.

If it were to throw off the family, then why leave a note at all, a tangible piece of evidence that *could* possibly be traced back to himself/herself.

I also don't think that there were two people because of the lack of DNA/forensic evidence of just *one* person, it would be virtually impossible for two people to be so neat and *lucky* to not transfer any evidence to the body or surrounding it. I understand that the crime scene was compromised, but it would take a lot of compromising to get rid of forensic evidence from *two* people who had spent a considerable amount of time in the Ramsey home, either before they got home or while they were asleep.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

These top flight doctors (among them a world-renowned pediatric expert on sexual child abuse) were not talking heads, but had examined slides of the damaged vaginal tissue of JB. And they almost unanimously agreed that the forensic evidence points to chronic sexual abuse:
JB's hymen was only represented by a rim of tissue going from the two to ten o'clock position, with thickening at the seven o'clock position. Irregularity at the edges of the hymen could be observed, the vaginal orifice measured one centimeter, which is twice as large for a child of JB's age. Parts of the vagina which are normally protected (the rugae) were exposed, and there was overall reddening and inflammation of the vaginal walls.

Link please. TIA

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by rashomon

These top flight doctors (among them a world-renowned pediatric expert on sexual child abuse) were not talking heads, but had examined slides of the damaged vaginal tissue of JB. And they almost unanimously agreed that the forensic evidence points to chronic sexual abuse:
JB's hymen was only represented by a rim of tissue going from the two to ten o'clock position, with thickening at the seven o'clock position. Irregularity at the edges of the hymen could be observed, the vaginal orifice measured one centimeter, which is twice as large for a child of JB's age. Parts of the vagina which are normally protected (the rugae) were exposed, and there was overall reddening and inflammation of the vaginal walls.

You mean the BPD and DA shared actual slides of the tissue that came from JBR????

All of the above information was listed in the autopsy report except the ME did not say that JB was a victim of prior sexual abuse. He was the one that saw her.......not some talking head reading his autopsy report.

When were they given these actual slides of the damaged tissue? I find that far fetched that the DA would be sharing such evidence with just anyone.:shrug:

IMO

Ocean

[nutmeg22]

Rashomon, can you tell us where you got the information about the experts viewing the slides of JB's tissue?

[Devotion]

Originally posted by rashomon

These top flight doctors (among them a world-renowned pediatric expert on sexual child abuse) were not talking heads, but had examined slides of the damaged vaginal tissue of JB. And they almost unanimously agreed that the forensic evidence points to chronic sexual abuse:
JB's hymen was only represented by a rim of tissue going from the two to ten o'clock position, with thickening at the seven o'clock position. Irregularity at the edges of the hymen could be observed, the vaginal orifice measured one centimeter, which is twice as large for a child of JB's age. Parts of the vagina which are normally protected (the rugae) were exposed, and there was overall reddening and inflammation of the vaginal walls.
:shrug: IMO: After reading this report how could anyone doubt that she was not molested at some time/somewhere?..jmo

[Athena]

I have exhausted a search on Medical Examiners re: JonBenet's autopsy report and acute v chronic sexual abuse.

The only other medical examiner that Meyers called in was Dr. Andrew Sirotnack and the only real documentation that I can find is that he concurred with Meyers that there was an acute (recent) sexual attack.

Everything else I have read says there were 7 medical examiners who reviewed the autopsy report and PHOTOS and 5 out of 7 concluded there was no conclusive evidence that JonBenet had been chronically sexually abused. And the only place I've read that Dr Sirotnack allegedly changed his mind is in other forums with no supporting documentation. jmo

[watson]

Hi everyone,
Just had to chime in again on this evidence that JB was being REGULARLY sexually abused BEFORE the night of the murder. For those of you who think she wasn't.....what happened to her hymen? This 6 year old girl didn't have one! Just a partial rim of old scar tissue of what was left of one, plus other scarring inside the vagina. Are we to believe that when she was 3 or something she jumped on her tricycle when the seat wasn't on, and no one in the family remembers it???
Does this PROVE beyond REASONABLE DOUBT she was being abused?..............no. BUT is there another LOGICAL explanation? If so I've NEVER heard it......what happened to the hymen and what else could explain the scarring? I'd like to know???

P.S. to Athena if you get the source of Roshmon's info this thread, please post it a lot. It's not in the ME report but completely consistent with the findings and tone of that report, so I'd like to know too.

[harz]

Then I suspect the murder's motive would be kept her from telling her mother or the others if she was being sexual abused. If John Ramsey did sexual abused her, what caused him to do it? Is it because he lost his another daughter that caused some kind of his psychology truma? Or believe he going lose Patsy to her cancer triggered him into a monster? I didn't know if she had been sexual abused before that night she died, I thought it was staged to make it looked like it by poking paintbrush stick into. I'm more confused than ever.

[watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes
[B]

I do not agree. It doesn't give more weight to JB being abused...far from it imo. If there is not sufficient evidence to show abuse there just isn't.


[QUOTE]
Oh come on Jaded. Are you really saying that just because something can't be 'proved', that it didn't happen?
Say, my neighbor sneaks over and kicks in my window, and no one sees him do it, and there's only some evidence pointing to him, not enough to 'prove' he did it, or that it was kicked in. Does that mean HE DIDN'T do it, or that It's NOT kicked in???
The facts say there is evidence that JB was being molested for a long time before the murder, but not enough to prove it, or who was doing it, but does that mean we can say for SURE it didn't happen?

[waraven]

Where is the outrage?

All I can say is Orenthal John (O.J.) Ramsey. Patsy did it and John, along with the D. A.'s, team Ramsey, and the governor covered it up.

[trt]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
JonBenet was sexually abused that night AFTER the decision was made to kill her. The paintbrush had already been broken, when she was penetrated.

Not necessarily...if the slip knot *garrotte* was used as some sort of sexual stimulation, then it just means that the person that made the *garrotte* more than likely was the one who penetrated her digitally.

[trt]

Originally posted by Athena


I concur. And for a mother to have taken a child for irritation in the vaginal area on more than a couple of occasions certainly does not reflect a mother who is afraid of what a Dr may find. JMO

But if she were innocent and not knowledgeable of such abuse? She may have just genuinely wanted to know what was going on with her daughter. And they had already been given an *innocent* cause, one that they didn't take seriously.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by victims feel
TD you and I are alone on this I think as some other NO INTRUDER posters think it was all John and no Patsey... I think P harmed her in a fit of rage and John did the cleaning...that way P can honestly say she did not know how that happened to JBR.

Nope...you two are not alone. I think the same thing, though I am not too sure about the rage (accident) and I think sexual abuse (i.e. John caught in the act) played a part in it. Otherwise I just can't see either of the Ramseys doing that to their child after the fact whether they were staging the scene for a "pediphile intruder" or not. I could be wrong but it defies my sensiblilities.
I don't think that either Ramsey is a cold blooded killer. I think accident and cover up; plain and simple.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Then, why the ridiclously elaborate cover up and ransom note? Why not just say she found JonBenet on the bathroom floor, and JonBenet must have tripped and fallen and hit her head? Bathroom accidents are very common, and it would have aroused much less suspicion than that elaborate staging did.

And that's why I think she had been sexually molested prior to the "accident".

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


And that's why I think she had been sexually molested prior to the "accident".

Why would that make a difference as to reporting it as an accident, or staging that elaborate coverup and rediculous ransom note? She'd already had 5 or 6 vaginal exams and her doctor found no evidence. If she'd been molested, they'd never have taken her to the doctor and reported her vaginal irritation.

The coverup and note would be bound to throw more suspicion at them than an accident. Intentionally, IMO. I can hardly think of anything that would cause more suspicion than has already been thrown at them, in fact.

[harz]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I don't think that either Ramsey is a cold blooded killer.

I think John is cold blooded, I dont think Patsy is, or she doesnt know for sure if he did it. See how calm John was since 26th of 1996? Patsy wasn't like that. Patsy showed more frustrations emotions, which is normal if she wasn't resposible or dont know who the killer is. I believe John was too calm, bottled up, felt no frustrations was need, took complete control of his emotions as he took control of JonBenet's life, IMO.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by harz


I think John is cold blooded, I dont think Patsy is, or she doesnt know for sure if he did it. See how calm John was since 26th of 1996? Patsy wasn't like that. Patsy showed more frustrations emotions, which is normal if she wasn't resposible or dont know who the killer is. I believe John was too calm, bottled up, felt no frustrations was need, took complete control of his emotions as he took control of JonBenet's life, IMO.

All we saw was his "public" face. We have no idea how emotional he was in private. Men are usually trained to hide their emotions in public, whereas women aren't. I didn't see any indication John was "cold blooded" at all. I only saw a grief stricken man trying to hold himself together for his family's sake.

But, I've seen posters and TH's that said Patsy was too unemotional, too.

[edna mode]

Rashomon, would you kindly post your source for the "panel of experts" who determined Jonbenet was sexually abused prior to the murder? I have not followed the case from the beginning so I may have missed a big piece like this.

I enjoyed PMPT but do find much of what was stated there has been found to be wrong.

[MaryD]

First, I am very curious about the neighbor having heard a loud scream from a child at the Ramsey house that night. JB would not be able to scream after her head injury, so I'm wondering what would have caused her to give out a blood curdling scream prior to this injury. She either had to see it coming or was injured prior to the massive head wound.

Another thing, I read that a dictionary was found opened in the house to the page with the word INCEST, if this is true that could be very telling.

I've always wondered if the 911 call from the Christmas party at the Ramseys wasn't JB calling to report some abuse. That could have been the prerequisite to the murder motive. Maybe she was getting old enough to protest her abuser.

And regarding the accident cover up theory; in my mind only a psycopathic maniac would be capable of violating and denegrading their just deceased childs body simply to cover their own *****es. No normal loving parent would be capable of such a horrific act. For this senario to have merrit than so to could sexual abuse and premeditated murder. Just MO of course.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Why would that make a difference as to reporting it as an accident, or staging that elaborate coverup and rediculous ransom note? She'd already had 5 or 6 vaginal exams and her doctor found no evidence. If she'd been molested, they'd never have taken her to the doctor and reported her vaginal irritation.

The coverup and note would be bound to throw more suspicion at them than an accident. Intentionally, IMO. I can hardly think of anything that would cause more suspicion than has already been thrown at them, in fact.

I meant sexually molested that night. I also don't put too much faith in what the doctor said. IMO I doubt he was really looking for signs of abuse when JB was in his office because he didn't have any reason to think she was being abused by her parents. Come on now....JB was a little beauty queen and their little trophy. The dude was probably thrilled that she was a patient of his. She was a small town celebrity. Geeze, exactly how much time did he spend examining her "privates" anyway beyond seeing irritation from the "bubble baths" or "improper wiping". He didn't do an intrusive vaginal exam which would be where the most telling evidence would be. No one ever said that she had been subject to actual sexual intercourse. There are other ways children are molested without taking it to that level.

[rosebud]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MaryD
[B]First, I am very curious about the neighbor having heard a loud scream from a child at the Ramsey house that night. JB would not be able to scream after her head injury, so I'm wondering what would have caused her to give out a blood curdling scream prior to this injury. She either had to see it coming or was injured prior to the massive head wound.



REPLY: That is if the neighbor actually did hear a scream. I read that the first time the police approached her on the 26 December, this woman said she heard nothing. Later she changed her story to say she heard a scream. I think she later made a statement that it might have been JB's "aura" calling out that she heard. I would doubt that she actually did hear anything. She sounded a little like a space cadet to me.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Why would that make a difference as to reporting it as an accident, or staging that elaborate coverup and rediculous ransom note? She'd already had 5 or 6 vaginal exams and her doctor found no evidence. If she'd been molested, they'd never have taken her to the doctor and reported her vaginal irritation.

The coverup and note would be bound to throw more suspicion at them than an accident. Intentionally, IMO. I can hardly think of anything that would cause more suspicion than has already been thrown at them, in fact.

From the Ramseys own mouths (Death of Innocence)...JB was treated one time for "Vaginitis". I looked up Vaginitis on the net and read from many sites. Not one of them mentioned this occuring in a child. The "bubble bath" excuse would have caused Vulvitis, not Vaginitis. Either the doc misdiagnosed or something is wrong with this picture. Vaginitis can be caused from sexual contact (intercourse). Bubble baths were not mentioned as a cause in anything I've read. At any rate, she was only treated once for this, according to the Ramseys.

I don't think it's odd that JB was brought to the doctor so many times if she was being sexually abused. Why wouldn't the Ramseys want to keep her healthy. If she wasn't healthy, she couldn't perform. Most of her illnesses were from allegies or related so her doctor would have no reason to examine her genitals during those visits anyway.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by victims feel
TWW, I truly believe that JB was psychosomatic from duress and stress and that is why so many visits to doctor........and possible abuse. If I was working emerg- CPS and I seen that file 28 in 3 years I would be doing a home visits ESPECIALLY with what we now know, over the decade, on Manchausen By Proxy.... .

VF, that's quite possible. I do think the amount of visits was a bit extreme.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


From the Ramseys own mouths (Death of Innocence)...JB was treated one time for "Vaginitis". I looked up Vaginitis on the net and read from many sites. Not one of them mentioned this occuring in a child. The "bubble bath" excuse would have caused Vulvitis, not Vaginitis. Either the doc misdiagnosed or something is wrong with this picture. Vaginitis can be caused from sexual contact (intercourse). Bubble baths were not mentioned as a cause in anything I've read. At any rate, she was only treated once for this, according to the Ramseys.

I don't think it's odd that JB was brought to the doctor so many times if she was being sexually abused. Why wouldn't the Ramseys want to keep her healthy. If she wasn't healthy, she couldn't perform. Most of her illnesses were from allegies or related so her doctor would have no reason to examine her genitals during those visits anyway.

Vaginitis CAN be caused by bubble baths and frequently is. It can be cause by a variety of other things, too, and is not at all uncommon in young girls. I don't know how you conducted your net search but just Google "bubble bath vaginitis" and you'll see all kinds of information about it.

Why would parents that sexually abused their daughter want her genitals examined by her doctor? They'd have known he'd examine her when they told him she had vaginitis.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


From the Ramseys own mouths (Death of Innocence)...JB was treated one time for "Vaginitis". I looked up Vaginitis on the net and read from many sites. Not one of them mentioned this occuring in a child. The "bubble bath" excuse would have caused Vulvitis, not Vaginitis. Either the doc misdiagnosed or something is wrong with this picture. Vaginitis can be caused from sexual contact (intercourse). Bubble baths were not mentioned as a cause in anything I've read. At any rate, she was only treated once for this, according to the Ramseys.

I don't think it's odd that JB was brought to the doctor so many times if she was being sexually abused. Why wouldn't the Ramseys want to keep her healthy. If she wasn't healthy, she couldn't perform. Most of her illnesses were from allegies or related so her doctor would have no reason to examine her genitals during those visits anyway.

Start looking it up on the net again.

""Vaginitis" is a commonly diagnosed in children. Sometimes irritation of the vagina in children may be due to a true infection, either bacterial or yeast. More often it is just a nonspecific irritation due to a host of factors. Sometimes children may not be wiping from front-to-back. Wiping in the other direction brings bacteria to the vaginal area promoting infection. Some children may be chronically in damp but not wet underpants. If a child waits too long before urinating small amounts of urine may leak out and lead to irritation. In some girls, some urine may actually pool in the vagina and lead to dampness once the child arises. Vaginal irritation, especially if associated with urinary frequency or urgency may also be related to relative constipation. Even if a child is having a daily bowel movement, if he or she is not emptying completely, the stool that is left behind can lead to all these symptoms. Most parents are surprised (and skeptical) that subtle constipation can lead to urinary symptoms. Initially therapy usually involves sitting in warm water several times a day in conjunction with proper hygiene (wiping from front to back), wearing loose fitting underwear and making sure the genital areas are dry. It will help to place the child on a high fiber diet. If symptoms persist, then an anti-yeast cream may help. With a normal urine sample, urinary tract infections are not the cause of her symptoms. Once the present symptoms are controlled, further episodes can be prevented by proper hygiene and bladder/bowel habits. "

http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/4507.htm

http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articledetail.cfm?id=1862

http://www.lpch.org/diseasehealthinfo/healthlibrary/growth/vgnts.html

[docg]

Originally posted by harz


I think John is cold blooded, I dont think Patsy is, or she doesnt know for sure if he did it. See how calm John was since 26th of 1996? Patsy wasn't like that. Patsy showed more frustrations emotions, which is normal if she wasn't resposible or dont know who the killer is. I believe John was too calm, bottled up, felt no frustrations was need, took complete control of his emotions as he took control of JonBenet's life, IMO.

Yes, harz, John is a completely different personality from Patsy and it's always seemed strange that so many want to lump them together.

For ten years now, everyone has been shunting back and forth between the theory that both of them were in it together and the intruder theory. It should be clear by now that neither makes much sense.

Which is a more likely scenario: a mother who "loses it" over bedwetting, slams her child's head against some hard surface, and then conspires with her husband in an elaborate scheme to make an accident look like murder? or a father who abuses his child, decides to kill her because she is threatening to expose him, and is determined to tell NO ONE about his dirty secret ever?

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by treehouse
I was thinking that maybe the reason for many doctor's visits was because Mrs. Ramsey was (at that time) a cancer survivor, and perhaps overly concerned with the health of her children. Just a thought. Makes sense to me! There are a lot of reasons for JBs infections...I do not believe she was sexually abused prior to her murder! :seeya:

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


<snip>

Why would parents that sexually abused their daughter want her genitals examined by her doctor? They'd have known he'd examine her when they told him she had vaginitis.

They wouldn't - which is why the 30 visits that have been mentioned exonerate the Ramseys from chronic sexual abuse. IMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by MaryD
First, I am very curious about the neighbor having heard a loud scream from a child at the Ramsey house that night. JB would not be able to scream after her head injury, so I'm wondering what would have caused her to give out a blood curdling scream prior to this injury. She either had to see it coming or was injured prior to the massive head wound.

Another thing, I read that a dictionary was found opened in the house to the page with the word INCEST, if this is true that could be very telling.

I've always wondered if the 911 call from the Christmas party at the Ramseys wasn't JB calling to report some abuse. That could have been the prerequisite to the murder motive. Maybe she was getting old enough to protest her abuser.

And regarding the accident cover up theory; in my mind only a psycopathic maniac would be capable of violating and denegrading their just deceased childs body simply to cover their own *****es. No normal loving parent would be capable of such a horrific act. For this senario to have merrit than so to could sexual abuse and premeditated murder. Just MO of course.

Mary,
That prior 911 call has always bothered me too. Then, when I think that it was just a few days prior to the murder it does make wonder if it was JB calling out for help. Who knows, maybe she had watched a show on television, or seen something on the news where a child had called 911 in a similiar situation, we will never know. But, that is not an easy number to just dial by accident.

I don't buy the theory that JB was murdered because she wet her bed. But, I could buy the theory that JB had threatened to tell if she were being sexually abused and the abuser went into a rage when they realized their ugliness would be exposed.

I do take into account the pineapple that was found in JB's system, the blue hair ties, no sign of forced entry, the phony ransom note, but I also can't forget that blue robe that was found on the floor of the main home that was said to be JR's. Then, there was Linda Arndt's interview on GMA where she was present at the autopsy of JB and she did say that there were signs of prior sexual abuse, and in this same interview it is said that three medical experts who were consulted on this case reported injuries consistent with prior sexual abuse.

I don't know what happened in that home that night, but I don't believe it was an intruder. I do believe whomever did this to JB was attempting to make it appear as if someone came into the home to "kidnap" JB, the problem I have with this is that JB was never taken out of the home even though the "kidnapper" walked right past a door leading directly outside just before they entered the basement with JB to take her to a room in the home that few people knew existed.

I think whomever did this to JB had a plan, and then something went wrong afterwards.

IMO

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09151999ArndtGMATranscripts.txt

[rosebud]

John and Patsy Ramsey took lie detector tests from a company that they chose to administer them. It has been reported that the first time they took them the result was inconclusive. The second time they supposedly passed and were being truthful that they had nothing to do with JBR's death, and they knew nothing about who had actually done it.

I would be very curious to know if they had received training on how to beat a lie detector test. It is my understanding that the US Govt, among others, gives certain employees lessons on how to beat lie detectors. I am sure such training is available to private citizens for a price.

If you don't believe this is possible consider that Aldrich Ames, one of the most vicious traitors America has ever had, passed two lie detector tests while an agent for the Soviet Union while also working for the CIA. Ames said that he got instructions from his Soviet handlers on how to beat the test.

[bullmoose]

About the Aldrich Ames case, according to what I read, when the FBI was searching for the reported mole inside the FBI, he did not have to take the lie detector tests, being considered above suspicion. Or so I recall. bullmoose

[Devotion]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by victims feel
Rose, sociopaths pass lie detectors and for that reason alone they should not be used. PERIOD [/QUOTE
:read: IMO: I agree..another way people pass lie detector test is, practicing answering all the questions that will be asked, practice, practice, practice...jmo

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


Yes, harz, John is a completely different personality from Patsy and it's always seemed strange that so many want to lump them together.

For ten years now, everyone has been shunting back and forth between the theory that both of them were in it together and the intruder theory. It should be clear by now that neither makes much sense.

Which is a more likely scenario: a mother who "loses it" over bedwetting, slams her child's head against some hard surface, and then conspires with her husband in an elaborate scheme to make an accident look like murder? or a father who abuses his child, decides to kill her because she is threatening to expose him, and is determined to tell NO ONE about his dirty secret ever?

I will admit this docg. If I had to choose between the two being the killer -- I'd have to go with John and there have been fluctuations in my thinking within the 10 years from John to an intruder (except "intruder" being someone close to them) but definitely more the outsider than John. For whatever reason I'm stuck on Fleet. jmo

[Athena]

I figured as bizarre as this case is - might as well throw in a theory from an astrologer. LOL

JonBenet's natal chart, August 6, 1990, Boulder, CO (calculated for 12 noon as no time is available) can reveal the causes of injury as well as potential perpetrators. With her natal Mars in Taurus (part of an intense fixed grand cross), she suffered injury to the throat and neck area (Nicole Brown Simpson also held the position, Mars in Taurus). JonBenet's Mars in Taurus opposes Pluto in Scorp and squares her Sun/Leo opposite Moon/AQ. She was described by many as unusual and a bright light, easily exemplified by her full Moon Leo/AQ opposition and evidently she had to do battle with the powers of darkness and unconscious forces and desires. A Mars/Pluto Taurus/Scorp opposition can certainly indicate a life/death situation at some point in the unfolding of the chart. Unfortunately, JonBenet became a victim of the collective sexual aberrations of the times as well as their silent spokesperson. Both her birth chart and the chart of the 911 call intimate that there is a strong possibility of child pornography embedded in this case. Specifically, in the 911 chart, Mars' closest aspect trine to Neptune and Pluto and Venus both in Sagg in H12. With Neptune's connection to film, fantasy and the salacious, it may not be far from the truth. Jupiter (ruling H1), Neptune (closest aspect to Mars) and Mercury(dispositior of Mars), Saturn (dispositor of Mercury and Neptune and next application of Mars) are the strongest characteristics of the murderer. He is a Jupiter/Neptune/Mercury/Saturn type, a controlled and hidden fantasy life or controlled fantasies involving children and the tension between expansion/contraction of Jupiter/Saturn.

http://www.zodiacal.com/articles/oja/jonbenet.htm

[barskin&co.]

He first appeared on the Susan Smith thread of the Notorious Murders board, proudly announcing he was her cousin and saying the two of them were exactly alike because they are both "altruistic," "pure," and "innocent." He also has explained that he is a 55 year old, who is deadbeat dad and who lives off a girl friend he charmingly describes as "smelly." He says that people say he's a "sicko." Shocker, huh?

[cami]

Originally posted by watson
Why was this done dis-passionately?.....Again this just comes from the evidence and not from what the media and Boulder PD said right after the crime. What does the evidence we all know actually say about how this murder was done. The killer took a lot of time in tying and carefully wrapping a loop noose with stick handle. There's 6 looped wrapped knots on the handle alone, 3 on each side of the long leader that goes to the loop. This took time and lots of contemplation while carefully looping and wrapping. What was the killer thinking while doing this? There is only one use for what the killer is making. From the knot at the middle of the back of the victims neck, we know the killer chose to be directly behind the victim, where he does not have to look at her and she doesn't have to look at the killer. Placing the loop over the victims head, then holding what can only be a slip knot against the back of the neck with one hand the killer pulls the handle with the other, tighteng the loop all around the victims neck equally (the ME reported the line equal all around the neck). By the time the crime is finished the handle is 17" (ME report) from the victim, meaning the killer was no closer than 1 1/2 feet behind the victim and touching her with only one hand during the strangulation. Given the facts there is no other way the strangulation could have been done. From the back, at a distance, with hardly any physical contact after lots of preperation and contemplation........... is not a crime of passion, anger, lust etc. It's almost clinical. In addition on the other side, there is no dis-order to the victims clothes, no defensive wounds, no hands on strangulation of the victim to indicate passion, lust, anger etc.

Are you ruling out the Ramseys? Can you explain how you have excluded them? All indications I have read is the strangler did it from behind JonBenet. Why and how does that rule out Patsy? It's possible she couldn't bear to look at her daughter or touch her in that manner so she used the cord (not shoelaces) to end her life.

[cami]

Originally posted by Jadedblueeyes


Actually the truth could very well be that yes it was done by a pedophile. We simply don't know his motivation. Only he knows.

I do agree with you this murder seems very cold and matter of fact. One done as seeing JB only as a instrument to accomplish the destruction of this family for the rest of their lives.

I do think he may have taken the other part of the paintbrush as a souvenir. Something he can see and touch. Maybe he twirls it in his hands as he watches all the hullabaloo about the case. I think this person is cold as ice and still has the paintbrush broken part.

But I do not agree that the ransom note couldn't have been done by a pedophile. Imo if he is one he is one sharp, crafty and cunning one...pedophile or not. He would never drop his guard and point his way even the slightest. Imo, whomever wrote this was distancing themselves as far as they could get to avoid any detection as to who he may be. And it worked just like he thought it would.

But imo the sexual overtones left behind where done only to further shatter the ones who would see JB that way. He wanted them to hurt and hurt deeply.

I don't think it bothered him one bit to do this to this child. He saw her as merely "collateral damage" to complete his planned mission.

IMO

Ocean

I wonder why he left her body in the basement covered almost lovingly with her blanket with her favourite nighty nearby? Doesn't sound like a very cold-blooded thing to do.

[cami]

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
Mark Klaas had turned the crime against his daughter into a business. But 2½ years later, no similar crimes had been committed. Mark Klaas’ cause, which gave him so much satisfaction and money, was quietly dying.

He needed a similar crime to reenergize his cause. He planned the kidnapping so no one would get hurt. The ransom demand was small and exactly what John Ramsey had in his bank account, so he would most likely pay the ransom to get her back.

No one would get hurt, except John Ramsey would be out $118,000, and Mark Klaas’ cause would be reenergized.

But she screamed. The violent kidnapper hit her to knock her out, to shut her up. But he fractured her skull. He knew that he had to kill her to keep her from talking when she woke up, if she woke up. He strangled her.

They left the scene as fast as they could.

No one remotely suspected Mark Klaas, provided no one finds the kidnappers. The police continually bungle the investigation, which benefits the man behind the kidnapping, if this man is Mark Klaas.

We recently learned a similar crime was committed in Boulder one year later. A man broke in and tired to kill a teenage girl, but the crime failed. He got away, she was all right. The police didn’t mention that crime to John Ramsey. It seems likely the same violent kidnapper tried to repeat the crime. Why didn’t they tell John Ramsey about this crime?

John Ramsey said, “The police should have told me about the second crime, because not too many beasts like that exist.”

Why didn’t they tell him? It seems that the police are actually avoiding catching the kidnappers to protect someone important. Who were they protecting? Was it Mark Klaas?

Why would they protect Mark Klaas? I don’t know. But Mark Klaas was big time. He had gotten volunteers to email 2 billion pictures of his daughter, worldwide. That’s billion, with a “b” and it was worldwide. How did Mark Klaas get people to send out 2 billion pictures of his missing daughter?

Maybe someone much bigger, further behind the scenes was helping Mark Klaas and his cause.

What was his cause?

It was that women would have to tone down their sex appeal to avoid trouble. Fundamentalists Moslems believe that. They force women to wear veils. So Mark Klaas’ cause was of interest to radical fundamentalist Moslems. The fundamentalists Moslems are bigger than Mark Klaas, and that could explain how Mark Klaas was able to marshal volunteers to send out 2 billion photos of his daughter, worldwide.

Now we have, not just Mark Klaas but a foreign terrorist organization behind the kidnapping, which is exactly what the ransom note said.

But how could a foreign terrorist organization influence Boulder law enforcement to bungle the investigation at every turn?

Could our own government officials, even in Boulder be in league with terrorists' goals to bring down the Spirit of America? The ransom note said, We respect your business but not what your country stands for. And America stands for pretty women, among other things. Are people in high places devoted to the same cause as terrorists? Some people are beginning to think America is waging war on its own people at a very deep level, destroying the standard of living for the middle class.

Bringing John Mark Karr to trial could tell a very big story; and surprisingly, it appears to be a story just about everyone with real power wants to cover up.

John Mark Karr is like Lee Harvey Oswald, who fell into the group who assassinated John Kennedy, but Lee Harvey Oswald turned out to be a weird kind of good guy, so they made him the patsy. Then they murdered him, so he couldn’t lead anyone to the group.

Now it’s like Lee Harvey Oswald is back, and he got involved in this group. Like Oswald, John Mark Karr is a weird kind of guy who could lead us all to the group behind the mess we are in, if we only let him have his day in court.

Everything about this case shows this group is large, and deeply embedded inside America.

What a load of marlarky, LOL

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by cami


What a load of marlarky, LOL

Absolutely.

FYI, the crime a year later bore very little resemblance to JonBenet's murder. It was a much older girl, there was no ransom note, no personal vendetta against the family, no inside knowledge of the family, just a pervert going after a teenage girl. It wasn't the same type of crime at all other than it involved a minor female being assaulted in her own home. That, sadly, happens every single day.

If John Ramsey was so darned concerned about other girls being assaulted as his daughter was, why did he wait four months to sit down and talk to police about what happened to his daughter? Why did he hire PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer, but to keep him and his sorry wife out of jail? Why is there a dead tipline and website, and why is the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation defunct?

Marc Klaas has been very vocal about about the glaring contradictions between what the Ramseys say, and what the Ramseys did, and he's right. It was more important for them to protect themselves than to serve their murdered daughter justice.

Did you know that the reason they finally installed JB's headstone at the cemetery one year after her murder was not to memorialize their child, but to avoid media censure? They talk about it in DOI.

And then there's the Atlanta break-in...UNBELIEVABLE! As if the parents of a child murdered in their own home by an intruder would EVER be lax in security again!

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by vaughancauthen

If two kidnappers had been hired by someone -- one kidnapper was John Karr, who has said the other kidnapper killed her -- then this other criminal working alone would have done what he did to JonBenet, broke in and tried to kill a young girl.

And that crime doesn't happen everyday. If he had killed her, it would have been front page news. Instead, a failed crime was a good lead to who may have killed JonBenet, and it was ignored. John Ramsey was not told about it. The suspect was not caught and hardly pursued.

Are you kidding? There isn't evidence of even ONE intruder, let alone two. Karr was never in Boulder that night. He had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder other than what he cooked up in his sick fantasies. And WHO would have hired them?

Yes - homes are broken into and girls are assaulted every single day. There wasn't enough evidence that this crime a year later had anything to do with JonBenet's murder at all. The girl was a 14 year old girl, not a 6 year old. She wasn't struck on the head or strangled. She wasn't tied up or fed pineapple. Other than it being a minor female assaulted in her own home, there is no comparison to JonBenet's murder. Perverts break into homes and attack girls all the time - to claim those crimes are tied to JonBenet's murder is just plain reaching.

[nuisanceposter]

Karr's writing is close, but I believe Patsy's a much closer match. Check this out - there are even side by side comparisons of Patsy's writing and the ransom note writing.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404

I place no stock in the possible sighting of Karr by some random person at a bus stop ten years ago. Now if there were bus tickets or any kind of receipt that showed that Karr was in Boulder that night...

And how is it that you'll go for the word of a guy at a bus stop who says he saw Karr, but you won't believe his family members, who claim he was with them? How is this bus person more credible than they are? His ex-wife who has a restraining order against him has no reason to give him an alibi.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Start looking it up on the net again.

""Vaginitis" is a commonly diagnosed in children. Sometimes irritation of the vagina in children may be due to a true infection, either bacterial or yeast. More often it is just a nonspecific irritation due to a host of factors. Sometimes children may not be wiping from front-to-back. Wiping in the other direction brings bacteria to the vaginal area promoting infection. Some children may be chronically in damp but not wet underpants. If a child waits too long before urinating small amounts of urine may leak out and lead to irritation. In some girls, some urine may actually pool in the vagina and lead to dampness once the child arises. Vaginal irritation, especially if associated with urinary frequency or urgency may also be related to relative constipation. Even if a child is having a daily bowel movement, if he or she is not emptying completely, the stool that is left behind can lead to all these symptoms. Most parents are surprised (and skeptical) that subtle constipation can lead to urinary symptoms. Initially therapy usually involves sitting in warm water several times a day in conjunction with proper hygiene (wiping from front to back), wearing loose fitting underwear and making sure the genital areas are dry. It will help to place the child on a high fiber diet. If symptoms persist, then an anti-yeast cream may help. With a normal urine sample, urinary tract infections are not the cause of her symptoms. Once the present symptoms are controlled, further episodes can be prevented by proper hygiene and bladder/bowel habits. "

http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/4507.htm

http://www.kidsgrowth.com/resources/articledetail.cfm?id=1862

http://www.lpch.org/diseasehealthinfo/healthlibrary/growth/vgnts.html

I stand corrected. However! It is also still caused by sexual contact as well so therefore, you can't rule that out.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by vaughancauthen
Because his wife never said definitively he was there. And he was in no photos, although photos were taken.

But the person on the bus, after he saw John Karr, said definitively it was John Karr.

Years ago, the witness described the behavior of the man he saw, and the description he gave, back then, is an exact description of John Karr's behavior.

John Karr's handwriting, comparison to the ransom note. (http://www.powerwurks.com/john_mark_karr_handwriting.php)

It's an exact match, and he signed off with, MAYBE I SHALL BE THE CONQUERER AND LIVE IN MULTIPLE PEACE.

Maybe "the person on the bus" wants to collect his $100,000 reward..and hence :D his sudden total recall. Ya think?
No offence...but don't quit your day job. You wouldn't make a very good detective. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Absolutely.

FYI, the crime a year later bore very little resemblance to JonBenet's murder. It was a much older girl, there was no ransom note, no personal vendetta against the family, no inside knowledge of the family, just a pervert going after a teenage girl. It wasn't the same type of crime at all other than it involved a minor female being assaulted in her own home. That, sadly, happens every single day.

If John Ramsey was so darned concerned about other girls being assaulted as his daughter was, why did he wait four months to sit down and talk to police about what happened to his daughter? Why did he hire PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer, but to keep him and his sorry wife out of jail? Why is there a dead tipline and website, and why is the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation defunct?

Marc Klaas has been very vocal about about the glaring contradictions between what the Ramseys say, and what the Ramseys did, and he's right. It was more important for them to protect themselves than to serve their murdered daughter justice.

Did you know that the reason they finally installed JB's headstone at the cemetery one year after her murder was not to memorialize their child, but to avoid media censure? They talk about it in DOI.

And then there's the Atlanta break-in...UNBELIEVABLE! As if the parents of a child murdered in their own home by an intruder would EVER be lax in security again!

:beer:

[Eagle1]

Originally posted by kathryn
Fleet and Priscilla White = SNOBS

Simple.

:seeya:

That's been my take on them too. Hadn't they become more wealthy than the Ramseys, and moved into a bigger and better house? So inviting the R's to come by that Christmas Day may have been partly "showing off".

Someone said FW seemed to have a strong need to control JR, and I totally agree with that too, and that, since they had a daughter JonBenet's age, they wouldn't approve of the pageant thing.

Most of us would have had the good manners and good sense to put our suspicions or whatever on hold in Atlanta for the funeral. I can't picture him murdering JonBenet, he'd been around her so much and hadn't done it before, but his lie was exposed about his "sick mother" when someone, maybe JonBenet, had tried to make a 911 call. Someone at another forum quoted Shakespeare, "Methinks they protest too much," about the rambling letters, again trying to be in control.

Wish he'd write a book.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by treehouse


This is exactly the question that I've always tried to ask (will ask again after next banning :))

Where is the EVIDENCE? No one ever answers that question, except with quoting hearsay, rumors, or, just their opinion as proof.

And, which Ramsey did it, anyway? I guess any old Ramsey will do.

You do know that one of the reasons Steve Thomas listed for suspecting the Ramseys was because on the morning of the 26th they acted more like people experienceing a "death" rather than a "kidnapping?" Not quite sure what criteria he used in making that determination. :shrug:

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by treehouse


He actually said that???? So, he could be like the next Sylvia Browne or something. He's got that psychic, intuitive thing going on. I expect to see him on Montel reading fortunes, or whatever.

My opinion.

Oh, that one only one of the 16 - most laughable - reasons he listed. IMO (I believe he turned in his badge for a hammer. Had to get rid of those frustrations somehow, I guess.)

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


You do know that one of the reasons Steve Thomas listed for suspecting the Ramseys was because on the morning of the 26th they acted more like people experienceing a "death" rather than a "kidnapping?" Not quite sure what criteria he used in making that determination. :shrug:

Considering it was his first kidnapping or murder case, I expect he used the criteria in a Columbo episode he'd once seen, but he'd seen it so long ago, he got it all mixed up. :D

[Jespeh]

This vaughncauthen troll has been reported to the moderators so that he can be banned & his posts removed. Further, since his posts have smeared Mark Klaas the link to those posts have been sent to the Klaas Foundation. They may take legal action and it will not be hard with the internet protocol number to trace this sicko's address. Since he now shot himself in the foot by posting on a thread involving a murder that was investigated by the FBI, and all but told us he was both a sociopath and a pedophile/child killer sympathizer he has crossed the line from anonymous message board troll to a person who will probably be investigated by law enforcement in his home state.
If he is indeed not an immediate threat to children he still might be Baker Acted at which point he will get the help he needs.

[watson]

Originally posted by cami


Are you ruling out the Ramseys? Can you explain how you have excluded them? All indications I have read is the strangler did it from behind JonBenet. Why and how does that rule out Patsy? It's possible she couldn't bear to look at her daughter or touch her in that manner so she used the cord (not shoelaces) to end her life. [QUOTE]

No Cami, I'm not ruling the Ramseys out or in. By the very fact that they were the only 2 adults known to be at the scene, and that everything happened at their house on Xmas night while they were present in the house means they MUST be ruled IN as likely suspects for that FACT reason, but not by me.
In my post and right now, looking at the real original evidence, I'm just trying to establish METHOD, and the METHOD seems to be strangulation from behind, at a distance, after a lot of preperation, with minimum phisical contact, in the house's most secluded secure room, followed by ONE blow to the head of a unconscious and at that time unfeeling victim. If so what does this tell us about the TYPE of individual who would do this? That would be the next step.

[nuisanceposter]

My dear watson, what if JonBenet had been hit on the head first?

There are several experts who believe the head wound preceeded the strangulation due to the fact that the head was fully developed, with her brain swollen to the point of pressing up against the inside of her skull. That takes ten minutes to an hour to develop, and it shows that her heart was beating when her skull was fractured, and that it continued to beat at least ten minutes after it was fractured.

It seems to me that the head wound may have been an accident, and anything afterwards was staging designed to cover up the original accident. Experts say JonBenet would have been immediately rendered unconscious from that head wound, and may have appeared dead. I believe she was strangled face down from behind because the knot is at the back of her neck and her underwear and long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front - as if she was lying on her belly when she died and her bladder released for the last time.

I don't believe anyone other than a Ramsey was in their house that night, and I can't see any other reason for JonBenet to die as she did - unless someone hit her on the head, panicked, and created an alternate crime scene complete with ransom note to save their sorry butt from prison.

[Eagle1]

Originally posted by bullmoose
A few minutes, docg? A couple of seconds is more likely enough to adapt to different lighting. Some people react slower, but not minutes before you can see your hand in front of your face. If my eyes were that slow to adapt, I would need a seeing-eye dog. And a braille keyboard. bullmoose:lol: P.3

FWIW to all of us, Your ciliary muscle slows as you age, reason we have presbyopia, far sightedness or "middle age vision", but there's now an exercise available if you google something like reading w/out glasses to get that muscle back into shape, if you have two working eyes so that you can cross them by looking at the tip of a pen or your finger in front of a sheet with two large dots at the top. You'll learn to see three instead of two, and read the paragraph beneath them w/eyes still crossed. Hope it's okay to post this here, as a lot of us might need it to keep reading the forum. You order a video showing a not-too-old woman improving her vision very fast. We don't have to just sit there and take it.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by treehouse


This is exactly the question that I've always tried to ask (will ask again after next banning :))

Where is the EVIDENCE? No one ever answers that question, except with quoting hearsay, rumors, or, just their opinion as proof.

And, which Ramsey did it, anyway? I guess any old Ramsey will do.

There is a strong suspicion that your only guarantee for not getting banned is A. If you whine enough about people harrassing you (meaning having a different opinion) and B. Being anti Ramsey.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


You do know that one of the reasons Steve Thomas listed for suspecting the Ramseys was because on the morning of the 26th they acted more like people experienceing a "death" rather than a "kidnapping?" Not quite sure what criteria he used in making that determination. :shrug:

Did he not explain that in his book? By the way was his book on the best seller list?

[Eagle1]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Fleet was worth a LOT more than John. Why would he want another piddly six million? That's really not a LOT of money. Enough, but not a lot.

Priscilla was a beautiful woman in 1996. Why would she be jealous of Patsy?

No one I've ever heard of in this case had their hair in pigtails.

That doesn't hold up at all.

JMO

i may be mistaken, but in the snapshot of JonBenet at Charlevoix one summer, barefoot, in a polka dot dress, with one of those strange double marks on her lower leg, that seemed to be healing, I believe she had her hair in pigtails.

FW having a lot more money than JR could mean he looked down on the R's, all of them, and as some said in the early pages of this thread, and I assume they're right, FW had suggested JR's going on TV, then after the police lied to him, tried to act like it was totally JR's idea. We have to admit some lack of respect for a court of law, in his too-bold argument resisting a subpoena, for which I believe he had to serve 30 days.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Eagle1


i may be mistaken, but in the snapshot of JonBenet at Charlevoix one summer, barefoot, in a polka dot dress, with one of those strange double marks on her lower leg, that seemed to be healing, I believe she had her hair in pigtails.

FW having a lot more money than JR could mean he looked down on the R's, all of them, and as some said in the early pages of this thread, and I assume they're right, FW had suggested JR's going on TV, then after the police lied to him, tried to act like it was totally JR's idea. We have to admit some lack of respect for a court of law, in his too-bold argument resisting a subpoena, for which I believe he had to serve 30 days.

Fleet should not have argued with John Ramsey at JB's funeral and he should not have ignored a subpoena, but I think all of his other actions and statements have been the actions and statements of a totally innocent man.

Fleet was not involved at all in this crime.

JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by diplomat


Did he not explain that in his book? By the way was his book on the best seller list?

Yes, Steve's explanation was "because they KNEW when she died." The Ramseys' explanation was that was the last day they saw her alive.

[Athena]

Someone needs to explain to me why Fleet White was in the basement alone earlier in the day; moved the glass and the suitcase and opened the door to the wine cellar?

Why did he go back into the wine cellar AFTER JR found JBR? Why did he touch the duct tape? :confused:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena
Someone needs to explain to me why Fleet White was in the basement alone earlier in the day; moved the glass and the suitcase and opened the door to the wine cellar?

Why did he go back into the wine cellar AFTER JR found JBR? Why did he touch the duct tape? :confused:

Where does it say anywhere that Fleet went back after JB's body was found, Athena?

I'm not doubting you, but I missed that.

[harz]

Originally posted by Athena
Someone needs to explain to me why Fleet White was in the basement alone earlier in the day; moved the glass and the suitcase and opened the door to the wine cellar?

Why did he go back into the wine cellar AFTER JR found JBR? Why did he touch the duct tape? :confused:

I wonder if this is the sign of possible conspiracy between Ramseys and Fleet? That Fleet and John aren't no longer friends a part of staging? "Two gentlemen watching over your daughter" in ransom note, John & Fleet? Then Patsy was one who wrote the note? I am just throwing wild guess here. JMO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Where does it say anywhere that Fleet went back after JB's body was found, Athena?

I'm not doubting you, but I missed that.

PMPT and ST's book. It's when he was messing about with the duct tape.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


PMPT and ST's book. It's when he was messing about with the duct tape.

Thanks. I can't find it in PM/PT. I'll have a closer look tomorrow.

Have a good night! :)

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz


I wonder if this is the sign of possible conspiracy between Ramseys and Fleet? That Fleet and John aren't no longer friends a part of staging? "Two gentlemen watching over your daughter" in ransom note, John & Fleet? Then Patsy was one who wrote the note? I am just throwing wild guess here. JMO

I don't think they'd be that obvious, do you, harz?

JMO

Here is a good link about the knots and the garrote that explains it all:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6751

[harz]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I don't think they'd be that obvious, do you, harz?



Or Patsy had been that obvious right under everybody's noses if she wrote the note. Who knows :biggrin:

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Where does it say anywhere that Fleet went back after JB's body was found, Athena?

I'm not doubting you, but I missed that.

Hi Sun,

Sorry - I was busy last night so really just peeked in now and then.

The reference to White going back into the basement and into the room was on pgs. 20-21 of PMPT (paperback edition). He found the duct tape that John had removed and placed it on top of the white blanket.

Another thing I found strange was that he went down into the basement within 5-15 minutes of him arriving at the Ramseys on the 26th. This is from the documentation of Judge Carnes on the civil trial between Wolf and the Ramseys. He moved the glass and the suitcase; noticed the broken window but did not recall if the window was opened or closed. So he noticed the broken window PRIOR to JR pointing it out to him.

[sweetcharlotte]

Another thing that was interesting was Fleet calling John's pilot on the afternoon of the 26th to cancel the flight John had tried to make to Atlanta. Why did he feel the need to do that? Control issues?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


Hi Sun,

Sorry - I was busy last night so really just peeked in now and then.

The reference to White going back into the basement and into the room was on pgs. 20-21 of PMPT (paperback edition). He found the duct tape that John had removed and placed it on top of the white blanket.

Another thing I found strange was that he went down into the basement within 5-15 minutes of him arriving at the Ramseys on the 26th. This is from the documentation of Judge Carnes on the civil trial between Wolf and the Ramseys. He moved the glass and the suitcase; noticed the broken window but did not recall if the window was opened or closed. So he noticed the broken window PRIOR to JR pointing it out to him.

Thanks, Athena. I miss posts and sometimes answer late due to other obligations, too. No problem. :) Right now, I owe MissOtis a post.

I have PM/PT right here, so thanks for the page references as well as to the reference to Judge Carnes. I'll look it up.

It's interesting and confusing. :shrug:

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Another thing that was interesting was Fleet calling John's pilot on the afternoon of the 26th to cancel the flight John had tried to make to Atlanta. Why did he feel the need to do that? Control issues?

I think he probably did that at John's request after the police told John he wasn't going anywhere. I don't see any mystery there, but anyone (John and Fleet) who went to the basement is suspicious.

The BPD really shouldn't have allowed ANYONE to leave the sunroom.

JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I think he probably did that at John's request after the police told John he wasn't going anywhere. I don't see any mystery there, but anyone (John and Fleet) who went to the basement is suspicious.

The BPD really shouldn't have allowed ANYONE to leave the sunroom.

JMO

I think it's just another example of Fleet needing to be in control so he could move everything in the direction he wanted it to go.
JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I think it's just another example of Fleet needing to be in control so he could move everything in the direction he wanted it to go.
JMO

What direction do you think that is and why?

[sweetcharlotte]

I think Fleet saw a "way out" if everybody did everything his way. Fortunately for Fleet, and unfortunately for the Ramseys, Boulder PD quickly identified their prime suspects and all Fleet had to do at that point was support the PD in any way he could.
Worked out quite nicely for him, I'd say. JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I think Fleet saw a "way out" if everybody did everything his way. Fortunately for Fleet, and unfortunately for the Ramseys, Boulder PD quickly identified their prime suspects and all Fleet had to do at that point was support the PD in any way he could.
Worked out quite nicely for him, I'd say. JMO

Fleet didn't distance himself from the Ramseys, though. The Ramseys distanced themselves from him. And from the Fernies. And from almost all their other friends.

Fleet and Priscilla were investigated by the BPD and by the DA. They came up with nothing.

JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
I think Fleet saw a "way out" if everybody did everything his way. Fortunately for Fleet, and unfortunately for the Ramseys, Boulder PD quickly identified their prime suspects and all Fleet had to do at that point was support the PD in any way he could.
Worked out quite nicely for him, I'd say. JMO

I agree. Fleet White manipulated the BPD and WAS NOT thoroughly investigated. He quickly befriended Steve Thomas and was named a key witness.

I also wonder if anyone studied his letters and compared them to the writing style of the ransom note. jmo

[jocefious]

:punch: okok you guys .here is another to think about. john walsh also became famous. his son's killer was never found. never trusted that man. i'm pretty sure patsy and john ramsey did comit the crime.exploiting their child as a 6 yr old hooker isn't normal. body language of patsy was easy to read. john could have coached her better on that. don't talk ya walk:flamemad: jocefious

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Fleet didn't distance himself from the Ramseys, though. The Ramseys distanced themselves from him. And from the Fernies. And from almost all their other friends.

Fleet and Priscilla were investigated by the BPD and by the DA. They came up with nothing.

JMO

My recollection is they kept up their relationship with the Fernies until sometime when they were in Atlanta and John Fernie wrote and asked they not write to Barb as she was going through an emotional problem. I'll see if I can find it in the interviews.

John also said in an interview that he tried to contact the Whites but got no reply.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


My recollection is they kept up their relationship with the Fernies until sometime when they were in Atlanta and John Fernie wrote and asked they not write to Barb as she was going through an emotional problem. I'll see if I can find it in the interviews.

John also said in an interview that he tried to contact the Whites but got no reply.

I know in PM/PT, it says they stayed with "Pasta Jay" and the Stines until they moved to Atlanta and they began to distance themselves from their other friends while still in Boulder. But it's rather vague as to when or how.

JMO

[edna mode]

John Ramsey on medication? I'm still not sure if the reference here is prior to the murder or not...HOWEVER, John Ramsey had lost a daughter in a horrible car crash in Chicago not long before Jonbenet's death. In addition, Patsy had stage four cancer. I'm sure many families dealing with those huge life issues would be on some combination of meds!

Fleet is one strange character. His actions in Atlanta are far more strange than PMPT explains. He had a gun! At one point the Ramseys were hiding in the basement from him. He freaked out staying at a friends house. This may be explained further in the Ramsey's book and in news articles. But, ol' Fleet is not the prince many think he is.

To this day he stalks people involved in the case and acts in bizarre ways. The cops, DA and many close to this case have seen his horrible temper and intimidating ways.

HE WAS NOT MORE WEALTHY THAN THE RAMSEYS. His house was mortgaged to the hilt. He has little cash flow, doesn't work and is one odd duck. What's even more weird, his background can't fully be found. There are several missing years and at least two different SS numbers connected to his name.

He is one strange man.

[harz]

I wish I can learn more about Fleet, I am still open mind about his possible involvement in JB's murder, or possible his conspiracy with John Ramsey. I need strong reasons or motives why would he kill JB himself alone. What about his wife? Was she aware Fleet was with her during the whole night? Why would he write the note? He could have left the murder situation to Ramseys, without the ransom note, and then Ramseys would have to face more difficulty explanations to the police. I am also curious about Fleet since I don’t know much about him to this case. IMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz
I wish I can learn more about Fleet, I am still open mind about his possible involvement in JB's murder, or possible his conspiracy with John Ramsey. I need strong reasons or motives why would he kill JB himself alone. What about his wife? Was she aware Fleet was with her during the whole night? Why would he write the note? He could have left the murder situation to Ramseys, without the ransom note, and then Ramseys would have to face more difficulty explanations to the police. I am also curious about Fleet since I don’t know much about him to this case. IMO

Fleet was a very wealthy oilman from California who was retired at forty-seven, harz. He had two children with his wife, Priscilla, Fleet and Daphne, about the same age as Burke and JonBenet.

He had a beautiful home a little outside of Boulder with a gorgeous view of the mountains.

Because he was home all day and didn't have to work, his friends called him "Mr. Mom" after the movie character.

I don't know if Priscilla knows if he was home the entire night, but I'm sure she'd say he was.

Also, if Fleet were involved, I really don't think he would have written a note and left a sample of his handwriting.

There are other things that point to Fleet's innocence, IMO, but I'll have to look them up and get back to you.

JMO

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by edna mode


He is one strange man.

<snipped>

Got link? TIA

I don't know if you are a newbie or a retread, but when you make bold assertions & present them as being factual, you need a link - or a specifically named reference, if the link has already been posted.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by edna mode
John Ramsey on medication? I'm still not sure if the reference here is prior to the murder or not...HOWEVER, John Ramsey had lost a daughter in a horrible car crash in Chicago not long before Jonbenet's death. In addition, Patsy had stage four cancer. I'm sure many families dealing with those huge life issues would be on some combination of meds!

Fleet is one strange character. His actions in Atlanta are far more strange than PMPT explains. He had a gun! At one point the Ramseys were hiding in the basement from him. He freaked out staying at a friends house. This may be explained further in the Ramsey's book and in news articles. But, ol' Fleet is not the prince many think he is.

To this day he stalks people involved in the case and acts in bizarre ways. The cops, DA and many close to this case have seen his horrible temper and intimidating ways.

HE WAS NOT MORE WEALTHY THAN THE RAMSEYS. His house was mortgaged to the hilt. He has little cash flow, doesn't work and is one odd duck. What's even more weird, his background can't fully be found. There are several missing years and at least two different SS numbers connected to his name.

He is one strange man.

Thanks for this post. There is a lot people don't know about Fleet White - IMO.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by edna mode

Fleet is one strange character. His actions in Atlanta are far more strange than PMPT explains. He had a gun!


Just one? Hey, where I live if you don't have an arsenal in your home, you are considered by many "one strange character." I don't own one, am not a hunter, and don't like having a gun around, and I would be willing to bet I am the only house in my area that does not have a gun in it.

[nuisanceposter]

How about Don Paugh sitting on loaded guns when the argument between FW and JR went down in Atlanta? Why the heck would he have to go get a gun and put it under the couch cushion? He actually thought he was going to have to use it to shoot Fleet White? Why, because FW was telling JR that his immediate lawyering up and hiding from police wasn't helping anyone find the "real" killer?

Personally, I think FW was well within the bounds of friendship to tell his closest friend JR that his behavior was looking suspicious - and at the same time, I think FW was becoming increasingly suspicious of the Rs as well.

Fleet White and his family were cleared, yes cleared, by police. They had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder. The Whites have worked harder to serve justice to JonBenet than her own parents have. They have requested a special prosecutor be brought in, knowing the DA's office is corrupt and is shielding the Ramseys, as they have done from the get-go.

Would a guilty man really go that far?

[EDDIEisMINE]

Okay different strokes for different folks, but, when it comes to our children being murdered most parents reaction would be close to the same. Take the father of Ronald Goldman for instance, he was out in the medias face, because he wanted justice and he didn't care who knew it! He wanted justice for his son and although he wasn't accused of killing Ronald, he was very passionate about finding the killer when he talked. I just don't see that with Jon Benets dad. He just never really acted as if he cared at all who did this to her. I can understand Patsy, she did seem a little more upset, although, not as much as I would be if it were my baby. And, that could of been her personality the way she came off, but, the dad just seemed as if he didn't care at all to me. If my kid (heaven forbid) ever turned up like JonBenet, the last thing I could ever do is smile at the funeral. I would be sick sick sick and probably hysterical. We are not talking about parents in which we expect to die before us, and they are older. We are talking about a child who's life was taken at age 6 and murdered and possibly tortured. And, to me, the ransom note was someone trying to cover up being that there were really no kidnapping at all. JMO.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by victims feel
AS a non American such posts are fascinating.

Just one how about NONE..we are not allowed unless we are hunting.....4 legged creatures........no 2 legged.....



so are you saying YOU are one strange character Rose:tongue:

Well I am a secular humanist non-gun owner in the midst of God's righteous NRA believers. You figure it out.

[thewhitewitch1]

Although I am among the ranks who believe the Ramseys killed their daughter...I believe wholeheartedly that it was an accident. I believe they staged the crime scene to cover themselves, yes...but I also believe that they did truely grieve for her. I do believe that they loved her and never meant for whatever happened to happen. Maybe because of the very fact that it was an accident and that they did love her is the very reason they can justify covering up the way that they did.
I would very much like to be wrong about them but I can't get the incriminating evidence against them out of my mind. I have absolutely NO doubt in my mind that there was no intruder and in absence of that...there are only the Ramseys.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by Mimi428


<snipped>

Got link? TIA

I don't know if you are a newbie or a retread, but when you make bold assertions & present them as being factual, you need a link - or a specifically named reference, if the link has already been posted.

Some have to post a link, others don't. Read back posts and see how that plays out.

[harz]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


He had a beautiful home a little outside of Boulder with a gorgeous view of the mountains.


So he doesn't live there anymore? Curious, how long does it take to travel between Fleet and Ramsey houses in car? Ramseys came from Fleet house back to their home on 25th after dinner party right?

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Fleet didn't distance himself from the Ramseys, though. The Ramseys distanced themselves from him. And from the Fernies. And from almost all their other friends.

Fleet and Priscilla were investigated by the BPD and by the DA. They came up with nothing.

JMO

Hi sun,

Speaking from the Ramsey's point of view -- they hoped noone they knew killed JBR but everyone became a suspect and they trusted noone and rightfully so. Since I am one who believes the Ramseys did not kill their daughter, I believe both John and Patsy came to believe that it was someone that knew them and was familiar with their house. jmo

[bullmoose]

To Athena: I agree with you; I also do not believe the Ramseys were involved in any way beyond being victimized by whoever killed their daughter. It also is reasonable for them to believe it was someone fairly close to them. I'm not so sure of that, in the Smart case in Utah, it was somebody nobody expected that came into the house; I don't think he left any visible clues either. JMO bullmoose

[diplomat]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Fleet White and his family were cleared, yes cleared, by police. They had nothing to do with JonBenet's murder. The Whites have worked harder to serve justice to JonBenet than her own parents have. They have requested a special prosecutor be brought in, knowing the DA's office is corrupt and is shielding the Ramseys, as they have done from the get-go.



Where is the link that says the White's were cleared? Aren't posters to provide links or is that a thing of the past?

[Athena]

The Whites WERE NOT cleared. They even stopped being recognized as key witnesses when they refused to testify before the grand jury because the BPD would not give them copies of their interviews/statements. The ONLY couple that was cleared and publicly declared as cleared, were the McReynolds. jmo

[Athena]

Too late to edit.

Fleet White was not concerned about JBR - he was out for self. Hunter never wrote him off as a suspect and he hated Hunter for that. His pleas for a Special Prosecutor also were denied -- some were able to see right through him. He and Thomas were up each other's a**. White knew Thomas was looking at noone else but Patsy and he just fit right in. As long as Thomas wasn't looking elsewhere -- he was fine. And just before Thomas resigned he was told to investigate White further (PMPT) and White knew it and he himself withdrew as a key witness. jmo

[diplomat]

Originally posted by jocefious
:punch: okok you guys .here is another to think about. john walsh also became famous. his son's killer was never found. never trusted that man. i'm pretty sure patsy and john ramsey did comit the crime.exploiting their child as a 6 yr old hooker isn't normal. body language of patsy was easy to read. john could have coached her better on that. don't talk ya walk:flamemad: jocefious

You are saying the Ramsey's put forth JB as a HOOKER?