I am so sorry you’ve gone elvis

[rashomon]

Forgive me for being dumb, but is it an actual fact that there were caterers at the party on the 23rd? If so, why haven't any come forward to claim the pineapple? I do not buy that they don't want to get involved. That is lame. Even so...I can go along with caterers bringing it in but it does not explain why Patsy and Burkes prints were on the bowl of pineapple. You people sure believe in coincidences if you think their prints were on it from putting dishes away. I have a hard time even envisioning Patsy washing a dish, let alone putting one away. IMO
It also does not explain how the pineapple got into JB's stomach if she allegedly was already asleep when the family arrived home. Per Patsy, JB would NOT have gone downstairs alone at night, for she would have been afraid. She also said JB would not have been able to open the fridge alone.
But caterers would not have left a bowl of pineaple sitting out on the table, but would have put it in the fridge.
The spoon in the bowl btw was not a 'big serving spoon', but looked like a normal table spoon. I always thought it was something like a ladle, but no. It It is only the size is of a tablespoon, and it is easy to compare since the teabag is right next to it.
Nor was the bowl big. It looked more like the size of a porridge bowl.
It does not look at all as if kids took out the wrong bowl and the wrong spoon for a snack.

[rashomon]

Wecome back.........Im so glad you are back. We desperately need a voice of reason here. Its like some people must live in a paralell universe where every one who doesnt remember mundane superficial details like they are on a film are lying. And where normal everyday parents decide to brutelly kill their daughter over a non existant syndrome (toilet rage) and then stage her little body to cover every assult known to man from strangling to rape to terrorist attacks and ransom for good measure....as you do.

Hope to see more of your steady logic so I can sleep at night knowing there are some normal people out there! jmo
Sadly, toilet rage is not a non-existing syndrome, but very real. It is a very frequent reason for child abuse. Dr. Krugman, one of the experts consulted on the case, was of the opinion that toilet rage was the reason for the attack on JB.
Imagine Patsy dead tired at around midnight, Burke and John already alseep, but JB is still milling around and refusing to got to bed. And into the bargain, she now also soils herself. Now Patsy becomes furious, yanks her around and JB's head tragically hits the bathtub ...

Even so-called normal people can snap and lose it, given the circumstances. No one can say of themselves that they are such paragons of patience that no matter what, they woud never lose control.

[rashomon]

The Bonita Papers are the records Rashie uses when the autopsy records don't give her what she needs to try to convince someone that non-existant things do exist. Give it up, Rashie, you cannot argue the wool fibers into existence, they weren't there and won't be the next twenty times you try to interject them into being. Just leave them where they've always been, in your imagination; better still, weave your flying carpet out of these threads, the carpet and the threads have the same basis in reality.JMHO:biggrin:
That fiber evidence keeps bugging you Bullie, doesn't it? And rightly so.
Interesting that unlike you, Lin Wood did NOT tell Levin he thought the fibers didn't exist. You bet that if this was a cheap trick employed by Levin, a hard-boiled attack dog lawyer like Wood would have told him this bluntly in theface in that interview.

Suppose it had come to trial, the lab techs would have had to testify and confirm what Levin told John Ramsey. Wouldn't it have been far too risky if Levin had pulled anything out of thin air in this interview? The defense would have had a field day with those non-existing fibers and Levin would probably have gotten a malfeasance suit.

Do you seriously believe that highly respected lawyers like Bruce Levin Esq, Michael Kane Esq., and Mitch Morrissey Esq. who when conducting the interview with John, were acting on behalf of the United States and were bound by a code of ethics, were all liars trying to frame the Ramseys? Liars who were in collusion with the CBI lab techs and SteveThomas?

If lawyers representing their client are bound by strict rules when it comes to lying (see the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct), then it is logical to assume that the same applies to lawyers acting on behalf of the United States.

[Athena]

Too often misconduct by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges is routinely tolerated. This blatant tolerance by district attorneys, judges, and appellate courts robs defendants of their right to a fair trial and worse has caused people to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Prosecutors who lie, distort , or withhold evidence must be held accountable with criminal charges for their routine misconduct.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=15182

Too many to provide excerpts:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm

[rashomon]

Too often misconduct by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges is routinely tolerated. This blatant tolerance by district attorneys, judges, and appellate courts robs defendants of their right to a fair trial and worse has caused people to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Prosecutors who lie, distort , or withhold evidence must be held accountable with criminal charges for their routine misconduct.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=15182

Too many to provide excerpts
http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm
Of course prosecutorial misconduct exists in this world. No one would dispute that. Just look at Alex Hunter.:)

But to simply assume that a whole group of people - respected lawyers like Bruce Levin Esq, Michael Kane Esq, Mitch Morrissey Esq, in collusion with the BPD, represented by Jane Harmer, Tom Trujillo and Tom Wickman, together with Steve Thomas and the CBI lab guys who allegedly fabricated fiber evidence against John, conspired to frame John Ramsey is stretching it beyond all probability imo.

[Miss Marple]

Yes, but there were also small darkfibers found on JB's external labia, and it seems they were the black wool fibers which John was asked about.
From the Bonita papers:

During the vaginal examination, small dark coloredfibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia. A faint area of purple discoloration was noted on the right labia major. Vascular congestion was found along the inner membrane of the vaginal vault, and red water fluid, appearing to be blood, was present. The hymeneal opening had a mild abrasion, and the hymen appeared to have been torn. Dr. Meyer noted that the trauma to JonBenet’s vaginal area was consistent with digital, rather than penile penetration. He was not able to determine if there had been previous trauma to the vaginal area. Dr. Meyer stated that it appeared that JonBenet’s pubic area may have been cleaned, or at least wiped by someone using a towel or piece of clothing. Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area.

Well, at the risk of getting this posted at the water cooler at Elvislive's office, let me ask a question. Leaving aside the reliability of the Bonita Papers entirely, I'm just trying to focus on understanding clearly what is being claimed above. Are the references to small dark colored fibers on external labia and small dark blue fibers from "vaginal area" allusions to DIFFERENT sets of fibers?

Let me stipulate that as a guy, I do not pretend to be an expert on women's geography, so to speak, but if you asked me whether the external labia were in the "vaginal area" I would say yes. In the description above, are these locations more precise than I am imagining them? If vaginal area denotes ("connotes"?) the INSIDE of the vagina, then I understand the distinction. It's the term "area" that is throwing me off. The knee, thigh or even belly-button aren't in the vaginal area, in my book, but the labia are.

I hope that someone can see clearly enough through their tears of laughter to help me out here. However ludicrous it might sound to the female posters, this is a serious question.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Zoey]

Well, at the risk of getting this posted at the water cooler at Elvislive's office, let me ask a question. Leaving aside the reliability of the Bonita Papers entirely, I'm just trying to focus on understanding clearly what is being claimed above. Are the references to small dark colored fibers on external labia and small dark blue fibers from "vaginal area" allusions to DIFFERENT sets of fibers?

Let me stipulate that as a guy, I do not pretend to be an expert on women's geography, so to speak, but if you asked me whether the external labia were in the "vaginal area" I would say yes. In the description above, are these locations more precise than I am imagining them? If vaginal area denotes ("connotes"?) the INSIDE of the vagina, then I understand the distinction. It's the term "area" that is throwing me off. The knee, thigh or even belly-button aren't in the vaginal area, in my book, but the labia are.

I hope that someone can see clearly enough through their tears of laughter to help me out here. However ludicrous it might sound to the female posters, this is a serious question.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

I am not a gynecologist, but hopefully this will help:

The labia minora are the inner lips of the vulva, thin stretches of tissue within the labia majora that fold and protect the vagina.

With this, I would say the labia are in the vaginal area. Real good neighbors actually!

[thewhitewitch1]

1997
TT: Okay. Um, you guys had a, a Foyer Group meeting back on the 13th.
PR: Right.
TT: You want kind of . . .
PR: What is that?
TT: What is the Foyer Group, yeah.
PR: The Foyer, it’s a Foyer dinner group from church . . .
TT: Okay.
PR: . . .from St. Johns and um, they have small groups , kind of a dinner group assigned and you meet with that group throughout the year, usually like school year.
TT: Um hum.
PR: And you have dinner in each others home, but this particular, there are like dinner, individual dinner groups of maybe six to ten that meet in each others homes and then the entire Foyer Dinner Group which is made up several of these smaller groups. . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: . . .had a Christmas party at our house, so the entire group was invited.
TT: (Inaudible) the six to ten of that, six to ten couples or six to ten people?
PR: People.
TT: Okay.
PR: (Inaudible) Might be couples and singles.
[…]
TT: Patsy, let’s um, let’s kind of go back to December 23rd. I know you had a party at your house, quite a few people at the house.
PR: Um hum.


Thanks Louisa. I stand corrected.
Elvis, it is important to know the approximate time that JB consumed the pineapple because it is relevant to her murder. I do not believe that JB got up and served it to herself for reasons I've mentioned many times.
If Patsy had fed it to her, then that means their entire story of what took place that night was a lie and that is what I am trying to figure out. I have completely dismissed the notion that an intruder fed it to her, of course.

[rashomon]

Well, at the risk of getting this posted at the water cooler at Elvislive's office, let me ask a question. Leaving aside the reliability of the Bonita Papers entirely, I'm just trying to focus on understanding clearly what is being claimed above. Are the references to small dark colored fibers on external labia and small dark blue fibers from "vaginal area" allusions to DIFFERENT sets of fibers?

Let me stipulate that as a guy, I do not pretend to be an expert on women's geography, so to speak, but if you asked me whether the external labia were in the "vaginal area" I would say yes. In the description above, are these locations more precise than I am imagining them? If vaginal area denotes ("connotes"?) the INSIDE of the vagina, then I understand the distinction. It's the term "area" that is throwing me off. The knee, thigh or even belly-button aren't in the vaginal area, in my book, but the labia are.

I hope that someone can see clearly enough through their tears of laughter to help me out here. However ludicrous it might sound to the female posters, this is a serious question.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple
"On the external labia" is fairly specific: it means on the surface of the labia maiora (= the outer lips of the vulva), implying that the fibers were not found in the vagina.
Those were the small dark fibers mentioned in the Bonita papers.

The Bonita papers then go on and mention 'small dark blue' fibers which were found in her vaginal area. If these had been the same fibers als those first mentioned, I think the report would have said "the same fibers were also found in her vaginal area".

The BP mentions "small dark fibers" and "small dark blue fibers". The small dark blue fiber were cotton resembling a towel or washcloth.

John Ramsey's shirt was black wool. Since according to Levin, fibers from this shirt were also found in the crotch area of JB's underpants, this would be consistent with them also being on the external labia, since fiber transfer could have occured from the external labia to the crotch area of the underpants.

[concernedperson]

I find the post you are referring to just odd. Years before JB was murdered or perhaps even born, as I didn't get a response to my question, this person claims to have seen Patsy upset at the UPS people, so this must mean that this horrible anger was carried with her for all those years and then suddenly this anger comes boiling out and she murders her daughter?


This was behavior noted after JB's murder. It happened in 1997 or 98 as I worked on that property twice (worked on a dozen or so properties) and I can't remember which month. I wasn't very aware of the crime at the time or at least I didn't follow details. All I noticed was a behavior to the employees at the leasing office not UPS. It was a over a UPS package that wasn't delivered to her door in a timely fashion (the office was busy). It wasn't directed at me but at others and I saw it.

Honestly, other than reading occasionally this is all I can contribute. The case is very complicated with many layers and I didn't follow it from the beginning. This is all I know first hand. Her anger seemed very misplaced for the incident.

[bullmoose]

This was behavior noted after JB's murder. It happened in 1997 or 98 as I worked on that property twice (worked on a dozen or so properties) and I can't remember which month. I wasn't very aware of the crime at the time or at least I didn't follow details. All I noticed was a behavior to the employees at the leasing office not UPS. It was a over a UPS package that wasn't delivered to her door in a timely fashion (the office was busy). It wasn't directed at me but at others and I saw it.

Honestly, other than reading occasionally this is all I can contribute. The case is very complicated with many layers and I didn't follow it from the beginning. This is all I know first hand. Her anger seemed very misplaced for the incident. Of course, if you are stating here that you were a UPS employee at the time[97 or 98] on or at a certain property, although the month didn't stick in your mind, as you say; certainly you should be able to look it up as I believe UPS keeps very good logbooks and records; especially when people react in a totally inappropriate way. You know, for the kooks.Even if it wasn't directed at you I would think it simple to access the records of the event, you know, to prove it actually happened????JMO

[concernedperson]

Of course, if you are stating here that you were a UPS employee at the time[97 or 98] on or at a certain property, although the month didn't stick in your mind, as you say; certainly you should be able to look it up as I believe UPS keeps very good logbooks and records; especially when people react in a totally inappropriate way. You know, for the kooks.Even if it wasn't directed at you I would think it simple to access the records of the event, you know, to prove it actually happened????JMO

No, not a UPS employee, a leasing consultant at an apartment community. UPS delivered packages to the office when residents weren't home. We sometimes would take the packages to their apartments....this day the office was too busy.

[bullmoose]

That fiber evidence keeps bugging you Bullie, doesn't it? And rightly so.
Interesting that unlike you, Lin Wood did NOT tell Levin he thought the fibers didn't exist. You bet that if this was a cheap trick employed by Levin, a hard-boiled attack dog lawyer like Wood would have told him this bluntly in theface in that interview.

Suppose it had come to trial, the lab techs would have had to testify and confirm what Levin told John Ramsey. Wouldn't it have been far too risky if Levin had pulled anything out of thin air in this interview? The defense would have had a field day with those non-existing fibers and Levin would probably have gotten a malfeasance suit.

Do you seriously believe that highly respected lawyers like Bruce Levin Esq, Michael Kane Esq., and Mitch Morrissey Esq. who when conducting the interview with John, were acting on behalf of the United States and were bound by a code of ethics, were all liars trying to frame the Ramseys? Liars who were in collusion with the CBI lab techs and SteveThomas?

If lawyers representing their client are bound by strict rules when it comes to lying (see the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct), then it is logical to assume that the same applies to lawyers acting on behalf of the United States.I now have a new story that fits your fibers, rashie, The Emporer's New Clothes, I will miss the flying carpet you've been zipping around on, but somehow your attempts to weave whole cloth from fantasy seems to fit the storyline better. Twist it and weave it rashie, its all the same thing; argue yourself around corners and through windows and down chimneys if it tickles your fancy, but none of your argument makes any of the Imaginary Fibers pop into existance. Your lack of understanding of the American Legal System leaves you in the Emporer's Clothes, buck naked but you pretend to see what isn't there. I would never presume to tell you how the German Legal System works, from what I have seen on CNN when accused terrorists are being tried, it is a lot different from anything in the USA; there is a different history to either system, which is not necessarily even related. When you call any American lawyer an esquire, I just don't know what to make of you. In the USA, Attorney at Law is the term; esq. is an English term; again you keep exposing your lack of knowledge or even of comprehension of the US legal system. I have to tell you your incomprehension is almost stupifying to behold,your entire argument above is too fluffy even to weave your Imaginary Threads into cloth even for your EC. Might I suggest you wrap yourself in a warm robe and come visit the US and watch how its legal system actually works, okay? Otherwise you are liable to take chill with your EC threads. JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

No, not a UPS employee, a leasing consultant at an apartment community. UPS delivered packages to the office when residents weren't home. We sometimes would take the packages to their apartments....this day the office was too busy.I know it was years ago, but surely records of such rancorous customers would be kept, especially one so infamous as Patsy Ramsey, to protect against lawsuits and such,I would think? I mean, the angry response was documented , wasn't it?
JMO

[andU]

I myself am very interested in meeting and finding out about a poster with over athousand posts that suddenly pops up on this board claiming a behavior of Patsy that would perhaps be intriguing if he said what year, where, all sorts of details to establish some kind of bona fides. I seem to remember some vaguely similar story last year, but this one was set in a post office, and sort of fizzled as I recall when certain questions were made of it. I guess we'll see with this one, too. JMHO

Oh, yeah... I remember that one! I guess that's why this story sounded so familiar to me. I say it is blarney. Someone is playing around.

[rashomon]

When you call any American lawyer an esquire, I just don't know what to make of you. In the USA, Attorney at Law is the term; esq. is an English term; again you keep exposing your lack of knowledge or even of comprehension of the US legal system. I have to tell you your incomprehension is almost stupifying to behold,your entire argument above is too fluffy even to weave your Imaginary Threads into cloth even for your EC. Might I suggest you wrap yourself in a warm robe and come visit the US and watch how its legal system actually works, okay? Otherwise you are liable to take chill with your EC threads. JMHO:biggrin:
LOL, Moosie: thanks for providing the proof that you have never stuck your nose into an interview with the Ramseys. For if you had, you would have read "Esq." behind the names of Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrissey. Lin Wood btw also has the honorific Esq.
Again you have shot yourself in the foot here. Hardly surprising, for all your shots have ended there so far.

Here it is, bolded especially for you, who are notoriously blind when it cames to factual info. Enjoy.:

August 29, 2000


2140 The Equitable Building

7 100 Peachtree Street

Atlanta, Georgia

....


1 APPEARANCES

2 .

3 On behalf of John and Patsy Ramsey:

4 L. LIN WOOD, Esq.

5 Law Offices of L. Lin Wood

6 2140 The Equitable Building

7 100 Peachtree Street

8 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

9 .

10 On behalf of The United States:

11 MICHAEL KANE, Esq.
12 BRUCE LEVIN, Esq.

13 MITCH MORRISSEY, Esq.
14 MARK R. BECKNER

15 TOM WICKMAN

16 TOM TRUJILLO

17 JANE HARMER

But what else is to be expected from someone like you who has himself admitted that he is a 'windbag'. Nothing but air inside indeed when it comes to case facts.

[andU]

This was behavior noted after JB's murder. It happened in 1997 or 98 as I worked on that property twice (worked on a dozen or so properties) and I can't remember which month. I wasn't very aware of the crime at the time or at least I didn't follow details. All I noticed was a behavior to the employees at the leasing office not UPS. It was a over a UPS package that wasn't delivered to her door in a timely fashion (the office was busy). It wasn't directed at me but at others and I saw it.

Honestly, other than reading occasionally this is all I can contribute. The case is very complicated with many layers and I didn't follow it from the beginning. This is all I know first hand. Her anger seemed very misplaced for the incident.

Hmmm to have racked up as many posts as you have, I'd say you do a bit more than occasional read.

[bullmoose]

LOL, Moosie: thanks for providing the proof that you have never stuck your nose into an interview with the Ramseys. For if you had, you would have read "Esq." behind the names of Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrissey. Lin Wood btw also has the honorific Esq.
Again you have shot yourself in the foot here. Hardly surprising, for all your shots have ended there so far.

Here it is, bolded especially for you, who are notoriously blind when it cames to factual info. Enjoy.:



But what else is to be expected from someone like you who has himself admitted that he is a 'windbag'. Nothing but air inside indeed when it comes to case facts.I do hope that you haven't taken a chill from this winbags gaffe, seeing as how you are wearing Emporer's Clothes, a thin garb at this time of year. My other points I repeat: your knowledge of how the US legal and particularly the criminal law works is abysmal beyond any American's comprehension.My invitation stands: Weave some of your Imaginary threads into Rashie's Intercontinental Carpet Service and watch the real law at work in the USA; I think you'd be shocked, but possibly you'd be enlightened at how law is actually practiced here. But put on a warm wrap, EC threaded clothes won't keep you warm on the flight over or back.JMHO:biggrin:

[Zoey]

LOL, Moosie: thanks for providing the proof that you have never stuck your nose into an interview with the Ramseys. For if you had, you would have read "Esq." behind the names of Michael Kane, Bruce Levin and Mitch Morrissey. Lin Wood btw also has the honorific Esq.
Again you have shot yourself in the foot here. Hardly surprising, for all your shots have ended there so far.



Rashomon, FYI, anyone in the United States can put Esquire after their name. It means absolutely nothing here. Usually lawyers do it to make themselves sound more important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire

In the United States, there are neither native titled gentry nor nobility. The suffix "Esq." has no legal meaning (except in some states), and may, in theory, be adopted by anyone (usually by a man). In practice, it is used almost exclusively by lawyers (of both sexes in the United States only), and so it generally may be assumed that, when "Esq." appears on business cards or stationery, the man or woman so identified is a member of the bar.

[aussiesheila]

Whoaa there Nelly! Since when has a poster been not allowed to question someone elses differing oppinion? EL is a very informed intelligent person but I'd also have to say the same for Rashomon. Thier debate was extremely enlightening and I've got to say just because someone holds a strong position either way gives them no extra kudos. None of us can prove our arguments here and I hesitate to say the most we could hope for with what we've got is to get us all to he point where we feel somewhat satisfied with the views we've taken in the end; and there are more than myself here I imagine who are still trying to sort through the muck.





It is important for people to debate and not take everything they are told at face value. Come on guys, be fair!
Sharlock :punch:It wasn't about a difference of opinion, sharlock. It was about the personal attacks. Maybe you missed seeing them, but they were posted here, and it was only after them that elvis left.

[aussiesheila]

Aussie, to the best of my memory, I don't recall having had any exchange about the forensic evidence with you on WS. We did have exchanges about your theory, but this theory imo is so absurd in itself that any question as to whether "it fits the forensic evidence" is of no relevance anyway.I remember discussing issues with you relating to no evidence of inflammation, clotting or massive hemorrhaging at Websleuths, which were later repeated between you and elvis on this forum. I am not prepared to spend time looking them up again, so if you don't remember and you say we didn't have any exchanges, then go ahead and believe your memory, and I'll go on and believe mine.


Do you seriously believe that Patsy Ramsey, after arriving home late from a Christmas party and having to rise early in the morning because the family had a scheduled flight to Michigan, invited people for a 'photo session' with JB, but then Patsy fell asleep on the couch, and these people (who were actually pedophiles - you never said how many came to the house), then took JB to the basement, celebrating a sadistic orgy with several of them working on JB silmultaneously: one pulling the cord on her neck, one jabbing the paintbrush into her vagina, and the other one whacking her on the head.
JB either was hanging down from a hook in the ceiling or standing on a chair
(you presented alternative scenarios on that when having difficulty explaining the lack of ligature abrasion marks on JB's wrists).
When Patsy finally woke up from her sleep on the couch and they told her that JB was dead, she agreed to pen the ransom note since she wanted the pedophiles' approval since they they belonged to the Boulder society.
When coming over here, you expanded on your theory by introducing bunny rabbits into your pedophile orgy scenario.

Sorry, Aussie, but your theory is about as convincing as if I would show a carrot to my kindergartners, telling them: "the Easter Bunny must have been here. Everyone knows bunnies love carrots, Easter is not far away - I think he was here and left that carrot behind."
This theory would 'fit the evidence', wouldn't it? :)I also remember you poo poohing my theory, which you continue to do here. Feel free to continue with that, my theory is not going to fall simply because rashomon finds it impossible to believe. I just ask that you do me the courtesy of trashing my theory as I have posted it, and not one of your twisted versions of of it.

And just to refresh your memory so that you get it right next time - JB was ALWAYS standing on a chair with her arms attached to a hook in the ceiling via the wrist cords in my scenario. That has NEVER changed. I have absolutely no idea what alternative scenario I am supposed to have presented to explain the lack of ligature abrasion marks on JB's wrists. I would like a reference to what you read please.

[aussiesheila]

Yes, I had that coming and I do appologise to you & others on the board. I t5hink Im spending too many hours here, and I lost good judgement in what I wanted to convey & the best way to do so.

I really wanted to say something like...when you analyse most of the theories, they do all sound a bit rediculous & far fetched. Like to me, hearing that the parents staged details of their daughters death in a meticulous way seems far fetched. Infact, if you were to poll the general public on what parents would do after having killed their child (by accident?) I bet staging a crime scene wouldnt even get on the list. Irl, parents dont do things like that, and I was trying to illustrate how crazy it really sounds!

Mind you, sometimes its very hard to really believe this crime happened at all in the way it did. I know some of the IDI theories sound incredulous, especially when said in a very sarcastic (as if) way. But, stranger things have happened.

Today, I was thinking about lhow all murders seem to have really silly trivial reasons & motives when we do get to find out direct from the perp. From what Ive read here on this site its really beyond belief as to why some of these perps do the sick cruel things that they do. eg the canibal eats his victims because he is lonely, or the monster butchers a little girl because his neice called him a name, and the girl is her friend. etc. Sometimes the circumstances are so bizaare that you could never believe it possible like the guy who they based Silence Of the Lambs on. If we say these stories out loud they sound ludicrous......but they are real.

What Im getting at is sometimes theres no real reason for a murder that makes sense to us because we are not sick. Aussie may have a way out theory, but much of what she has offered as her idea of what happened does go on irl ie peds and groups working together etc. Pedophilia goes right up into the highest echilions of society....which in itself is unbelievable.

We just dont know what happened, we have almost no intruder evidence taken to work with, we have almost no RDI evidence to work with. Its a very difficult case to crack.

And I really am sorry if I offended anyone, I guess I was sort of protecting Aussie because she puts so much effort into her posts here, and I didnt like the mockery towards her. But I guess she can look after herself!!
Still friends????
jmoNever mind Sharon, we all (well maybe not all) do it - there must be a word for it, when we've spent too many hours here at one stretch, being objective, polite to the nth degree, tiredness and emotions kick in and we post the post we later regret.

Oh, I didn't realise THAT post was to protect me, but I have noticed you backing me up in a lot of your posts and I do appreciate it believe me, thanks Sharon.

PS I must have been here too long, I have to admit I enjoyed reading it. I must say it was a welcome relief after the spin some RDIs put on my theory, and quite mild by comparison with theirs, I thought. I suppose your post was a bit black humoury, but as far as being cruel to the Ramseys it doesn't hold a candle to other things that have been said about them.

[aussiesheila]

So far I am the only person to have met Patsy Ramsey.I have posted this before at WS. Patsy was extremely judgemental and agitated when I met her.It was over a UPS package...pretty much inconsequential in most of our minds. But, to her it was pivotal. Her rage was palpable and I actually backed away. Her voice was resounding in the leasing office where I worked at the time.

I felt then as I feel now that she wasn't in control of her emotions. The veins popping up in her neck were a dead giveaway. JMO.concernedperson, I read what you posted about Patsy at Websleuths and have not forgotten it. I believe you and have used your information in building up my mental picture of what Patsy was like. The vision I got though, was different from yours, I would say she was still in control of her emotions, but used her anger to get what she wanted and let it rip so to speak whenever she thought it could be of use to her. Of course I wasn't there like you were, so I might be getting the wrong picture.

[elvislives]

Forgive me for being dumb, but is it an actual fact that there were caterers at the party on the 23rd? If so, why haven't any come forward to claim the pineapple? I do not buy that they don't want to get involved. That is lame. Even so...I can go along with caterers bringing it in but it does not explain why Patsy and Burkes prints were on the bowl of pineapple. You people sure believe in coincidences if you think their prints were on it from putting dishes away. I have a hard time even envisioning Patsy washing a dish, let alone putting one away. IMO

TWW, I fully acknowledge that it would be an unusual series of coincidences for there to be an innocuous explanation for the pineapple in JBs small intestine. As I see it there are 2 possibilities:

The simple explanation: the Rs were lying about JB being asleep when they got home. In fact, she was awake and had a bite of pineapple as a snack. Patsy got it out of the refrigerator and JB perhaps just reached in and grabbed a piece. Burke actually touched the bowl which is why his prints are on it. 1-3 hours later the Rs killed JB and lied about the pineapple as they failed to realize the significance in this helping to establish a time line before her death.

The complex but possible explanation: JB was asleep when they got home, as reported by the Rs and they put her to bed. Later that evening she awoke, perhaps to urinate, then wandered down stairs and saw the bowl of pineapple on the table, reached in and grabbed a chunk. She sat down to play with a toy, or went back to bed and 1-3 hours later was killed by an intruder. Patsy was unaware that pineapple was in her frig. I have explained how this is possible using my own experience for those who have a lot of domestic help. Her prints were on it because she moved the bowl in the frig in an attempt to get to another item or perhaps removed it from the dishwasher and put it away before it was used to store the pineapple. She was not aware that JB would ever wander the house alone or get up alone, thus her testimony.

It certainly calls for a series of unusual coincidences, but there are equally perplexing coincidences required to believe the RDI theory. An example:

The simple explanation: The DNA belonging to the male intruder was found mixed in with JBs blood in a spot on her underwear because the intruder had molested her prior to killing her. The DNA was from saliva, hence the 9 loci, and (I wont get too graphic) but the saliva was deposited in JBs vagina during the sexual assault. The DNA belongs to the killer.

The complex but possible explanation: During manufacturing of the bloomies one of the male employees sneezed or coughed leaving his DNA in the crotch area of the underwear. The dna survived the packaging process, transport to the US and Patsy bought that package of bloomies which was contaminated with the male factory workers dna, and remarkably still had 9 loci. During their staged sexual assault of JB, her parents jabbed her vagina in an attempt to make the crime appear to have been committed by a sexual predator. Remarkably, JB bled into the EXACT spot where the asian had sneezed, thus mixing her blood with the factory workers dna. The dna is artifact and and this series of coincidences provides the innocuous explantion for its presence.

So you see, there are remarkable coincidences that MUST have occurred, regardless of which side of the fence you;re on. Very perplexing and one of the main reasons I still sit on the fence.

[elvislives]

Well, at the risk of getting this posted at the water cooler at Elvislive's office, let me ask a question. Leaving aside the reliability of the Bonita Papers entirely, I'm just trying to focus on understanding clearly what is being claimed above. Are the references to small dark colored fibers on external labia and small dark blue fibers from "vaginal area" allusions to DIFFERENT sets of fibers?

Let me stipulate that as a guy, I do not pretend to be an expert on women's geography, so to speak, but if you asked me whether the external labia were in the "vaginal area" I would say yes. In the description above, are these locations more precise than I am imagining them? If vaginal area denotes ("connotes"?) the INSIDE of the vagina, then I understand the distinction. It's the term "area" that is throwing me off. The knee, thigh or even belly-button aren't in the vaginal area, in my book, but the labia are.

I hope that someone can see clearly enough through their tears of laughter to help me out here. However ludicrous it might sound to the female posters, this is a serious question.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Miss Marple,

Here is a link to a map of the vagina so you can find your way around next time you're in the neighborhood ;) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vulva_anatomy.jpg

But you are correct in your interpretation of the phrase "vaginal area". I am VERY surprised that Meyer or any physician would use such a vague term in a medical report. Is this a direct quote from the autopsy? Medical reports usually contain very specific anatomical terminology and docs are specifically trained not to use ambiguous phasing to avoid misunderstanding. I'll have to go back and review the autopsy report.

Technically the vagina extends from the cervix to the vulva. So the "vaginal area" could certainly encompass the external genitalia. .

[rashomon]

I remember discussing issues with you relating to no evidence of inflammation, clotting or massive hemorrhaging at Websleuths, which were later repeated between you and elvis on this forum. I am not prepared to spend time looking them up again, so if you don't remember and you say we didn't have any exchanges, then go ahead and believe your memory, and I'll go on and believe mine.

I do remember having had discussions about the brain hemorrhage with quite a few posters on WS, and in case you were among them, I must have forgotten about it. All those pedophiles in your scenario running around in the Ramsey basement must have blurred my memory re other posting exchanges with you.

And just to refresh your memory so that you get it right next time - That has NEVER changed. I have absolutely no idea what alternative scenario I am supposed to have presented to explain the lack of ligature abrasion marks on JB's wrists. I would like a reference to what you read please.
I'll try hard to do my best in terms of future memory, so let's discuss your scenario as is posted here.
JB was ALWAYS standing on a chair with her arms attached to a hook in the ceiling via the wrist cords in my scenario.
Must be quite difficult to jab a paintbrush into a child's vagina in such a standing position, don't you think so?

That chair must also have been be awfully high if a six-year-old could stand on it with the 15-inch space of cord between her wrists attached to a hook in the ceiling, lol.
So while one pedophile was busy with the paintbrush, another pulled the 'garrote' tight and loosened it while she was standing on the chair, right?
And JB did not fall off that chair?

[Miss Marple]

The simple explanation: the Rs were lying about JB being asleep when they got home. In fact, she was awake and had a bite of pineapple as a snack. Patsy got it out of the refrigerator and JB perhaps just reached in and grabbed a piece. Burke actually touched the bowl which is why his prints are on it. 1-3 hours later the Rs killed JB and lied about the pineapple as they failed to realize the significance in this helping to establish a time line before her death.
It's hard to picture an "inadvertent" lie here. That is, they may well have originally left out pineapple in their first account either because they forgot or considered it trivial. But when pressed on this by police, they surely "got" that this was an important factor, so if innocent, I can't picture them electing to continue to stonewall. If they persisted in a lie, I'd have to concur with RDI's, it's not unreasonable to view that as suspicious behavior, i.e., resulting from a motivation to hide their own role in the killing. Conversely, however, if they killed her, they have nothing to gain by hiding the pineapple story since the pineapple isn't implicated in her death. Moreover, they knew police had talked to Burke privately on 12/26/06. It would make no sense to risk getting caught in a lie if Burke indeed were part of the pineapple eating.


The complex but possible explanation: JB was asleep when they got home, as reported by the Rs and they put her to bed. Later that evening she awoke, perhaps to urinate, then wandered down stairs and saw the bowl of pineapple on the table, reached in and grabbed a chunk. She sat down to play with a toy, or went back to bed and 1-3 hours later was killed by an intruder. Patsy was unaware that pineapple was in her frig. I have explained how this is possible using my own experience for those who have a lot of domestic help. Her prints were on it because she moved the bowl in the frig in an attempt to get to another item or perhaps removed it from the dishwasher and put it away before it was used to store the pineapple. She was not aware that JB would ever wander the house alone or get up alone, thus her testimony.
Two things argue against this. First, John reports JBR was too scared to go downstairs alone at night (I empathize and understand as I had this same fear at that age, so even the prospect of raiding the cookie jar wouldn't have been sufficient inducement to overcome that fear: the Ramsey house was much bigger than ours, so it would have been yet another extraordinary coincidence if this happened to be the first night JBR braved going downstairs alone. Moreover, HER fingerprints would have ended up on bowl in your scenario, but weren't there. Burke and JBR might have jointly made a trip, but there'd be no reason for Burke to lie about pineapple especially if police made clear it might be clue to killer.


It certainly calls for a series of unusual coincidences, but there are equally perplexing coincidences required to believe the RDI theory. An example:

The simple explanation: The DNA belonging to the male intruder was found mixed in with JBs blood in a spot on her underwear because the intruder had molested her prior to killing her. The DNA was from saliva, hence the 9 loci, and (I wont get too graphic) but the saliva was deposited in JBs vagina during the sexual assault. The DNA belongs to the killer.
Does "hence" imply saliva only has 9 loci? FWIW, several sources, including Lin Wood, have said the DNA probably WAS saliva. http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA%20Evidence#MaleDNAinUnderwear

Why not the simplest explanation for the pineapple? It was the holiday. Patsy simply forgot--months or years later--whether she'd bought pineapple and the kids ate it as a snack in late afternoon while Patsy was getting ready for the party etc. Now if Burke were questioned about this, I would expect him to remember, but it's possible police simply framed their questions in terms of whether they ate pineapple after the party and Burke truthfully answered "no" without realizing that volunteering the information about eating it in the afternoon might be very helpful. Admittedly, this scenario would put the pineapple digestion time at the outer limits of what's physiologically normal, BUT remember that it was Christmas night, so in the excitement of the party, not all that much digestion might have gotten done until JBR finally fell asleep, but by that time she presumably was only hours away from death. Of all the possible improbable events/scenarios, this seems the most straightforward and likely.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Miss Marple,

Here is a link to a map of the vagina so you can find your way around next time you're in the neighborhood ;) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vulva_anatomy.jpg

Dr. EL,
As a reflection of my gratitude for this anatomy lesson (far more thorough than the one my father provided when I was young), I will carefully safeguard these treasured secrets and be certain not to misuse the information.


But you are correct in your interpretation of the phrase "vaginal area". I am VERY surprised that Meyer or any physician would use such a vague term in a medical report. Is this a direct quote from the autopsy? Medical reports usually contain very specific anatomical terminology and docs are specifically trained not to use ambiguous phasing to avoid misunderstanding. I'll have to go back and review the autopsy report.

Technically the vagina extends from the cervix to the vulva. So the "vaginal area" could certainly encompass the external genitalia. .
No, the language is from the BONITA PAPERS! So here's my question: please note that the autopsy report is precisely as you describe, VERY concrete and specific in terms of describing locations. Well, I just noticed what ISN'T stated in the autopsy. There's no mention of fibers--blue OR black--in the vaginal area: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Body#VaginalInjuries
IF there were fibers found on the labia or in the "vaginal vault" wouldn't the ME be obligated to point this out? Or is this one of those things that deliberately got left unmentioned so that police would have something to confirm that any potential nutcase confessor actually was the true killer since they would know the fiber details etc.?

Amateur sleuth that I am, I'm inclined to think that lack of mention of these fibers helps corroborate our suspicions that Levin may have lied about this point when interrogating John. Is that too strong an inference given how autopsy reports are supposed to be written?
Thanks,
Miss Marple

[rashomon]

Dr. EL,
As a reflection of my gratitude for this anatomy lesson (far more thorough than the one my father provided when I was young), I will carefully safeguard these treasured secrets and be certain not to misuse the information.


No, the language is from the BONITA PAPERS! So here's my question: please note that the autopsy report is precisely as you describe, VERY concrete and specific in terms of describing locations. Well, I just noticed what ISN'T stated in the autopsy. There's no mention of fibers--blue OR black--in the vaginal area: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Body#VaginalInjuries
IF there were fibers found on the labia or in the "vaginal vault" wouldn't the ME be obligated to point this out? Or is this one of those things that deliberately got left unmentioned so that police would have something to confirm that any potential nutcase confessor actually was the true killer since they would know the fiber details etc.?

Amateur sleuth that I am, I'm inclined to think that lack of mention of these fibers helps corroborate our suspicions that Levin may have lied about this point when interrogating John. Is that too strong an inference given how autopsy reports are supposed to be written?
Thanks,
Miss Marple
Page 9 of the autopsy report mentions that fibers on the body and clothing were turned over to the police as evidence.

[shill]

With lots of Christmas lights lighting up the house, going downstairs would not be so scary, especially if you thought Santa might be down there.
Oh hey look, Burke left a bowl of pineapple out. I'll just grab a piece while I'm down here.

[rashomon]

It's hard to picture an "inadvertent" lie here. That is, they may well have originally left out pineapple in their first account either because they forgot or considered it trivial. But when pressed on this by police, they surely "got" that this was an important factor, so if innocent, I can't picture them electing to continue to stonewall. If they persisted in a lie, I'd have to concur with RDI's, it's not unreasonable to view that as suspicious behavior, i.e., resulting from a motivation to hide their own role in the killing. Conversely, however, if they killed her, they have nothing to gain by hiding the pineapple story since the pineapple isn't implicated in her death. Moreover, they knew police had talked to Burke privately on 12/26/06. It would make no sense to risk getting caught in a lie if Burke indeed were part of the pineapple eating.
Regardless of what Burke told the police, the Ramseys had trapped themselves by being so adamant about JB having been fast asleep to the point of being 'zonked out' when they got home. Therefore they had slammed the door shut to any packpedaling on their part, like "maybe she got herself some pineapple, we were all milling about after coming home, I didn't really notice. I was upstairs packing things for the trip and the kids were downstairs for a while prior to going to bed."
Their story did not allow for such an explanation. So they had no choice but to stick to it.

Were Burke's prints found on the bowl too?



Why not the simplest explanation for the pineapple? It was the holiday. Patsy simply forgot--months or years later--whether she'd bought pineapple and the kids ate it as a snack in late afternoon while Patsy was getting ready for the party etc. Now if Burke were questioned about this, I would expect him to remember, but it's possible police simply framed their questions in terms of whether they ate pineapple after the party and Burke truthfully answered "no" without realizing that volunteering the information about eating it in the afternoon might be very helpful. Admittedly, this scenario would put the pineapple digestion time at the outer limits of what's physiologically normal, BUT remember that it was Christmas night, so in the excitement of the party, not all that much digestion might have gotten done until JBR finally fell asleep, but by that time she presumably was only hours away from death. Of all the possible improbable events/scenarios, this seems the most straightforward and likely.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple
But remember that the cracked crab JB had at the Whites was further down in her digestive tract. Hard to imagne that pineapple with its almost 'laxative' qualities whould have stayed further up in the digestive tract for hours while the cracked crab was processed normally.

[Athena]

Sadly, toilet rage is not a non-existing syndrome, but very real. It is a very frequent reason for child abuse. Dr. Krugman, one of the experts consulted on the case, was of the opinion that toilet rage was the reason for the attack on JB.
Imagine Patsy dead tired at around midnight, Burke and John already alseep, but JB is still milling around and refusing to got to bed. And into the bargain, she now also soils herself. Now Patsy becomes furious, yanks her around and JB's head tragically hits the bathtub ...

Even so-called normal people can snap and lose it, given the circumstances. No one can say of themselves that they are such paragons of patience that no matter what, they woud never lose control.

Rash: This is exactly what frustrates me on this board. Dr. Krugman DID NOT SAY THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE ATTACK ON JBR. Oh my - with all the links to his statements I can't believe you would repeat this misinfo including the bathtub scenario when the evidence clearly shows she didn't hit head but was struck on the head with an object.

I'm glad that I at least found some common ground in the post with your very last sentence.

[bullmoose]

Rash: This is exactly what frustrates me on this board. Dr. Krugman DID NOT SAY THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE ATTACK ON JBR. Oh my - with all the links to his statements I can't believe you would repeat this misinfo including the bathtub scenario when the evidence clearly shows she didn't hit head but was struck on the head with an object.

I'm glad that I at least found some common ground in the post with your very last sentence.Athena, it astonishes me that anything Rashie posts would surprise you when it is misinformation. She believes the Horseplop{Bonita} Papers to be accurate[she really does,really]. JMHO:biggrin:

[Athena]

Athena, it astonishes me that anything Rashie posts would surprise you when it is misinformation. She believes the Horseplop{Bonita} Papers to be accurate[she really does,really]. JMHO:biggrin:

I just posted to her in another thread. On another forum there is a post written by a "Rashomon" that because the papers had Patsy Ramsey's date of birth wrong and her middle name incorrect, how could she believe what they say? LOL :shrug:

[Sharon]

TWW, I fully acknowledge that it would be an unusual series of coincidences for there to be an innocuous explanation for the pineapple in JBs small intestine. As I see it there are 2 possibilities:

The simple explanation: the Rs were lying about JB being asleep when they got home. In fact, she was awake and had a bite of pineapple as a snack. Patsy got it out of the refrigerator and JB perhaps just reached in and grabbed a piece. Burke actually touched the bowl which is why his prints are on it. 1-3 hours later the Rs killed JB and lied about the pineapple as they failed to realize the significance in this helping to establish a time line before her death.

The complex but possible explanation: JB was asleep when they got home, as reported by the Rs and they put her to bed. Later that evening she awoke, perhaps to urinate, then wandered down stairs and saw the bowl of pineapple on the table, reached in and grabbed a chunk. She sat down to play with a toy, or went back to bed and 1-3 hours later was killed by an intruder. Patsy was unaware that pineapple was in her frig. I have explained how this is possible using my own experience for those who have a lot of domestic help. Her prints were on it because she moved the bowl in the frig in an attempt to get to another item or perhaps removed it from the dishwasher and put it away before it was used to store the pineapple. She was not aware that JB would ever wander the house alone or get up alone, thus her testimony.

It certainly calls for a series of unusual coincidences, but there are equally perplexing coincidences required to believe the RDI theory. An example:

The simple explanation: The DNA belonging to the male intruder was found mixed in with JBs blood in a spot on her underwear because the intruder had molested her prior to killing her. The DNA was from saliva, hence the 9 loci, and (I wont get too graphic) but the saliva was deposited in JBs vagina during the sexual assault. The DNA belongs to the killer.

The complex but possible explanation: During manufacturing of the bloomies one of the male employees sneezed or coughed leaving his DNA in the crotch area of the underwear. The dna survived the packaging process, transport to the US and Patsy bought that package of bloomies which was contaminated with the male factory workers dna, and remarkably still had 9 loci. During their staged sexual assault of JB, her parents jabbed her vagina in an attempt to make the crime appear to have been committed by a sexual predator. Remarkably, JB bled into the EXACT spot where the asian had sneezed, thus mixing her blood with the factory workers dna. The dna is artifact and and this series of coincidences provides the innocuous explantion for its presence.

So you see, there are remarkable coincidences that MUST have occurred, regardless of which side of the fence you;re on. Very perplexing and one of the main reasons I still sit on the fence.

EL, are you saying what I think you are saying about the saliva being where it shouldnt? If so, that makes the sexual assult definately not a staged after effect but an integral part of the attack and rape. It also could mean that the sexual preditor was impotent or unable (due to her size) to have intercourse.

My idea of what happened to this girl justs gets worse and worse.

Really, those who believe that the R. did it must be sleeping much better than someone like me re. this crime. jmo

[Louisadelmar]

Is there an article anywhere (not JonBenet related) that specifically talks about "toilet rage"? I couldn't find one even with Krugman's name attached to the search.

[Sharon]

Is there an article anywhere (not JonBenet related) that specifically talks about "toilet rage"? I couldn't find one even with Krugman's name attached to the search.

That`s because this is a syndrome that does not exist anywhere but in this one case.

Seriously, if it ever was a theory put out there by Krugman, I`d be putting my money on him wanting to really distance himself from it now. As they say in economics.......this theory is sitting on top of the scrap heap of defunct ideas.

Maybe the RDI should move on to my favourite `leaving socks on the floor` rage...followed by `leaving the toilet seat up and unflushed` rage. This is very real in my home, I can swear to that! jmo

[elvislives]

Dr. EL,
As a reflection of my gratitude for this anatomy lesson (far more thorough than the one my father provided when I was young), I will carefully safeguard these treasured secrets and be certain not to misuse the information.


No, the language is from the BONITA PAPERS! So here's my question: please note that the autopsy report is precisely as you describe, VERY concrete and specific in terms of describing locations. Well, I just noticed what ISN'T stated in the autopsy. There's no mention of fibers--blue OR black--in the vaginal area: http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Body#VaginalInjuries
IF there were fibers found on the labia or in the "vaginal vault" wouldn't the ME be obligated to point this out? Or is this one of those things that deliberately got left unmentioned so that police would have something to confirm that any potential nutcase confessor actually was the true killer since they would know the fiber details etc.?

Amateur sleuth that I am, I'm inclined to think that lack of mention of these fibers helps corroborate our suspicions that Levin may have lied about this point when interrogating John. Is that too strong an inference given how autopsy reports are supposed to be written?
Thanks,
Miss Marple

MM, I've observed hundreds of autopsies and when homocide is suspected, here is the drill:

ME removes and bags all clothing, jewelry, fingernails, sometimes hair etc

ME makes observations of these items, but does not do the forensic testing

In suspected sexual assault cases, ME would swab the vagina and the 'vaginal area" (just looking for an opportunity to use that nifty phrase). He would also swab any substance he observed on the surface of the skin and send all these to the forensics lab for testing. Fibers are often microscopic and not discovered until the swabs, clothing, etc reach the lab.

Keep in mind the autopsy makes no mention of foreign dna, but not because it wasn't present.

The only 'microscopic' work done by the ME is histology, meaning he sections all of the internal organs looking for signs of disease, trauma, etc and looks at these sections under a microscope and notes his observations.

[elvislives]

Two things argue against this. First, John reports JBR was too scared to go downstairs alone at night (I empathize and understand as I had this same fear at that age, so even the prospect of raiding the cookie jar wouldn't have been sufficient inducement to overcome that fear: the Ramsey house was much bigger than ours, so it would have been yet another extraordinary coincidence if this happened to be the first night JBR braved going downstairs alone. Moreover, HER fingerprints would have ended up on bowl in your scenario, but weren't there. Burke and JBR might have jointly made a trip, but there'd be no reason for Burke to lie about pineapple especially if police made clear it might be clue to killer.




Two points to argue right back atcha:

I have posted this on this forum before but it was probably before you arrived on the scene; WHen I was a child I was petrified of the dark. But during the Christmas season my parents always had the stairs decorated with lights. The downstairs area was also luminated with Christmas lights which they kept on all night. I would OFTEN go down stairs to look at the tree or look outside for Santa, etc. After X-mas I would go down to play with new toys UNTIL they took the lights down. Then I reverted to my wimpy ways.

If you asked my parents if I would EVER get up at night and wander the house they would swear under oath that it would never happen.

Regarding JBs prints being absent from the bowl: I keep a bowl of 'finger fruit' (cherries, grapes, strawberries, etc) on my table or counter most of the time in an effort to get my kids to eat healthier. Since following this case I have noted that oftentimes a kid will walk by and reach into the bowl, without touching it, and pop a berry (or whatever) into their mouth and go on their merry way. Sometimes they DO touch the bowl, but sometimes they don't.

[elvislives]

Does "hence" imply saliva only has 9 loci? FWIW, several sources, including Lin Wood, have said the DNA probably WAS saliva. http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA%20Evidence#MaleDNAinUnderwear



No, dna from every cell in the body is exactly the same. There are 13 loci and some amels that have been identifed as 'different' amongst humans (i.e. most of our dna is exactly the same whether its from you, me, or any other human).

Amel identifies gender. Two X chromosomes is female, XY is male.

And right now they have found 13 loci that can be differentiated from person to person. Here is a cool site:

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/activities/blackett2/str_codis.html

Dna is basically a 'chain'. Degraded dna means the chain is incomplete, not necessarily old. Dna can degrade because of environmental conditions (heat etc) and there are certain chemicals that can 'break the chain'.

Saliva contains enzymes that can break the dna chain leaving a degraded sample with fewer than 13 loci (the dna in saliva originates from the epithelial cells that shed from inside the mouth, salivary enzymes break it down). In fresh blood, there are always 13 loci because the chain is complete. But if you test saliva you will usually find fewer than 13 loci, even if the saliva is fresh (not old).

The other reason saliva is the prime suspect is because EVEN IF the dna was from the factory worker it is unlikely that they would have deposited blood on the bloomies that escaped Quality Control (Inspector 9 would never have let that thru). And semen has other tell-tale markers that werent found.

Keep in mind that dna science is in its infancy. I am certain that dna science will advance to the level of finding this donors address and phone number before the Ramsey case will be solved.


Incidentally on your link, someone speculates that it could be from skin cells deposited in the retail store when a potential customer handled the undies. Not possible...I have purchased bloomies many times and they come sealed in a plastic bag with nylon loop like thing so they cant be tampered with.

[andU]

Very informative, Elivislives! Thank you ... and BTW, I am happy that you have returned! You have brought us great insight through your hard studies and experience via your profession. Thanks again, for sharing and explaining!

[rashomon]

I just posted to her in another thread. On another forum there is a post written by a "Rashomon" that because the papers had Patsy Ramsey's date of birth wrong and her middle name incorrect, how could she believe what they say? LOL :shrug:
The Bonita papers are only a secondary source, no one denies that. And I'll be the first to donate money if it could get us the original documents online here, believe me.
But since the Bonita papers are the only source which give a detailed account of Dr. McCann's findings, they are all we have at the moment. The issue re JonBenet's possible sexual abuse is too important to just dismiss what is said there as 'horseplop' without being able to disprove it. That's the point.
But we can compare Dr. McCann's account in the B. papers with the autopsy report. There don't seem to be contradictory statements in both.

Dr. Meyer btw (unlike Dr. McCann) was no pediatric sexual abuse expert - he merely noted what he saw - the hymenal opening measuring 1x1 cm, the hymen itself only represeted by a rim of tisse with the 10:00 to 2:00 o'clock part missing, the reddish hypermia of the vagina etc.

[rashomon]

Is there an article anywhere (not JonBenet related) that specifically talks about "toilet rage"? I couldn't find one even with Krugman's name attached to the search.
From Athena's post (#65 'Bonita papers' theread)

Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.
It is quite clear what is meant here by 'toilet rage': a parent snapping and losing it over a child's wetting/soiling issues. And wetting/soiling issues are a very frequent cause of child abuse.

But to the majority of experts consulted on the case, JB's genital irregularities pointed more to sexual abuse.

[rashomon]

Rash: This is exactly what frustrates me on this board. Dr. Krugman DID NOT SAY THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE ATTACK ON JBR. Oh my - with all the links to his statements I can't believe you would repeat this misinfo including the bathtub scenario when the evidence clearly shows she didn't hit head but was struck on the head with an object.

I'm glad that I at least found some common ground in the post with your very last sentence.
LOL, Athena, I'm a little surprised since I got that so-called 'misinfo' from one of your own posts: :)


From Athena's post (#65 'Bonita papers' theread)
Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.
Krugman called the JBR case "a text book example of toilet rage."

[ralia]

With lots of Christmas lights lighting up the house, going downstairs would not be so scary, especially if you thought Santa might be down there.
Oh hey look, Burke left a bowl of pineapple out. I'll just grab a piece while I'm down here.

Though I'm kind of RDI, I see your version as a good plausible point. Yes, Why not? It could have happened this way as far as the pineapple is concerned

[ralia]

Help me out here! Why anyone would dispute so much on the bedwetting or soiling or whatever rage UPSTAIRS when no bash or hit on the head could have happened there? The blow on the head would have made her unconcious on the spot because of its ferocity and the girl was heard SCREAMING from the basement between 12-2 a.m. As I get it, the incident on its WHOLE, happened downstairs.
Some of you insist so much that I'd like to hear what I wrongly understand.

[Louisadelmar]

From Athena's post (#65 'Bonita papers' theread)


It is quite clear what is meant here by 'toilet rage': a parent snapping and losing it over a child's wetting/soiling issues. And wetting/soiling issues are a very frequent cause of child abuse.

But to the majority of experts consulted on the case, JB's genital irregularities pointed more to sexual abuse.

I understand what it is supposed to be. But I expected to find a number of child abuse articles using the term and didn't. So it appears to only be used in relation to this case. Therefore the idea that it is some kind of well-known syndrome is not borne out by what's available on google.

[rashomon]

Help me out here! Why anyone would dispute so much on the bedwetting or soiling or whatever rage UPSTAIRS when no bash or hit on the head could have happened there? The blow on the head would have made her unconcious on the spot because of its ferocity and the girl was heard SCREAMING from the basement between 12-2 a.m. As I get it, the incident on its WHOLE, happened downstairs.
Some of you insist so much that I'd like to hear what I wrongly understand.
How can it be proved that the scream came from the basement? And how can it be proved that the neighbor heard a scream at all? I would not trust 'earwitness' testimony too much here. For it is often amazing what people later claim to have heard after a violent crime happened in their neighborhood.
What exactly did that neighbor (Mrs. Stanton?) state? And didn't she change her story later?

[andU]

How can it be proved that the scream came from the basement? And how can it be proved that the neighbor heard a scream at all? I would not trust 'earwitness' testimony too much here. For it is often amazing what people later claim to have heard after a violent crime happened in their neighborhood.
What exactly did that neighbor (Mrs. Stanton?) state? And didn't she change her story later?


But, Rash, it was testimony. The truth as the neighbor knew it.

[bullmoose]

How can it be proved that the scream came from the basement? And how can it be proved that the neighbor heard a scream at all? I would not trust 'earwitness' testimony too much here. For it is often amazing what people later claim to have heard after a violent crime happened in their neighborhood.
What exactly did that neighbor (Mrs. Stanton?) state? And didn't she change her story later?I've posted before how my wife, myself, and our next door neighbors reacted when we heard a child's scream[having set the house on fire] we came out of our chairs and beds like cannonballs from a cannon, another neighbor called 911; we humans are hardwired to react to a child's scream. I have always had deep doubts on whether Mrs. Stanton actually heard anything that night or if it was a confabulation or created memory. JMHO

[Louisadelmar]

How can it be proved that the scream came from the basement? And how can it be proved that the neighbor heard a scream at all? I would not trust 'earwitness' testimony too much here. For it is often amazing what people later claim to have heard after a violent crime happened in their neighborhood.
What exactly did that neighbor (Mrs. Stanton?) state? And didn't she change her story later?

Her husband also said he heard the metal on cement sound at about the same time.

[andU]

I've posted before how my wife, myself, and our next door neighbors reacted when we heard a child's scream[having set the house on fire] we came out of our chairs and beds like cannonballs from a cannon, another neighbor called 911; we humans are hardwired to react to a child's scream. I have always had deep doubts on whether Mrs. Stanton actually heard anything that night or if it was a confabulation or created memory. JMHO

It could have been a dream, even. ...but, can we just dismiss it?

[thewhitewitch1]

Her husband also said he heard the metal on cement sound at about the same time.


Isn't it funny, though, how her husband did not hear the scream? :shrug:

[LindaA]

Isn't it funny, though, how her husband did not hear the scream? :shrug:

Could be he was a more sound sleeper. I believe she woke him up when she heard the scream and that's when he heard the scraping sound. IIRC. If she really heard it at all. I do have my doubts.

[thewhitewitch1]

Could be he was a more sound sleeper. I believe she woke him up when she heard the scream and that's when he heard the scraping sound. IIRC. If she really heard it at all. I do have my doubts.


If that were the case, then why didn't she also hear the "scraping sounds"? I have my doubts about the both of them.

[Athena]

LOL, Athena, I'm a little surprised since I got that so-called 'misinfo' from one of your own posts: :)



Krugman called the JBR case "a text book example of toilet rage."

No Rash. Go back and read that thread. I was specifically disputing that excerpt in a post to Jayelles. DO NOT MISQUOTE ME. The excerpt you quoted above are from the BONITA PAPERS which I have issues with and was going back and forth with Jayelles on. Why didn't you bother copying the rest of my Post# 65 which is where I was disputing the exact excerpt you just claimed as MY misinfo. The dispute stats at Post# 2.

No Jayelles. That is not what the Bonita papers said. The Bonita papers claim that he was the most "adamant supporter" of the finding of chronic sexual abuse which IS NOT TRUE. This is a direct quote from the Bonita Papers which is in direct contrast to anything we have read that Krugman said.



Please refer me to any other document that claims he said this.

I don't mislead people by taking excerpts out of their posts to make it look like they said something they did not and I am personally offended by what you have done and would greatly appreciate it that you do not do that again.

This is the post that stated it that Jayelles used to start the thread debunking the Bonita Papers:

Athena started the ball rolling with this:

From the Bonita Papers:

Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

From PMPT:

Dr. Richard Krugman; Dean of the CU Health Sciences Center and a nationally known child abuse expert who had consulted with the police and the DA since March 1997 said that JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. He also added "I do not believe it is possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone. The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's medical history combined with a child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse. Dr. Kruger had also seen injuries to girls' genitals that could be related to toilet training but had nothing to do with sexual abuse.

Dr. Richard Krugman believed that the injury to the hymen had been part of staging that took place after her death. Dr. Werner Spitz said that JonBenet's vaginal injury dated to the time of her death.

[Athena]

I understand what it is supposed to be. But I expected to find a number of child abuse articles using the term and didn't. So it appears to only be used in relation to this case. Therefore the idea that it is some kind of well-known syndrome is not borne out by what's available on google.

Rashomon quoted an excerpt from the Bonita Papers that I was specifically disputing and she misrepresented my post and I am personally offended at what she did. There is no proof that Krugman said ANYTHING about toilet rage. In PMPT is specifically states toilet training and if you do a search on toilet training and abuse there are articles relating to that BUT NOT TOILET RAGE.

(CAPS meant for emphasis -- not yelling)

[shill]

Hard to imagne that pineapple with its almost 'laxative' qualities whould have stayed further up in the digestive tract for hours while the cracked crab was processed normally.Don't you mean coconut, not pineapple? Both are found in Hawaii.

[Miss Marple]

MM, I've observed hundreds of autopsies and when homocide is suspected, here is the drill:

ME removes and bags all clothing, jewelry, fingernails, sometimes hair etc

ME makes observations of these items, but does not do the forensic testing
I assume "makes observations" means "includes in autopsy report, since items such as these, along with their locations on the body, ARE mentioned in JBR's autopsy.


In suspected sexual assault cases, ME would swab the vagina and the 'vaginal area" (just looking for an opportunity to use that nifty phrase). He would also swab any substance he observed on the surface of the skin and send all these to the forensics lab for testing. Fibers are often microscopic and not discovered until the swabs, clothing, etc reach the lab.
Thanks for showing us how to use "vaginal area" properly...
This Autopsy 101 tutorial is very much appreciated, but I'm still confused. I understand that microscopic things wouldn't make it into the ME's observations, but I guess I was always assuming that "small blue fibers" was a reference to something visible, not microscopic. Indeed, early in its life my Duke blue gym towel shed exactly the types of blue fibers I imagined when I heard they speculated these might have come from JR's bathrobe. If they were microscopically small, I'm surprised the description doesn't denote this in some fashion "minuscule" "tiny" etc., but maybe Bonita hadn't been to novel-writing school long enough to work up particularly sophisticated writing skills... So my question is, IF these fibers were visible, wouldn't the ME record this and their location just the way he did with jewelry? Or would he merely be certain to include these on his swabs, each of which I assume IS carefully catalogued as to the exact location (or maybe "area") it came from?



Keep in mind the autopsy makes no mention of foreign dna, but not because it wasn't present.

The only 'microscopic' work done by the ME is histology, meaning he sections all of the internal organs looking for signs of disease, trauma, etc and looks at these sections under a microscope and notes his observations.
The DNA I can understand, although the autopsy report DOES seem to record every bodily fluid visible to the naked eye: blood, mucous, urine, etc.

Thanks for your continued patience with us ignorant masses here.
:-)
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Two points to argue right back atcha:

I have posted this on this forum before but it was probably before you arrived on the scene; WHen I was a child I was petrified of the dark. But during the Christmas season my parents always had the stairs decorated with lights. The downstairs area was also luminated with Christmas lights which they kept on all night. I would OFTEN go down stairs to look at the tree or look outside for Santa, etc. After X-mas I would go down to play with new toys UNTIL they took the lights down. Then I reverted to my wimpy ways.

If you asked my parents if I would EVER get up at night and wander the house they would swear under oath that it would never happen.

Regarding JBs prints being absent from the bowl: I keep a bowl of 'finger fruit' (cherries, grapes, strawberries, etc) on my table or counter most of the time in an effort to get my kids to eat healthier. Since following this case I have noted that oftentimes a kid will walk by and reach into the bowl, without touching it, and pop a berry (or whatever) into their mouth and go on their merry way. Sometimes they DO touch the bowl, but sometimes they don't.

Fellow Wimp,
I'll buy the going downstairs part--indeed it would simplify a lot if that were true--but my rejoinder regarding fingerprints related to the speculation that JBR had gone downstairs alone and taken the bowl out of refrigerator by herself. In that case, I presume her fingerprints would have been found on the bowl. I concur that if the bowl was already on the table, she could have just reached in, but that's not what was being speculated in the post I replied to. The "sneaking downstairs" scenario seems much more plausible with Burke involved, but if he did this, one would have expected him to fess up to parents or police by now.
Best wishes,
Miss Wimpy Marple

[Miss Marple]

Saliva contains enzymes that can break the dna chain leaving a degraded sample with fewer than 13 loci (the dna in saliva originates from the epithelial cells that shed from inside the mouth, salivary enzymes break it down). In fresh blood, there are always 13 loci because the chain is complete. But if you test saliva you will usually find fewer than 13 loci, even if the saliva is fresh (not old).
I knew that saliva could degrade DNA, but never realized where the DNA in saliva came from.


The other reason saliva is the prime suspect is because EVEN IF the dna was from the factory worker it is unlikely that they would have deposited blood on the bloomies that escaped Quality Control (Inspector 9 would never have let that thru). And semen has other tell-tale markers that werent found.
My son worked at a pizza place as a teen. He told me stories of what went on "behind the scenes" that involved saliva and were positively nauseating. Unfortunately, there apparently was no Inspector 9 on the job. My take-home lesson was: a) don't eat at fast-food places where the teen help might be disgruntled and b) if you do, NEVER annoy the person who serves you your food.


Keep in mind that dna science is in its infancy. I am certain that dna science will advance to the level of finding this donors address and phone number before the Ramsey case will be solved.
I read recently that they're hopeful that someday they could reconstruct an image of a person's face from their DNA: don't know how or when, but if they do, that would be quite amazing.


Incidentally on your link, someone speculates that it could be from skin cells deposited in the retail store when a potential customer handled the undies. Not possible...I have purchased bloomies many times and they come sealed in a plastic bag with nylon loop like thing so they cant be tampered with.
That's thoroughly unfair. You can't be a medical expert AND a Bloomies expert. Next thing you'll tell us is that you know how to reform the U.S. health care system (at which point we'll realize you are screaming yellow bonkers!)
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Page 9 of the autopsy report mentions that fibers on the body and clothing were turned over to the police as evidence.
Thank you. Apparently I didn't scroll up quite enough before bombarding Dr. EL with even more questions. This answers the question about whether fibers were "mentioned" and I stand corrected on that point.

Dr EL,
I'm still puzzled about what ME normally writes down. That is, why is each piece of jewelry enumerated and its body location listed in the report, but not fibers? Are there simply too many of the latter to make sense codifying? For whatever fibers ARE handed over as described in the report, is it safe to say that in each instance the ME recorded the approximate location on the body? I would think that in most contexts, such location would be important.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[thewhitewitch1]

Thank you. Apparently I didn't scroll up quite enough before bombarding Dr. EL with even more questions. This answers the question about whether fibers were "mentioned" and I stand corrected on that point.

Dr EL,
I'm still puzzled about what ME normally writes down. That is, why is each piece of jewelry enumerated and its body location listed in the report, but not fibers? Are there simply too many of the latter to make sense codifying? For whatever fibers ARE handed over as described in the report, is it safe to say that in each instance the ME recorded the approximate location on the body? I would think that in most contexts, such location would be important.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

I came across something recently (an old newspaper article) that stated that parts of the autopsy report were ordered withheld from the public for 30 days or until an arrest was made. I'll see if I can find it.

[rashomon]

Isn't it funny, though, how her husband did not hear the scream? :shrug:
Excellent point, TWW.

[Athena]

PMPT pg 156

Arndt attended the autopsy. She reported that Meyers had found fibers on JBRs shirt which were similar to fibers found in her pubic area and also found green fibers in her hair.

Meyers also suspended the autopsy while a CBI Technician walked Trujillo through the process of lifting fingerprints off of JBRs body. One partial print was lifted.

Meyers decided not to make notes of these events in his report.

[Louisadelmar]

Excellent point, TWW.

Unless she work up from the scream, woke her husband up and he then heard the scrape. We don't know whether or not she heard the scrape.

[rashomon]

My son worked at a pizza place as a teen. He told me stories of what went on "behind the scenes" that involved saliva and were positively nauseating. Unfortunately, there apparently was no Inspector 9 on the job. My take-home lesson was: a) don't eat at fast-food places where the teen help might be disgruntled and b) if you do, NEVER annoy the person who serves you your food.
This lesson not only applies to pizza places, but also to airline flights: for example, airline stewardesses quite often spit in the coffee cup of an annoying passenger before 'smilingly' serving it to him/her ...

[thewhitewitch1]

Unless she work up from the scream, woke her husband up and he then heard the scrape. We don't know whether or not she heard the scrape.

Wouldn't she have said so if she had?

[Sharon]

I understand what it is supposed to be. But I expected to find a number of child abuse articles using the term and didn't. So it appears to only be used in relation to this case. Therefore the idea that it is some kind of well-known syndrome is not borne out by what's available on google.

Yes, thats exactly it. I was also expecting to see some clear evidence that there is a syndrome out there causing otherwise non abusive parents to just loose it. But,then I got suspisious, like you do when you get an email warning you of all sorts of unbelievable dangers happening right under your nose. Well, I thought, why havent I ever heard of this syndrome, Im a mum, I read alot, I listen to the news.....why havent I ever been warned about this syndrome.

The answer is the syndrome doesnt exist. Infact, I dont even think toileting problems is a strong trigger in itself for child abuse. If you study child abuse, it is engaged in by abusive parents who find anything and everything to be a trigger...ie the child is the trigger.

In this case if you believe these non abusive, even passive in disipline parents to have gone wild, it helps if you can blame some very well known syndrome to explain the inconcistency with how the parents usually behaved. I think the RDI really need the syndrome to exist to fill in that part of the story that doesnt otherwise make sence.

Its like if a husband and wife had a great relationship and there was never any violence, both were pretty passive, non aggressive,ordinary people etc. Now, if the wife was found murdered and strangled and raped, but you knew this would be totally out of character for the husband to have done it, would you be convinced if you were told he lost it due to a special syndrome. ie late dinner syndrom. Would this explain the husband turning into a wild angry beast, obtaining strength that he never knew he was capable of, and being so angry with rage (over his late dinner) that he just went beserck.

Ok, back to this case. I think it has served many RDI well to be able to quote a doctor who blames this syndrome. But I am questioning the truthfullness that the syndrome is real, and that any doctors stand behind it. Im afraid the answer is no to both questions.

In addition to toileting not being enough of a trigger to change non abusive parents into raging skull cracking monsters. It is also not enough to then get these parents to strangle the said child and rape her while she was still alive and able to feel what was happening to her. It also doesnt in any way explain how salivour was found on the body, salivour not belonging to JBR or her parents. jmo

[thewhitewitch1]

I found an interesting article while searching for "toilet rage".
The term isn't used in this article but it does state that abuse can and does occur by parents over the toileting issue.
Also interesting was the subject of "toilet phobia" due to inappropriate toilet training methods. I can't help but wonder if this is the reason for JBs problems or even the "power play" theory.
At any rate, it was an interesting read.

http://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/contpeds/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=108026

[thewhitewitch1]

Yes, thats exactly it. I was also expecting to see some clear evidence that there is a syndrome out there causing otherwise non abusive parents to just loose it. But,then I got suspisious, like you do when you get an email warning you of all sorts of unbelievable dangers happening right under your nose. Well, I thought, why havent I ever heard of this syndrome, Im a mum, I read alot, I listen to the news.....why havent I ever been warned about this syndrome.

The answer is the syndrome doesnt exist. Infact, I dont even think toileting problems is a strong trigger in itself for child abuse. If you study child abuse, it is engaged in by abusive parents who find anything and everything to be a trigger...ie the child is the trigger.

In this case if you believe these non abusive, even passive in disipline parents to have gone wild, it helps if you can blame some very well known syndrome to explain the inconcistency with how the parents usually behaved. I think the RDI really need the syndrome to exist to fill in that part of the story that doesnt otherwise make sence.

Its like if a husband and wife had a great relationship and there was never any violence, both were pretty passive, non aggressive,ordinary people etc. Now, if the wife was found murdered and strangled and raped, but you knew this would be totally out of character for the husband to have done it, would you be convinced if you were told he lost it due to a special syndrome. ie late dinner syndrom. Would this explain the husband turning into a wild angry beast, obtaining strength that he never knew he was capable of, and being so angry with rage (over his late dinner) that he just went beserck.

Ok, back to this case. I think it has served many RDI well to be able to quote a doctor who blames this syndrome. But I am questioning the truthfullness that the syndrome is real, and that any doctors stand behind it. Im afraid the answer is no to both questions.

In addition to toileting not being enough of a trigger to change non abusive parents into raging skull cracking monsters. It is also not enough to then get these parents to strangle the said child and rape her while she was still alive and able to feel what was happening to her. It also doesnt in any way explain how salivour was found on the body, salivour not belonging to JBR or her parents. jmo


Read the article I just posted a link to. You are wrong.
Where was it stated conclusively that the DNA was from saliva?
Further, you'd be surprised how many people with no history of violence have killed family members. It happens all the time.

[Sharon]

I found an interesting article while searching for "toilet rage".
The term isn't used in this article but it does state that abuse can and does occur by parents over the toileting issue.
Also interesting was the subject of "toilet phobia" due to inappropriate toilet training methods. I can't help but wonder if this is the reason for JBs problems or even the "power play" theory.
At any rate, it was an interesting read.

http://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/contpeds/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=108026

Hi, I read it and are very familiar with what this article discusses. If you were to write to anyone involved in this article and tell them you think the article has anything to do with your toilet rage....well, that would be interesting to say the least.

I will summarise the article. Basically kids for many reasons have truoble with toilet training. Sometime this becomes a visious cycle, especially with bowel movements, because the longer the child holds it in, the more painful it is to go to the toilet, thus, the more the child fears having a bowel movement.

Other toileting issues are more of a control thing, where the child tries to manipulate his environment because he gets a payoff for having toileting issues. ie similar to a child that is a very fussy eatter, sometimes they do this to have control.

Alternatively, some issues may resolve over time and some may need the help of an out sider trained in such matters. Sometimes the parents need help in knowing how to best deal with their childs toileting problems. Things like infections and medical problems etc need to be ruled out etc

The abuse being discussed here is the parents trying to get the child to go to the toilet by using methods that were counterproductive or not effective. I dont believe that anyone fears parental rage from the toileting issues per say.

I agree that abusive parents will abuse over lots of things from not having room clean, sitting the wrong way to toileting issues. But an abusive parent will physically & verbally abuse a child without toileting issues, whereas a non violent parent will not suddenly turn into an abusive parent over toileting issues.

Question, do you think that P. had beaten JBR before this unlucky beating over the toileting rage thing. Do you think violence may have reared its ugly head before, or do you think this was the first time that JBR recieved such harsh treatment over her long standing toileting issues.
jmo

[Louisadelmar]

I found an interesting article while searching for "toilet rage".
The term isn't used in this article but it does state that abuse can and does occur by parents over the toileting issue.
Also interesting was the subject of "toilet phobia" due to inappropriate toilet training methods. I can't help but wonder if this is the reason for JBs problems or even the "power play" theory.
At any rate, it was an interesting read.

http://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/contpeds/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=108026

Interesting. But I think parents who have some common sense and confidence in themselves know that when a kid is ready they essentially toilet-train themselves. Announcing an arbitrary date by which they should be trained is counterproductive and may well cause vulnerable parents unnecessary stress. And those who are prone to abuse (there is a list here somewhere) may well abuse their kids over toilet training because the kid hasn't lived up to society's timetable and the parent finds that frightening. They deal with their fear and frustration in a physical manner which is most likely how they handle many of their problems.

JonBenet wasn't Patsy's first child. Patsy knew JonBenet wasn't going to head off to college still wetting the bed. She appears to not have considered the bedwetting a huge deal and I agree with her.

[Miss Marple]

Hi, I read it and are very familiar with what this article discusses. If you were to write to anyone involved in this article and tell them you think the article has anything to do with your toilet rage....well, that would be interesting to say the least.



Let me stipulate that I myself don't subscribe to the toilet rage theory both because the forensic evidence argues against an accidental blow and the evidence Patsy wrote the RN is weak. The term "toilet rage" or "bed-wetting rage" is probably a JBR-related invention, but the idea that the toileting issue could have been implicated in abuse comes from here:

"more child abuse occurs during toilet training than during any other developmental step"
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/6/S1/1364
Posters can draw their own conclusions about what is being alluded to in these guidelines is remotely related to a recalcitrant toileter's life being put at risk.

Hope this helps clarify things.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Read the article I just posted a link to. You are wrong.
Where was it stated conclusively that the DNA was from saliva?
Further, you'd be surprised how many people with no history of violence have killed family members. It happens all the time.

Precious little in this case is "conclusive." But FWIW,
"According to Internet poster Margoo, Lin Wood reported in a chat session that the DNA in the underwear "probably" was saliva. Several news sources also have suggested the male DNA was from saliva, including Denver Post, People's Daily Online and Taipei Times"
Links to these news articles are here:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/DNA%20Evidence#MaleDNAinUnderwear

Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Wouldn't she have said so if she had?

It appears HE didn't hear what she heard and SHE didn't hear what he heard.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Key%20Pieces%20of%20Evidence#WhatNeighborsReported
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

PMPT pg 156

Arndt attended the autopsy. She reported that Meyers had found fibers on JBRs shirt which were similar to fibers found in her pubic area and also found green fibers in her hair.

Meyers also suspended the autopsy while a CBI Technician walked Trujillo through the process of lifting fingerprints off of JBRs body. One partial print was lifted.

Meyers decided not to make notes of these events in his report.


Thanks. Is this hardcover or paperback version of PMPT? I'd like to post these missing details on the wiki.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Athena]

Thanks. Is this hardcover or paperback version of PMPT? I'd like to post these missing details on the wiki.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Paperback November, 1999

[Sharon]

Let me stipulate that I myself don't subscribe to the toilet rage theory both because the forensic evidence argues against an accidental blow and the evidence Patsy wrote the RN is weak. The term "toilet rage" or "bed-wetting rage" is probably a JBR-related invention, but the idea that the toileting issue could have been implicated in abuse comes from here:

"more child abuse occurs during toilet training than during any other developmental step"
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/6/S1/1364
Posters can draw their own conclusions about what is being alluded to in these guidelines is remotely related to a recalcitrant toileter's life being put at risk.

Hope this helps clarify things.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Very well worded Miss M......but you know that cause and effect are two different things. ie Could it be coincidental that the toilet training years being from say 2 to 9 y. old. are when the children are most vulnerable and therefore an easy target for the said child abuse.

Like, many of the worlds most evil dictators had moustaches. Does this mean that men who wear moustaches are evil. Should we ban moustaches???

Miss Maples...do you wear a moustache, enquiring minds would like to know?????????? jmo

[Sharon]

It appears HE didn't hear what she heard and SHE didn't hear what he heard.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Key%20Pieces%20of%20Evidence#WhatNeighborsReported
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Usual married couple!!:shrug:

[Athena]

Read the article I just posted a link to. You are wrong.

Further, you'd be surprised how many people with no history of violence have killed family members. It happens all the time.

OK I'll bite. Surprise me. Maybe none have had a "history of violence" however most have shown a precursive behavior to indicate that they would be capable of it.

Quote:

It happens all the time.

You said it. Do you have any examples?

[Miss Marple]

Paperback November, 1999

Thanks, partner! Duly posted.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[thewhitewitch1]

Interesting. But I think parents who have some common sense and confidence in themselves know that when a kid is ready they essentially toilet-train themselves. Announcing an arbitrary date by which they should be trained is counterproductive and may well cause vulnerable parents unnecessary stress. And those who are prone to abuse (there is a list here somewhere) may well abuse their kids over toilet training because the kid hasn't lived up to society's timetable and the parent finds that frightening. They deal with their fear and frustration in a physical manner which is most likely how they handle many of their problems.

JonBenet wasn't Patsy's first child. Patsy knew JonBenet wasn't going to head off to college still wetting the bed. She appears to not have considered the bedwetting a huge deal and I agree with her.

I would think that having a six year old that constantly wet or soiled herself would be grounds for some frusteration. IMO
Did you really think that Patsy was going to come out and tell anyone that she got angry when JB wet/soiled herself or her bed, especially after ST had already "determined her motive" (whether wrong or right)? Come on. That would have been downright ignorant. IMO

[Miss Marple]

Usual married couple!!:shrug:

Yep, "ships passing in the night" (so to speak). :punch:
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Athena]

I would think that having a six year old that constantly wet or soiled herself would be grounds for some frusteration. IMO
Did you really think that Patsy was going to come out and tell anyone that she got angry when JB wet/soiled herself or her bed, especially after ST had already "determined her motive" (whether wrong or right)? Come on. That would have been downright ignorant. IMO

Frustration and raging anger are not similar behaviors and I'm not sure how you can compare the two.

Even LHP said Patsy thought it was no big deal and had never seen Patsy upset about it. Patsy had also just stopped using the pullups that summer just before JBR started school and just put a plastic cover on the mattress.

[Miss Marple]

Very well worded Miss M......but you know that cause and effect are two different things. ie Could it be coincidental that the toilet training years being from say 2 to 9 y. old. are when the children are most vulnerable and therefore an easy target for the said child abuse.
Not to quibble, but it didn't say most child abuse occurs during toilet training YEARS: it really did say "during toilet training." If you interpret that to mean "during the toilet training period" then you and I will have to agree to disagree, disagreeable as that might sound.


Like, many of the worlds most evil dictators had moustaches. Does this mean that men who wear moustaches are evil. Should we ban moustaches???

Miss Maples...do you wear a moustache, enquiring minds would like to know?????????? jmo

Only in Jayelles PhotoShopped pictures of me (stolen, without permission from my university's Web site!!! :no: ).

Truth in advertising: my birthday is 2 days after Adolf Hitler's, which would make it the same day as Lenin's, but otherwise I have nothing in common with these mustachioed tyrants.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Athena]

Not to quibble, but it didn't say most child abuse occurs during toilet training YEARS: it really did say "during toilet training." If you interpret that to mean "during the toilet training period" then you and I will have to agree to disagree, disagreeable as that might sound.



Only in Jayelles PhotoShopped pictures of me (stolen, without permission from my university's Web site!!! :no: ).

Truth in advertising: my birthday is 2 days after Adolf Hitler's, which would make it the same day as Lenin's, but otherwise I have nothing in common with these mustachioed tyrants.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Hitler was a Taurus???? :eek: As you are already aware you and I do share the same zodiac sign.

[Sharon]

[QUOTE=Miss Marple;8830951]Not to quibble, but it didn't say most child abuse occurs during toilet training YEARS: it really did say "during toilet training." If you interpret that to mean "during the toilet training period" then you and I will have to agree to disagree, disagreeable as that might sound.



Ok, not to quibble back (a double quibble?), but, Im sure you are right that the article said that most child abuse occurs during `toilet training`. But as a mum, even I wouldnt know how to define toilet training, as toilet training is a 24/7 process. For some it is seeing their kids pants soiled at the end of the day, for others its waking up to their kids with a wet bed, for others it involves putting them on the toilet and waiting for them to do the deed. and, even when your kids are toilet trained there can be stress when they need to go while you are driving your car on the freeway!! Its not like one part of the day is toilet training and the other is not. It is by definition a period of time, a process.

Anyway, the mind boggles at how they can measure something like that with any accuracy. ie how big was their sample, how do they define abuse and toilet training, what were they comparing to, where did they get their stats from etc.

The bottom line is Im sure that abuse does occur before, during and after toilet training, but I dont think it of itself is a catalist for child abuse. No doubt anything annoying is a trigger to an abusive parent, including toilet training, but I doubt this is the worst thing a kid can do to invite abuse. I think more kids would be abused for crying or talking back than for toilet training. Ive never once read about toilet training as a special concern re. child abuse.

I think in all fairness, this discussion is interesting but not really applicable to the parents in this case. We know that P didnt consider JBR`s weddwetting or other toileting issues to be that big of a deal. (Im in the same boat when it comes to parenting)....they all get there in the end! jmo

[Sharon]

Re parental abuse....for those who are interested (a summary).

For many years therapists have been fascinated by what causes parental abuse. ie what differentiates a non abusive parent from an abusive parent. We need to be able to define abuse to even be able to talk about what makes a parent abusive.

(1) abusive parents have inappropriate expectations from their children. They expect their children to behave as if they were much older than they are.

(2)abusive parents are likely to punish their children for behaviour that they arec too young to control.

(3)abusive parents often punish the child due to their own unhappiness & anger, with no relation to what the child is doing at the time.

(4) abusive parents lack empathy for the childs feelings and do not seem to care about the childs emotions

(5) abusive parents have a strong belief in the benefit of physical punishment as a tool for disciplining their children

(6)abusive parents see disipline as a no1 priority. Punishment is dished out routinely and affection is rarely given.

(7)typical abuse consists of (controlled) physical violence, verbal abuse, lack of providing for basic needs of the child, with holding of affection.

The above is just a brief summary of many articles that I googled. It seems that a common theme is this lack of empathy towards the child. I guess thats how we see families where the parents are literally torturing the kids and no one seems to bat an eye. Its very sad. jmo

[Sharon]

[

Only in Jayelles PhotoShopped pictures of me (stolen, without permission from my university's Web site!!! :no: ).

Oh, what I wouldnt pay to see those!!!!!

[rashomon]

No Rash. Go back and read that thread. I was specifically disputing that excerpt in a post to Jayelles. DO NOT MISQUOTE ME. The excerpt you quoted above are from the BONITA PAPERS which I have issues with and was going back and forth with Jayelles on. Why didn't you bother copying the rest of my Post# 65 which is where I was disputing the exact excerpt you just claimed as MY misinfo. The dispute stats at Post# 2.

Athena, I should have put in "from the Bonita papers" for clarification, sorry. But that passage is so well-known that I had not doubt everyone knew the source.
I posted an excerpt from the Bonita papers (taken from one of your posts) where Dr. Krugman is quoted mentioning toilet abuse rage. For you and another poster's argumentation ran along the lines "I never heard that term toilet rage - what's that?". But since it was in one of your own posts quoting the B. papers, surely you must have heard of it. That was the point, and not a comparison between the Bonita papers and PMPT.
"Toilet rage" may not be the scientific term, but we all know what it its about.

Dr. Krugman was the only doctor of the panel of experts who related the genital injuries to toileting abuse rage. He said he had seen injuries to girls' genitals which were related to toilet training.

But wouldn't a parent angry at the child because of toileting issues injure her outer genitals too? Why only hurt her inner genitals? Would a parent really use repeated digital penetration for punishment purposes in wetting/soiling incidents? I don't think so.
While there was indeed one very faint purple discoloration on one of the labia maiora, no outer genital injuries could be observed.

And doesn't the circumferential reddish hyperemia in JB's vagina just scream that its origin was digital penetration?

Fromt the autopsy report:

Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vagina wall is reddish hyperemia.This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also apperas to extend just inside the vaginal orifice.

[LindaA]

Hitler was a Taurus???? :eek: As you are already aware you and I do share the same zodiac sign.

I'm a Taurus, too! At least I'm in good company now! :beer:

[Miss Marple]

[

Only in Jayelles PhotoShopped pictures of me (stolen, without permission from my university's Web site!!! :no: ).

Oh, what I wouldnt pay to see those!!!!!

Please, don't tempt her. She hasn't actually added a mustache YET, but I'm sure she's working on a version that morphs from me to Lenin to Hitler (as I was born in Austria, not that far from Herr Schickelgruber!).

Of course, since she and FFJ friends have exorciated jameson for selling out to National Enquirer for $40K, I feel confident J would in no way wish to profit from the tragedy of her unwittingly obtaining confidential information.

Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Hitler was a Taurus???? :eek: As you are already aware you and I do share the same zodiac sign.

Yep, like it or not, we're on the same team: hope you like black. A word of friendly advice: don't let J know who you are lest you find she's diverted her sleuthing talents into tracking down your photo on-line and PhotoShopping you into a tam-o-shanter you wouldn't be caught dead in!
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Athena]

Athena, I should have put in "from the Bonita papers" for clarification, sorry. But that passage is so well-known that I had not doubt everyone knew the source.
I posted an excerpt from the Bonita papers (taken from one of your posts) where Dr. Krugman is quoted mentioning toilet abuse rage. For you and another poster's argumentation ran along the lines "I never heard that term toilet rage - what's that?". But since it was in one of your own posts quoting the B. papers, surely you must have heard of it. That was the point, and not a comparison between the Bonita papers and PMPT.
"Toilet rage" may not be the scientific term, but we all know what it its about.

Dr. Krugman was the only doctor of the panel of experts who related the genital injuries to toileting abuse rage. He said he had seen injuries to girls' genitals which were related to toilet training.

But wouldn't a parent angry at the child because of toileting issues injure her outer genitals too? Why only hurt her inner genitals? Would a parent really use repeated digital penetration for punishment purposes in wetting/soiling incidents? I don't think so.
While there was indeed one very faint purple discoloration on one of the labia maiora, no outer genital injuries could be observed.

And doesn't the circumferential reddish hyperemia in JB's vagina just scream that its origin was digital penetration?

Fromt the autopsy report:

Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vagina wall is reddish hyperemia.This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also apperas to extend just inside the vaginal orifice.

You missed the point of the debate then. Other than the Bonita Papers which again I do not believe to be a credible source; he does NOT use the term 'toilet rage' he uses the term 'toilet training'. He goes on to mention that he has seen genital injuries related to toilet training but DID NOT specifically relate his findings to JBR but just a general statement re: his findings of sexual abuse v toilet training.


From PMPT:

Dr. Richard Krugman; Dean of the CU Health Sciences Center and a nationally known child abuse expert who had consulted with the police and the DA since March 1997 said that JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. He also added "I do not believe it is possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone. The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's medical history combined with a child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse. Dr. Kruger had also seen injuries to girls' genitals that could be related to toilet training but had nothing to do with sexual abuse.

Dr. Richard Krugman believed that the injury to the hymen had been part of staging that took place after her death. Dr. Werner Spitz said that JonBenet's vaginal injury dated to the time of her death.

[Miss Marple]

I'm a Taurus, too! At least I'm in good company now! :beer:

Welcome to the black-sheep team! I assume LindaA doesn't = Linda Arndt, so should we call you LindaAren'tArndt or LindaArndt...NOT? My just-posted advice to Athena applies to you too.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Athena]

Welcome to the black-sheep team! I assume LindaA doesn't = Linda Arndt, so should we call you LindaAren'tArndt or LindaArndt...NOT? My just-posted advice to Athena applies to you too.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Well I've just realized it is not good to read your posts while one is drinking coffee especially when one uses sugar in their java and leans over the keyboard. LOL

Linda -- Something else we share in common. :beer:

[Jayelles]

Yep, like it or not, we're on the same team: hope you like black. A word of friendly advice: don't let J know who you are lest you find she's diverted her sleuthing talents into tracking down your photo on-line and PhotoShopping you into a tam-o-shanter you wouldn't be caught dead in!
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

T'was only a suggestion. I have lots of other ideas.

[rashomon]

You missed the point of the debate then. Other than the Bonita Papers which again I do not believe to be a credible source; he does NOT use the term 'toilet rage' he uses the term 'toilet training'. He goes on to mention that he has seen genital injuries related to toilet training but DID NOT specifically relate his findings to JBR but just a general statement re: his findings of sexual abuse v toilet training.


From PMPT:

Dr. Richard Krugman; Dean of the CU Health Sciences Center and a nationally known child abuse expert who had consulted with the police and the DA since March 1997 said that JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. He also added "I do not believe it is possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone. The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's medical history combined with a child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse. Dr. Kruger had also seen injuries to girls' genitals that could be related to toilet training but had nothing to do with sexual abuse.

Dr. Richard Krugman believed that the injury to the hymen had been part of staging that took place after her death. Dr. Werner Spitz said that JonBenet's vaginal injury dated to the time of her death.
Both the Bonita papers and PMPT are only secondary sources. We have no way of assessing whether one is more reliable or the other. No doubt there are mistakes in the Bonita papers, but didn't Schiller also admit to inaccuracies in his book?
All we can do at this stage is collect the statements, compare them and point out mistakes which can be proved as such (for example,we know when Patsy was born, and therefore can list a wrong birthdate as a definite mistake).

But as for the meeting of the top-notch medical experts consulted on the case we don't know what exactly was said there. We don't have an official transcript.
Again, all we can do is compare what was written about the meeting in the Bonita papers, in PMPT and also in ST's book, and try to find a common denominator.

The lack of primary sources makes the JBR case research quite difficult.

Do there exist other sources where the meeting of the panel of experts is mentioned and commented on?

[thewhitewitch1]

OK I'll bite. Surprise me. Maybe none have had a "history of violence" however most have shown a precursive behavior to indicate that they would be capable of it.

Quote:

It happens all the time.

You said it. Do you have any examples?


Darlie Routier, for one.

[rashomon]

Darlie Routier, for one.
And Jeffrey MacDonald.

[Miss Marple]

Well I've just realized it is not good to read your posts while one is drinking coffee especially when one uses sugar in their java and leans over the keyboard. LOL

Linda -- Something else we share in common. :beer:

Lin Wood has assured me that notwithstanding the McDonald's ("I'm-so-klutzy-I-burned-myself-spilling-coffee-but-hit-the-jackpot-suing-McDonald's") precedent, I can in no way be held liable for the condition of any poster's keyboard, screen or psyche after they read my posts. The U.S. legal system may have its flaws, but it is not yet THAT out of control. He has assured me he will not return your calls on this matter.

That said, I wish your equipment a speedy recovery.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

T'was only a suggestion. I have lots of other ideas.

In discussing the "Athena matter" with LW, I learned that the execution of any ideas involving whale appendages would nicely position him to make more money on suing a sassy Scot than Darnay Hoffman has made in his entire legal career. FWIW, the last time he invited me down to his beach house, I noticed LW's yacht was getting a bit long in the tooth: I suspect he wouldn't mind at all getting it replaced.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Jayelles]

In discussing the "Athena matter" with LW, I learned that the execution of any ideas involving whale appendages would nicely position him to make more money on suing a sassy Scot than Darnay Hoffman has made in his entire legal career. FWIW, the last time he invited me down to his beach house, I noticed LW's yacht was getting a bit long in the tooth: I suspect he wouldn't mind at all getting it replaced.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

...(faints)....

[Miss Marple]

Darlie Routier, for one.

No, Darlie Routier did not snap "out of the blue." With the benefit of hindsight, there were PLENTY of warning signs: depression, suicide attempt, financial woes, etc. http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/13.html

This of course reinforces the point: the Ramseys were NOT having financial problems: on the contrary, John Ramsey's company was growing like topsy and had just passed the billion dollar milestone; JBR was doing great in her pageants, they were about to embark on an enjoyable family cruise, Patsy's cancer was in remission. LIFE WAS GOOD! A very different picture than the downward spiral Darlie was experiencing when she killed her children and blamed it on an intruder.

That said, given that the Routier killings were in summer 1996 and conviction in February 1997, I wonder how much the tragic Routier case colored BPD thinking about JBR's killing. They had FBI saying odds are parents did this AND they had a real-world case of a mom who'd killed her kids, blamed it on an intruder, BUT had ultimately been found out and convicted.

So once again: we are seeking an example of someone who "just snapped" with no prior record or hint that this was to come. Darlie Routier doesn't fit the bill.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

And Jeffrey MacDonald.

Unfortunately, there are some serious doubts MacDonald killed his children.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/27.html
So I don't think he can be used as an example.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[nuisanceposter]

Not everyone believes in the storybook perfect Christian wife and mother facade Patsy Ramsey wanted to present, and perhaps even sees evidence of prior questionable behavior in Miss Patsy. Paradox at FFJ comes to mind. And who knows what effect the chemo and cancer meds may have had on Patsy's brain and personality. There aren't any psychological evaluations of Patsy that I've ever seen, but I don't believe she was as mentally healthy as she'd have everyone believe. I think she had some issues that weren't being addressed - such as her (and subsequently JonBenet's) participation in child beauty pageants and denial of how involved she really was in them.

Patsy Ramsey and Darlie Routier have more in common than Ramsey supporters would like to admit. IMO.

[Athena]

Darlie Routier, for one.

Wrong. There was a history of domestic violence in the family, financial problems, affairs on both sides and serious financial problems which are the type of precursive behavior patters I was referring to.


Try again.

[LindaA]

Welcome to the black-sheep team! I assume LindaA doesn't = Linda Arndt, so should we call you LindaAren'tArndt or LindaArndt...NOT? My just-posted advice to Athena applies to you too.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple
Thanks for the welcome and the advice. I'm not Ms. Arndt, rest easy. I was wonderng if anyone would ever wonder about that.

[Athena]

Thanks for the welcome and the advice. I'm not Ms. Arndt, rest easy. I was wonderng if anyone would ever wonder about that.

Nah -- I never saw a post by you saying that you had looked into JR's eyes and immediately knew he had killed JBR. :biggrin:

[LindaA]

Nah -- I never saw a post by you saying that you had looked into JR's eyes and immediately knew he had killed JBR. :biggrin:

You're right. And I've never posted about how PR pleaded with me to find out "who did this to JBR." I do wish the real Linda Arndt's book would finally come out so I can see how she stands on the issue these days - if she still thinks JR did it and PR was innocent, but knew something.

[Athena]

Sorry MM. I just realized you had already addressed TWW's post re: Darlie Routier -- your explanation was more detailed than mine. I hadn't read through the entire thread yet.

O/T: On a good note - just got back from my son's Lacrosse game and they won!!! Wonderful way to start off the season. Just a bit parental bragging here. :)

[Athena]

You're right. And I've never posted about how PR pleaded with me to find out "who did this to JBR." I do wish the real Linda Arndt's book would finally come out so I can see how she stands on the issue these days - if she still thinks JR did it and PR was innocent, but knew something.

I am looking forward to it as well. The only potential new books I've even seen mentioned are from third parties trying to make a dollar; aka Laurence Smith. The email he sent me said enough and I wouldn't spend one penny on it or even take it out of the library if and when it ever comes out. JMO

[Miss Marple]

Sorry MM. I just realized you had already addressed TWW's post re: Darlie Routier -- your explanation was more detailed than mine. I hadn't read through the entire thread yet.

O/T: On a good note - just got back from my son's Lacrosse game and they won!!! Wonderful way to start off the season. Just a bit parental bragging here. :)

I have to bail out of here for the next week, so I'm glad you're "on the case" correcting inaccuracies and misperceptions right and left.

To correct an inadvertent inaccuracy I promulgated, please note that we apparently are the gray-sheeps. http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8831021&postcount=425

Congratulations to your son. When you send him to Duke to play lacrosse, however, please have a word of advice about his extra-curricular activities and what kinds of entertainment NOT to have at parties.
:)
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Sharon]

Unfortunately, there are some serious doubts MacDonald killed his children.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/27.html
So I don't think he can be used as an example.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

What a tradegy all around. jmo

[Sharon]

Not everyone believes in the storybook perfect Christian wife and mother facade Patsy Ramsey wanted to present, and perhaps even sees evidence of prior questionable behavior in Miss Patsy. Paradox at FFJ comes to mind. And who knows what effect the chemo and cancer meds may have had on Patsy's brain and personality. There aren't any psychological evaluations of Patsy that I've ever seen, but I don't believe she was as mentally healthy as she'd have everyone believe. I think she had some issues that weren't being addressed - such as her (and subsequently JonBenet's) participation in child beauty pageants and denial of how involved she really was in them.

Patsy Ramsey and Darlie Routier have more in common than Ramsey supporters would like to admit. IMO.

Wow, dont hold back....tell us what you really think about the R. values. jmo

[LindaA]

I noticed the last chapter on the MacDonald case mentioned a 7-11 clerk who saw a group of hippies come into her store on the morning after the murders, but never mentioned it for fear of her life until recently. And people doubt that anyone knowing about the pineapple and the tea bag in the Ramsey case would keep silent.

[thewhitewitch1]

Wrong. There was a history of domestic violence in the family, financial problems, affairs on both sides and serious financial problems which are the type of precursive behavior patters I was referring to.


Try again.

I stand corrected on that one.

[rashomon]

Unfortunately, there are some serious doubts MacDonald killed his children.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/27.html
So I don't think he can be used as an example.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple
That site is so full of misinformation re the documented record that no serious case researcher would even think of quoting it as reliable source in a forum discussion.
Jeffrey MacDonald is right where he belongs.

[rashomon]

I noticed the last chapter on the MacDonald case mentioned a 7-11 clerk who saw a group of hippies come into her store on the morning after the murders, but never mentioned it for fear of her life until recently. And people doubt that anyone knowing about the pineapple and the tea bag in the Ramsey case would keep silent.
It is typical in circumstantial evidence cases that people will come forward who claim to have "seen something", "heard something", etc.
All this has been addressed and discussed in the MacDonald forums ad nauseam.
Not a shred of forensic evidence pointing to intruders was found in the MacDonald home, and the recent DNA tests only confirmed this.
But a mountain of forensic evidence clearly marks Jeffrey MacDonald as the killer, and the recent DNA tests confirm this: For example, the so-called 'mystery hair' found in his dead wife's hand, a hair which per the MacDonald camp was from her killer - indeed it came from her killer, for DNA tests showed it was Jeffrey MacDonald's own hair. Slam dunk.
Jeffrey MacDonald is right where he belongs: serving three consecutive life terms for slaughtering his whole family.

[rashomon]

You're right. And I've never posted about how PR pleaded with me to find out "who did this to JBR." I do wish the real Linda Arndt's book would finally come out so I can see how she stands on the issue these days - if she still thinks JR did it and PR was innocent, but knew something.
Linda Arndt is a joke. For suppose she indeed had that 'gut feeling' about John Ramsey having killed his daughter (or knowing who had been involved in her death) - then why on earth did that woman later receive flowers from the suspects, and happily told Steve Thomas that they were "from Patsy and John"?

[shill]

Linda Arndt is a joke. For suppose she indeed had that 'gut feeling' about John Ramsey having killed his daughter (or knowing who had been involved in her death) - then why on earth did that woman later receive flowers from the suspects, and happily told Steve Thomas that they were "from Patsy and John"?

Because she was paid off by the evil Ramseys and their spin team of lawyers who made her drink the blood of one of their child victims to guarantee her allegiance.

Why LA, who was there in the middle of it all, didn't come around to seeing it your way rashomon is a total mystery that can only be explained with a conspiracy.

[elvislives]

Lin Wood has assured me that notwithstanding the McDonald's ("I'm-so-klutzy-I-burned-myself-spilling-coffee-but-hit-the-jackpot-suing-McDonald's") precedent, I can in no way be held liable for the condition of any poster's keyboard, screen or psyche after they read my posts. The U.S. legal system may have its flaws, but it is not yet THAT out of control. He has assured me he will not return your calls on this matter.

That said, I wish your equipment a speedy recovery.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

Athena, I think it is obvious that Miss Marple's decision to immediately 'lawyer up' and his refusal to answer questions is concrete proof of his guilt in this matter. I don't know how any rational person could see it differently.

So he is liable not only for the damage to your personal property but also for the mental anguish that you are surely suffering due to his negligence. I am not sure if you have a personal injury attorney, but I know one can be found in your area by calling 1-800-PI Lawyer.

I hope you find the justice that you clearly deserve, this perp must pay....

[elvislives]

...(faints)....

Are you okay, Jayelles?? You didn't bump your head or anything when Miss Marple caused you to faint and fall off your chair, did you? If so, he is clearly responsible for your pain and suffering. You may also experience emotional distress and have to miss work due to your injuries, but not to worry...MM is responsible for ALL of your damages.

I'm beginning to think Marple is a real danger to society. Just two posts ago he launched an assault on Athena's computer key board, leaving her property damaged and her emotions in shambles. He's a repeat offender!!

[elvislives]

Thanks for showing us how to use "vaginal area" properly...

I'm here to help...


This Autopsy 101 tutorial is very much appreciated, but I'm still confused. I understand that microscopic things wouldn't make it into the ME's observations, but I guess I was always assuming that "small blue fibers" was a reference to something visible, not microscopic. Indeed, early in its life my Duke blue gym towel shed exactly the types of blue fibers I imagined when I heard they speculated these might have come from JR's bathrobe. If they were microscopically small, I'm surprised the description doesn't denote this in some fashion "minuscule" "tiny" etc., but maybe Bonita hadn't been to novel-writing school long enough to work up particularly sophisticated writing skills... So my question is, IF these fibers were visible, wouldn't the ME record this and their location just the way he did with jewelry? Or would he merely be certain to include these on his swabs, each of which I assume IS carefully catalogued as to the exact location (or maybe "area") it came from?

I am sure that the ME made mention of ALL fibers that were visible to the naked eye and documented where they came from. I don't know if you've ever seen a real autopsy report, but they are very lengthy. The 9 pages that were released to the public was the summary and not the whole thing. Autopsy reports-esp in homocide cases-fill up mutiple binders with all the info. MOST of the info contained in an autopsy is completely irrelevant in solving a case, so it is not released.
In any given case, there are usually hundreds of fibers that are collected. Each one is documented and cataloged in the 'fiber' or 'trace evidence' binder. But most of them come from the victims own clothing or other textiles the victim was exposed to, but have no connection to the crime.

[elvislives]

I knew that saliva could degrade DNA, but never realized where the DNA in saliva came from.


My son worked at a pizza place as a teen. He told me stories of what went on "behind the scenes" that involved saliva and were positively nauseating. Unfortunately, there apparently was no Inspector 9 on the job. My take-home lesson was: a) don't eat at fast-food places where the teen help might be disgruntled and b) if you do, NEVER annoy the person who serves you your food.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! I've heard these stories before, but as a defense mechanism I convinced myself they were urban myths. Now you're confirming this?? I'll never dine out again.


I read recently that they're hopeful that someday they could reconstruct an image of a person's face from their DNA: don't know how or when, but if they do, that would be quite amazing.

I've read this too. I am sure the technology will eventually get there, hopefully within the not to distant future. The whole field is actually very fascinating.


That's thoroughly unfair. You can't be a medical expert AND a Bloomies expert. Next thing you'll tell us is that you know how to reform the U.S. health care system (at which point we'll realize you are screaming yellow bonkers!)
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

I really dont like to boast, but I got my PhD in undergarment packaging and wrote my doctoral dissertation on Bloomies. And yes, I know precisely how to reform the US health care system. And did I mention that it was I -and not Al Gore- who invented the internet?

[Miss Marple]

That site is so full of misinformation re the documented record that no serious case researcher would even think of quoting it as reliable source in a forum discussion.
Jeffrey MacDonald is right where he belongs.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the MacDonald case. Given a choice between citing Wikipedia and Court TV's own Crimelibrary, I thought the latter would have more credibility with posters here. I'm quite surprised to hear you think so little of Crimelibrary.com: why waste your precious time on their forums if all you can count on is misinformation?:shrug:
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

Are you okay, Jayelles?? You didn't bump your head or anything when Miss Marple caused you to faint and fall off your chair, did you? If so, he is clearly responsible for your pain and suffering. You may also experience emotional distress and have to miss work due to your injuries, but not to worry...MM is responsible for ALL of your damages.

I'm beginning to think Marple is a real danger to society. Just two posts ago he launched an assault on Athena's computer key board, leaving her property damaged and her emotions in shambles. He's a repeat offender!!

Lin Wood is licking his chops: NOW he's got a deep-pocketed doctor on his hook--a doctor flagrantly attempting to practice law without a license! Forget fractional ownership: I think LW is going to be able to buy outright that Gulfstream 550/GV he's had his eye on. http://www.netjets.com/NetJets_Fleet/NetJets_Fleet.asp

Good news, underthradar! You are off the hook, buddy.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Rod%20Westmoreland#Whoisundrtheradar
LW's got a new fish (whale?) to fry!

Best wishes,
MM

[Miss Marple]

I'm here to help...

Help me get in Dutch even deeper with Jayelles?


I am sure that the ME made mention of ALL fibers that were visible to the naked eye and documented where they came from. I don't know if you've ever seen a real autopsy report, but they are very lengthy. The 9 pages that were released to the public was the summary and not the whole thing. Autopsy reports-esp in homocide cases-fill up mutiple binders with all the info. MOST of the info contained in an autopsy is completely irrelevant in solving a case, so it is not released.
In any given case, there are usually hundreds of fibers that are collected. Each one is documented and cataloged in the 'fiber' or 'trace evidence' binder. But most of them come from the victims own clothing or other textiles the victim was exposed to, but have no connection to the crime.

Now it's my turn to faint [and by your legal reasoning, YOU are responsible for this]. I've never seen an autopsy. There were no redactions, as I recall, from the 9-pager. I had NO IDEA it was viewed as a SUMMARY (!!!???!!!). In my work, a summary is often 1 page, sometimes 2-3, NEVER more than 4 and no summary would be stuffed to the gills with so much jargon and detail. No wonder I didn't go to medical school. My tiny little brain would have burst from the information overload.

Even though you appear to now be assisting someone perfectly capable of capsizing my vulnerable little rowboat in the middle of the Atlantic all by her lonesome [if we lived in Biblical days, you no doubt would have taken the GIANT'S side against poor helpless David], I do appreciate the education you continue to provide.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! I've heard these stories before, but as a defense mechanism I convinced myself they were urban myths. Now you're confirming this?? I'll never dine out again.

I'm too lazy to scroll up to see it, but someone immediately responded that this was standard practice with airline stewardesses serving coffee to cranky customers. Memo to self: never drink coffee on an airplane. And don't ever be mean to a stewardess again!


I really dont like to boast, but I got my PhD in undergarment packaging and wrote my doctoral dissertation on Bloomies. And yes, I know precisely how to reform the US health care system. And did I mention that it was I -and not Al Gore- who invented the internet?

OMG, Lin Wood will have a field day with this. Your credibility will be in tatters. "Dr. EL, is it not true that you MASSIVELY inflated your professional credentials by claiming on-line to have a PhD in addition to your MD? And did you not further cause grievous damage to Al Gore's integrity and reputation as a steadfast truth-teller by claiming that YOU, not he, invented the Internet?"

Thank goodness you have not attempted to obliterate Al Gore's professional reputation by claiming to also have invented global warming. I have it on good authority that Al Gore, and Al Gore alone, should be credited with INVENTING global warming... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[rashomon]

I don't pretend to be an expert on the MacDonald case. Given a choice between citing Wikipedia and Court TV's own Crimelibrary, I thought the latter would have more credibility with posters here. I'm quite surprised to hear you think so little of Crimelibrary.com: why waste your precious time on their forums if all you can count on is misinformation?:shrug:
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

There are many Crimelibrary articles which are excellent, but the slanted one on MacDonald seems to have been written by his defense team members.
But there exist excellent websites with tons of factual info (primary sources like the original lab reports, grand jury and trial transcripts) on the MacD case.

That I'm posting on a Crimelibrary forum does not mean I got my information from their site only.

[rashomon]

I am sure that the ME made mention of ALL fibers that were visible to the naked eye and documented where they came from. I don't know if you've ever seen a real autopsy report, but they are very lengthy. The 9 pages that were released to the public was the summary and not the whole thing. Autopsy reports-esp in homocide cases-fill up mutiple binders with all the info. MOST of the info contained in an autopsy is completely irrelevant in solving a case, so it is not released.
In any given case, there are usually hundreds of fibers that are collected. Each one is documented and cataloged in the 'fiber' or 'trace evidence' binder. But most of them come from the victims own clothing or other textiles the victim was exposed to, but have no connection to the crime.
I don't understand the discussion about the fibers. Dr. Meyer stated verbatim in his nine page summary that fibers on the body were collected as evidence and turned over to the investigators. Am I missing something?

[Miss Marple]

I don't understand the discussion about the fibers. Dr. Meyer stated verbatim in his nine page summary that fibers on the body were collected as evidence and turned over to the investigators. Am I missing something?

We've squandered great gobs of bandwidth (PLEASE don't turn me into Al Gore: he'll get upset that I'm abusing his Internet and no doubt, had I been able to stay awake during An Inconvenient Truth, I would have learned that he has established a firm connection between bandwidth use and global warming...)
straightening ME out. I was just confused why the ME records the exact location of things like jewelry (in what I've just today learned was only a SUMMARY of the REAL autopsy report that none of us has seen!) but NOT recorded anything in that same report about the location and color of fibers found. Because that information isn't stated, many posters end up relying on possibly questionable sources such as Bonita Papers to learn whether these fibers were blue, black etc. Life would have been so much simpler if this kind of thing had just been written down in the official record we are privy to etc.

But as I understand it, that's not the way the world works. So be it.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[shill]

There are many Crimelibrary articles which are excellent, but the slanted one on MacDonald seems to have been written by his defense team members.
But there exist excellent websites with tons of factual info (primary sources like the original lab reports, grand jury and trial transcripts) on the MacD case.


RASHOMON TRANSLATION; If I agree with it, it's credible!

[Sharon]

RASHOMON TRANSLATION; If I agree with it, it's credible!

I was thinking EXACTLY the same, but, to some extent, Im no longer going to argue with `blind` people about what color we are looking at! jmo

[bullmoose]

Both the Bonita papers and PMPT are only secondary sources. We have no way of assessing whether one is more reliable or the other. No doubt there are mistakes in the Bonita papers, but didn't Schiller also admit to inaccuracies in his book?
All we can do at this stage is collect the statements, compare them and point out mistakes which can be proved as such (for example,we know when Patsy was born, and therefore can list a wrong birthdate as a definite mistake).

But as for the meeting of the top-notch medical experts consulted on the case we don't know what exactly was said there. We don't have an official transcript.
Again, all we can do is compare what was written about the meeting in the Bonita papers, in PMPT and also in ST's book, and try to find a common denominator.

The lack of primary sources makes the JBR case research quite difficult.

Do there exist other sources where the meeting of the panel of experts is mentioned and commented on?I think it can fairly be said that the Bonita Papers rankup with the Hitler Diaries for accuracy and veracity, even the Twisterpiece tells the actual facts at times, although I'm sure it was unintentional on Synthroid Stevie's part.:biggrin: JMHO

[bullmoose]

I was thinking EXACTLY the same, but, to some extent, Im no longer going to argue with `blind` people about what color we are looking at! jmo BEWARE of the phenomana known as the Rabid Rashie; it is like a bomb going off; question in any way the guilt of Jeffery MacDonald in the murder of his wife and three children in on-base housing or express doubt as to the 'evidence' and you will see a barely sub-nuke internet explosion, courtesy of Rashie. JMHO:biggrin:

[Sharon]

I think it can fairly be said that the Bonita Papers rankup with the Hitler Diaries for accuracy and veracity, even the Twisterpiece tells the actual facts at times, although I'm sure it was unintentional on Synthroid Stevie's part.:biggrin: JMHO

Yes, Im pretty upset about how these B. papers really did add to the devestasion of the R. Im sure many of the one eyed readers lapped up every word and had the case solved on the grounds of extreem misinformation.

Absolute rubbish like the body was wrapped lovingly....yer right....The arms of JBR were held out over her head in a very unatural fashion, she had mucus left all over her face from having a cold and crying, blood was wiped from her legs, her vagina was tortured with a broken paintbrush handle, the vagina was bleeding.....it would have really hurt her let alone the terror of being with a complete stranger. She was strangled with a slow device, not an easy death....and bashed in the skull.

So really, how can anyone use the word lovingly wrapped when the body was (1)left positioned in a very awkward painful position,(2) with messy snot on her face, (3) left lying in a dirty old junk room.

Anyway, this is but one of an infinite amount of false assumptions being held by the B. papers...which were written to be a book, not for the purposes of being held up in a court of law! jmo

[Sharon]

I think it can fairly be said that the Bonita Papers rankup with the Hitler Diaries for accuracy and veracity, even the Twisterpiece tells the actual facts at times, although I'm sure it was unintentional on Synthroid Stevie's part.:biggrin: JMHO

And for the record, I do believe that the B papers smack of Hitler propeganda. There is that appealing to the masses, hysteria, and creating new truths that are anything but the truth about them. They seem to have taken on a life of their own. jmo

[Athena]

Are you okay, Jayelles?? You didn't bump your head or anything when Miss Marple caused you to faint and fall off your chair, did you? If so, he is clearly responsible for your pain and suffering. You may also experience emotional distress and have to miss work due to your injuries, but not to worry...MM is responsible for ALL of your damages.

I'm beginning to think Marple is a real danger to society. Just two posts ago he launched an assault on Athena's computer key board, leaving her property damaged and her emotions in shambles. He's a repeat offender!!

LMAO! Too funny! I definitely see a civil suit ready to commence. Jayelles has already identified MM so at least we know what he looks like. Hopefully it won't be many more that MM offends. Class action suits pay no money.

[rashomon]

I was thinking EXACTLY the same, but, to some extent, Im no longer going to argue with `blind` people about what color we are looking at! jmo
Sharon and Shill,
I have researched the MacDonald is case for 23 years and therefore won't comment on who is 'blind' when it comes to the evidence of Jeffrey MacDonald's guilt. The forensic and other circumstantial evidence against him was so overwhelming that it took the jury less than seven hours to find him guilty of triple homicide.
Sure, he will scream from the rooftops that he is innocent until he bites the dust. Today many perps seem to have their own website, and of course they'll all proclaim their 'innocence' there.
Jeffrey MacDonald is the classic case of a guilty person in denial over the crimes he committed. Which is why he has constructed an "I'm innocent" parallel universe for himself and and has strung along many people into his universe. He had it fairly easy, for he is intelligent, eloquent, manipulative and charming.
People have become his staunch supporters without even taking one look at the evidence in the documented record which so clearly marks him as the killer. Fascinating.

If you really want to find out he truth about this case, study these sites. They say it all:


http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.net/

[rashomon]

The arms of JBR were held out over her head in a very unatural fashion
But look at this picture, which was taken when JB was already in rigor mortis. The arm seems to be bent at the elbow and not held out over the head at all:
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceathouse.jpg

[Zoey]

But look at this picture, which was taken when JB was already in rigor mortis. The arm seems to be bent at the elbow and not held out over the head at all:
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceathouse.jpg

From the autopsy report:

On removing these two items from the top of the body the decedent was
found to be lying on her back with her arms extended up over her head.

[rashomon]

From the autopsy report:

On removing these two items from the top of the body the decedent was
found to be lying on her back with her arms extended up over her head.
I know it says that in the autopsy report, but how does it square with this picture?
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceathouse.jpg

[andU]

I know it says that in the autopsy report, but how does it square with this picture?
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceathouse.jpg

She was rolled onto her side, rigor may have even begun to subside at this time. I can't recall the time period involved for rigor to come and go... Elvis?

[Zoey]

I know it says that in the autopsy report, but how does it square with this picture?
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceathouse.jpg



Now you are questioning the validity of the autopsy report?
Rigor Mortis can be broken down, which is probably what is shown in the autopsy photos. Also, approximately 36 hours after rigor sets, it then begins to subside. The autopsy was not done until the next day, hence rigor probably began to subside.

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/65/04700127/0470012765.pdf

[andU]

Is there an echo (echo, echo.... ) in here?

[LindaA]

BEWARE of the phenomana known as the Rabid Rashie; it is like a bomb going off; question in any way the guilt of Jeffery MacDonald in the murder of his wife and three children in on-base housing or express doubt as to the 'evidence' and you will see a barely sub-nuke internet explosion, courtesy of Rashie. JMHO:biggrin:

I've noticed that same thing -- the automatic "Jeffrey MacDonald is exactly where he belongs" response. I wasn't even questioning his guilt and got that response.

[andU]

Is there something that links the McDonald case to this one? I didn't understand why it is being discussed here; I'm not familiar with it and unless it is in some way linked, I don't want to become involved in it. Sorry if that sounds cold, but some days it is all I can do to handle this case, much less delve into another.

[LindaA]

Not really, AndU except that MacDonald's motive was said to have been that he tried to get into his bed and found his little daughter had wet his side of the bed where she had been sleeping. Recent evidence has cast some doubt on the case after all these years.

There was a link to the CrimeLibrary discussion of the case and I noted that it tells about a convenience store clerk who now says that she saw individuals matching the description of the perps MacDonald claimed murdered his family the next morning in her store, but would never speak out because she was afraid for her life. I drew the parallel to people who might know about the pineapple or the tea bag in the Ramsey case. RDIs have posted that anyone knowing about those items would certainly have reported it. If we go by this example, it ain't necessarily so.

[bullmoose]

Is there something that links the McDonald case to this one? I didn't understand why it is being discussed here; I'm not familiar with it and unless it is in some way linked, I don't want to become involved in it. Sorry if that sounds cold, but some days it is all I can do to handle this case, much less delve into another.Rashie is an old MacDonald Murder buff; I believe she knows the case inside and out; she brings up the case for comparative purposes with the Jonbenet case because of what she perceives to be similarities in what she believes actually happened in both cases, that is: a loving parent slaughtering a child or children over toilet issues, I think it is. I do not agree that in either case anything of the sort occurred, but since Rashie perceives that similarity, it keeps coming up. I do believe that the cases can be compared in the sense of both being similarly bizarre and contreversial. JMHO

[rashomon]

Now you are questioning the validity of the autopsy report?
Rigor Mortis can be broken down, which is probably what is shown in the autopsy photos. Also, approximately 36 hours after rigor sets, it then begins to subside. The autopsy was not done until the next day, hence rigor probably began to subside.

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/65/04700127/0470012765.pdf
But this picture of the body was taken in the Ramsey home, therefore the body still must have been in full rigor mortis.

[nuisanceposter]

Maybe it's time to question the phrasing of the autopsy.

If we can turn the word "abrasion" into another word for burn (by loose definition), then we can perhaps decipher "arms extended up over her head" into " arms extended out and up in front of her, with her hands ending up above her head"?

If that picture was taken at the house like it says, then she was in rigor, and her arms were extended out and up in front of her like we see. That may be why JR had to carry her with his hands around her waist - her arms in that position in the picture would have been just about in his face while holding her.

The only other rendition/photo I know of showing JB's arm position is the artist's drawing, and we don't really know how accurate that drawing is.

[Athena]

Maybe it's time to question the phrasing of the autopsy.

If we can turn the word "abrasion" into another word for burn (by loose definition), then we can perhaps decipher "arms extended up over her head" into " arms extended out and up in front of her, with her hands ending up above her head"?

If that picture was taken at the house like it says, then she was in rigor, and her arms were extended out and up in front of her like we see. That may be why JR had to carry her with his hands around her waist - her arms in that position in the picture would have been just about in his face while holding her.

The only other rendition/photo I know of showing JB's arm position is the artist's drawing, and we don't really know how accurate that drawing is.

NP you are really stretching it here. The autopsy reports clearly states that her arms were extended up OVER her head. There is no mistake on what OVER means.

The decedent was laying on her back on the floor, covered by a blanket and a Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt. On removing these two items from the top of the body the decedent was found to be lying on her back with her arms extended up over her head. The head was turned to the right.

[Sharon]

Maybe it's time to question the phrasing of the autopsy.

If we can turn the word "abrasion" into another word for burn (by loose definition), then we can perhaps decipher "arms extended up over her head" into " arms extended out and up in front of her, with her hands ending up above her head"?

If that picture was taken at the house like it says, then she was in rigor, and her arms were extended out and up in front of her like we see. That may be why JR had to carry her with his hands around her waist - her arms in that position in the picture would have been just about in his face while holding her.

The only other rendition/photo I know of showing JB's arm position is the artist's drawing, and we don't really know how accurate that drawing is.

Any way that the arms are in the air means she must have died in a fairly awkward position with no rest for her arms. The natural way is to have our arms by our sides. The way her arms were in death defies gravity, and must have been held there against her will by some sort of artificial restraint.

AS a challenge, I wonder how long anyone here can hold their arms out for. It soon gets very uncomfortable. Even having your arms tied up hurts after awhile. jmo

[andU]

Maybe it's time to question the phrasing of the autopsy.

If we can turn the word "abrasion" into another word for burn (by loose definition), then we can perhaps decipher "arms extended up over her head" into " arms extended out and up in front of her, with her hands ending up above her head"?

If that picture was taken at the house like it says, then she was in rigor, and her arms were extended out and up in front of her like we see. That may be why JR had to carry her with his hands around her waist - her arms in that position in the picture would have been just about in his face while holding her.

The only other rendition/photo I know of showing JB's arm position is the artist's drawing, and we don't really know how accurate that drawing is.

So, there must have been some slack in her arms, right? As in, slightly bent, according to the photo...

[Zoey]

But this picture of the body was taken in the Ramsey home, therefore the body still must have been in full rigor mortis.

How do we know for a fact this picture was taken at the house? Just because acandyrose put that as the discription for the file location does not make it so. Take a good look at the picture. IMO, that brown thing next to her head is the body bag. Which again, IMO, means this picture was taken the next morning at the morgue.

[Athena]

I believe those photos are all autopsy photos. JMO

[Athena]

Rigor Mortis

Q. How long does it take for rigor mortis to set in? Is it a good indicator of the time of death?

A. Rigor mortis is gradual, usually noticeable about three to four hours after death, and the timing varies with several factors, including the person's activity just before death and the temperature of the body's surroundings. How long it takes the muscle stiffness to subside also varies, with rigidity usually reaching a peak after 12 hours and nearly disappearing in 24 to 36 hours.

[Jayelles]

I thought that some of the photos were taken at the house but bear in mind that her body stayed there until (was it?) early evening so I *think* rigor might have started to wear off by then. My understanding of rigor is that it takes 12 hours to come and 12 hours to go - but that might be a bit simplistic.

[LindaA]

But this picture of the body was taken in the Ramsey home, therefore the body still must have been in full rigor mortis.

I have never understood that to be the case. I thought all the pictures were taken at the ME's lab.

[Jayelles]

I have never understood that to be the case. I thought all the pictures were taken at the ME's lab.


No there would definitely have been some photos taken of the body in situ.

[Zoey]

No there would definitely have been some photos taken of the body in situ.


And you know this to be definate because??

[Zoey]

I thought that some of the photos were taken at the house but bear in mind that her body stayed there until (was it?) early evening so I *think* rigor might have started to wear off by then. My understanding of rigor is that it takes 12 hours to come and 12 hours to go - but that might be a bit simplistic.


Please take the time to read my link and Athena's post, as you understand incorrectly.

[rashomon]

I thought that some of the photos were taken at the house but bear in mind that her body stayed there until (was it?) early evening so I *think* rigor might have started to wear off by then. My understanding of rigor is that it takes 12 hours to come and 12 hours to go - but that might be a bit simplistic.
From Wikipedia:

Rigor mortis is one of the recognizable signs of death (Latin mors, mortis) that is caused by a chemical change in the muscles after death, causing the limbs of the corpse to become stiff (Latin rigor) and difficult to move or manipulate. Assuming mild temperatures, rigor usually sets in about 3-4 hours after clinical death[citation needed], with full rigor being in effect at about 12 hours, and eventually subsiding to relaxation at about 36 hours.

[Zoey]

Rashomon.....exact same thing said in the link I provided and exact same thing Athena says.

[andU]

"If you kids don't play nice and stop calling each other names, I'm going to take your play time away from you!", from the mouth of my dear deceased mother.

[Jayelles]

And you know this to be definate because??

Because it was a crimescene.

[Jayelles]

From Wikipedia:

Thank you Rashie for your intelligent and informative reply.

[Zoey]

Because it was a crimescene.


Yes, it was a crimescene and nothing that day was done as per protocol. Again, how do you know it was definate that that picture was taken at the crimescene?

[Zoey]

Thank you Rashie for your intelligent and informative reply.


Wow Athena. I guess my link and your information was stupid and uniformative.