Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Tadpole12]

The current media reports suggests an intruder killed JBR.

The idea that JBR was abused prior to the night she was murdered is just that, an idea. Not really considered a case fact, but treated here as if it were. For the sake of conversation, I suppose.

Familial sexual abuse isn't really relevant to JBR. Don't take my word for it, LE is persuing DNA leads, not familial abuse testimonies.

There has never been any action/charge against any R for anything, while LE searches for a DNA match. See what I mean?

Hi Hotyh.
Ya .... I get it.

but!

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi SD.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/jonbenet-in-search-of-a-killer-1640647.html?r=RSS

Gee ... that link was an interesting read. I'm Always stumbling upon new info and rereading info that I didn't retain in the first place!

re: Michael Helgoth,

Boots matching the footprint as well as a stun gun and cap with the initials "SBTC" were found at his apartment. The possibility that he had been shot by someone else who feared being caught was explored by the police but no arrests were made.

*the SBTC cap, I musta missed that, Is that a known 'fact'?

 

[mysterymax]

I think the murder was premeditated and staged, down to the stranger's DNA. My guess, as crazy as it sounds, is that the child's murder was a ritual crime, a ind of "Jacob and Isaac" kind of kill, with the intention of rejuvenating Patsy Ramsey's beauty.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/jonbenet-in-search-of-a-killer-1640647.html?r=RSS

Gee ... that link was an interesting read. I'm Always stumbling upon new info and rereading info that I didn't retain in the first place!

re: Michael Helgoth,

Boots matching the footprint as well as a stun gun and cap with the initials "SBTC" were found at his apartment. The possibility that he had been shot by someone else who feared being caught was explored by the police but no arrests were made.

*the SBTC cap, I musta missed that, Is that a known 'fact'?

That is a known fact. Much of that paragraph is, to put it politely, not. The basement footprint was revealed to have come from BR.

Hey, Holdon, who says the sexual abuse HAD to be familial? That's kind of what Tadpole was getting at (I THINK!). We can't even be sure her abuser was her killer, from a legal standpoint. Think about it, man.

As for what was covered up, the FBI was quite specific on that point.

mysterymax, I tend toward the "Snow White" idea myself.

 

[SarahR]

In a magazine here in the UK this week, it claims they are going to exhume JBR for further tests on her hair for drugs, is this true, i ask as the magazine is one which is usually taken with a pinch of salt

 

[BBB167893]

In a magazine here in the UK this week, it claims they are going to exhume JBR for further tests on her hair for drugs, is this true, i ask as the magazine is one which is usually taken with a pinch of salt

Highly unlikely.

 

[DeeDee249]

To test hair for drugs given THAT NIGHT may not work anyway. Drug use can be detected in hair, but for the evidence to be present in the hair shaft takes time- it doesn't happen quickly as it does with the bloodstream. The coroner conducted toxicology tests and found no drugs present.

 

[Tadpole12]

That is a known fact. Much of that paragraph is, to put it politely, not. The basement footprint was revealed to have come from BR.

Hey, Holdon, who says the sexual abuse HAD to be familial? That's kind of what Tadpole was getting at (I THINK!). We can't even be sure her abuser was her killer, from a legal standpoint. Think about it, man.

As for what was covered up, the FBI was quite specific on that point.

mysterymax, I tend toward the "Snow White" idea myself.

Hi SD.

The basement footprint was revealed to have come from BR.

I was under the assumption that BR had owned a pair of high techs, but that the footprint could not be connected to him as the boots were 'missing'?

who says the sexual abuse HAD to be familial? That's kind of what Tadpole was getting at (I THINK!). We can't even be sure her abuser was her killer, from a legal standpoint. Think about it, man.

YES! That's exactly what I meant ... I was begining to think I was incomprehensible?

 

[ilovemew]

I am just trying to figure out why if PR was such an intelligent person, she would write a 3 page note with inside family jokes? Why not just a stereotypical ransom note. What do you guys think?

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD.
I was under the assumption that BR had owned a pair of high techs, but that the footprint could not be connected to him as the boots were 'missing'?

I don't know about that one way or the other, but I seem to recall John describing them.

YES! That's exactly what I meant ... I was begining to think I was incomprehensible?

No, I seized on it.

A few things to keep in mind, Tadpole--

1) The BBC (British Broadcasting Company) reported these depressing figures:

--About 80% of rapes are not reported.

--Of the 20% reported, about one-third are not recorded by police.

--Of the ones recorded, only one-fifth reach trial.

--Of those that reach trial, half are convicted.

Now, if you do the math on that, that means that out of every 100 rapes, 1.3 result in a conviction. The reason I mention all this is to show just how hard it is to detect sex crimes, and how much harder it is to punish them. And these victims were all ADULTS, presumably in full control of their faculties. Imagine how hard it is for children!

2) I'm going to lay this on the line, and you can make up your own mind. For some people, professional and otherwise, physical findings are not enough to say for sure that a child has been abused. You have to interview the child, and do it in a certain way, so the interviewer doesn't put ideas in the child's head (which is what happened with the McMartin case). Now, until he answers the question himself, I'll give HOTYH the benefit of the doubt and say he's one of these people. (Though how he explains the injuries is beyond me!) And for what it's worth, I can see the value of that approach. But there are a few things wrong with it. One thing is the difficulty in detecting abuse, which I just outlined. Sometimes (far more often than we'd like), it's only after death has occurred that abuse is detected. (Ask Hedda Nusbaum about that!) And that leads into the second problem: dead men tell no tales. We can't interview JB, because she's dead.

So, and this is STRICTLY my opinion, the IDIs can claim there was no abuse (at least, none from the family), but until they can give a plausible explanation for a worn-away hymen and layers of tissue sloughed off the inside of the vagina, they have about as much chance of convincing me as I have of bench-pressing an aircraft carrier. The Ramseys tried to claim that repeated use of bubble bath caused the inflammation, but that wouldn't account for everything else.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi SD.

Yes. Under reporting. Inability to convict, even with testimony ....

Theory vs application.
Standards of application: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...linear+to+comminuted&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=ca

That's it in a nutshell.

No, I can't get past the obvious pattern of abuse and the autopsy .... to that final point ...... where the touch dna provides exhoneration of the Ramseys. Well, actually, I can't ignore CW's conclusions. Not specifically, his AEA scenario, but the review of physiological evidence.

So, It's like working backwards? Now. From the touch dna evidence .....
so that's why I asked Hotyh, why the need to negate evidence of abuse, as it fits neatly into the 'known' IDI scenarios. Or even why not entertain the thought that the murder and chronic abuse are unrelated,

Hotyh, oh gee, I guess Hotyh has probably given me alotta benefit of the doubt, so I return that courtesy. If not for Hotyh's resolve?, I wouldn't have read half as much as I have, looking for that plausible explanation that would "explain away" CW's findings as innacurate.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD.

Yes. Under reporting. Inability to convict, even with testimony ....

Theory vs application.
Standards of application: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...linear+to+comminuted&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=ca

That's it in a nutshell.

That it is.

So, It's like working backwards? Now. From the touch dna evidence .....
so that's why I asked Hotyh, why the need to negate evidence of abuse, as it fits neatly into the 'known' IDI scenarios. Or even why not entertain the thought that the murder and chronic abuse are unrelated,

My point exactly.

Hotyh, oh gee, I guess Hotyh has probably given me alotta benefit of the doubt, so I return that courtesy. If not for Hotyh's resolve?, I wouldn't have read half as much as I have, looking for that plausible explanation that would "explain away" CW's findings as innacurate.

Maybe.

 

[BBB167893]

I am just trying to figure out why if PR was such an intelligent person, she would write a 3 page note with inside family jokes? Why not just a stereotypical ransom note. What do you guys think?

I've been asked that many times, and I keep coming back to the same set of answers. The big one is that intelligence doesn't really enter into it. There's a BIG difference between intelligence and knowing what you're doing. We're not talking about a hardened criminal who knows how a real criminal thinks and acts. PR's only knowledge came from TV and books (it shows). Add to that her probable mental state at the time. How clearly would you be thinking?

Long story short, one must always have a healthy respect for the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So, It's like working backwards? Now. From the touch dna evidence .....
so that's why I asked Hotyh, why the need to negate evidence of abuse, as it fits neatly into the 'known' IDI scenarios. Or even why not entertain the thought that the murder and chronic abuse are unrelated,

Hotyh, oh gee, I guess Hotyh has probably given me alotta benefit of the doubt, so I return that courtesy. If not for Hotyh's resolve?, I wouldn't have read half as much as I have, looking for that plausible explanation that would "explain away" CW's findings as innacurate.

It seems you're wondering why I'm against the chronic abuse idea, when an intruder could've been the one chronically abusing JBR. Is that right?

Its a good question with an easy answer for me. I believe that FFDI (foreign faction did it), and it could be characterized as a 'mission'. Before you laugh, there is a 'mission serial killer' type, and that isn't ruled out.

Meantime, there really hasn't been a peep out of the local group about any prior abuse on JBR. Prior abuse isn't really a 'case fact'.

 

[DeeDee249]

It seems you're wondering why I'm against the chronic abuse idea, when an intruder could've been the one chronically abusing JBR. Is that right?

Its a good question with an easy answer for me. I believe that FFDI (foreign faction did it), and it could be characterized as a 'mission'. Before you laugh, there is a 'mission serial killer' type, and that isn't ruled out.

Meantime, there really hasn't been a peep out of the local group about any prior abuse on JBR. Prior abuse isn't really a 'case fact'.

Yes, actually- it is. Read the autopsy and (as if it hasn't been explained here enough) get a doctor to explain it to you.
How many times would you say the SFF would have broken into the home and abused her (to account for the prior abuse)? twice, 3 X? This is without anyone finding out. Think they went in and out the same basement window, maybe bringing their accomplice spider to re-spin the web that was found intact across the metal window gate?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes, actually- it is. Read the autopsy and (as if it hasn't been explained here enough) get a doctor to explain it to you.
How many times would you say the SFF would have broken into the home and abused her (to account for the prior abuse)? twice, 3 X? This is without anyone finding out. Think they went in and out the same basement window, maybe bringing their accomplice spider to re-spin the web that was found intact across the metal window gate?

Sorry, DeeDee, but prior abuse is a myth. You're getting your so-called 'fact' from third party armchair experts, some of whom were hired by the tabloids (I was going to start a thread about that).

There is no, repeat, no established fact that JBR was ever abused by anybody prior to the night she was murdered. The only place it is treated as a case fact is right here on this forum.

 

[DeeDee249]

Sorry, DeeDee, but prior abuse is a myth. You're getting your so-called 'fact' from third party armchair experts, some of whom were hired by the tabloids (I was going to start a thread about that).

There is no, repeat, no established fact that JBR was ever abused by anybody prior to the night she was murdered. The only place it is treated as a case fact is right here on this forum.

The autopsy proves there was chronic and acute abuse. I am not talking about other people's interpretation of the autopsy, but of the autopsy itself. We have never seen the coroners written notes or transcript of the doctors' verbal step-by-step of the procedure (this is done at every autopsy). But Det. Arndt was there, and she stated that Dr. Mayer said that what he saw in the vagina and pubic area indicated penetration, but not with a penis. Most likely digital penetration, and that was stated by the coroner himself.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The autopsy proves there was chronic and acute abuse. I am not talking about other people's interpretation of the autopsy, but of the autopsy itself. We have never seen the coroners written notes or transcript of the doctors' verbal step-by-step of the procedure (this is done at every autopsy). But Det. Arndt was there, and she stated that Dr. Mayer said that what he saw in the vagina and pubic area indicated penetration, but not with a penis. Most likely digital penetration, and that was stated by the coroner himself.

The autopsy does NOT prove that JBR experienced any abuse BEFORE the night of the murder. That's a myth, not a fact.

 

[nobull]

So, we should discount forensics cell histology reports based upon what? It's science, it can either be accepted or shunned. But shunning the result doesn't make it NOT fact. Using bubble bath just doesn't cause that type of cell damage.

Here's a simple example. If you keep reinjuring your skin by re-abrading the same area on your thumb again and again, it will do several things. First, the area will show signs of vascular congestion when it is raw/draining fluids. Secondly it will slightly thicken over time and the type of cells growing back in that area actually change to scar tissue cells which are histologically different and are more fibrous than the other pristine, uninjured cells in that area. I may say "it's not scar tissue", but it doesn't change the fact that the cells themselves have differentiated.

I appreciate the devil's advocacy going on in this thread since I love to consider new views, but unfortunately that avenue just doesn't pass scientific muster.

 

[GingBreade]

The autopsy does NOT prove that JBR experienced any abuse BEFORE the night of the murder. That's a myth, not a fact.

OK so point out to me how an intruder ABUSED JB. Just what did the intruder do to ABUSE JB.