Separating FACT from fiction

New Posts

joeskidbeck said:
This leads me to say that I'm glad that not all these killers and molesters can afford the best in legal defense. If they could, nobody would ever have to pay for their crimes.
Click to expand...

Oh, they'll pay. One way or the other. Hell awaits- no reservations needed- all pedophiles are welcome. :furious:
 
CathyR said:
Maybe I should have phrased that better.
I am shocked the justice system in Boulder is so PC to the point of not prosecuting and plea bargaining anything.
Click to expand...

I think we all were when we found out.

Grandbaby #3 is in hospital for gastroenteritis. She had been sick about a week before she became so lethargic that her parents took her to hospital. She is such a tiny thing too. She weighed 15 lbs before she got sick and lost a lb in a week. She is on IV therapy but still has diarrhea and is not eating much. They want to release her today but I told my son to fight it until she is eating well and no longer has diarrhea. She can not afford to lose any more weight and her immune system is obviously stressed. She is better but being the overprotective Gramsey is my job.

I know some of you said prayers as you read this so Thank You and May God Bless You too.
Click to expand...

I sure was.
 
I was thinking about the intra-thoracic petechial haemorrages as indicated in the pm, were they due to the asphyxiation or caused by trauma such as a fall or hitting a hard surface?
 
anne11 said:
I was thinking about the intra-thoracic petechial haemorrages as indicated in the pm, were they due to the asphyxiation or caused by trauma such as a fall or hitting a hard surface?
Click to expand...

Hi,

I think the petechial hemorrages were caused due to the asphyxiation. Petechial hemorrages are in general terms a sign of asphyxia caused by some external means of obstructing the airways e.g a garrotte.
 
anne11 said:
I was thinking about the intra-thoracic petechial haemorrages as indicated in the pm, were they due to the asphyxiation or caused by trauma such as a fall or hitting a hard surface?
Click to expand...

If you mean the ones found in the lungs (you refer to inter-thoracic), trauma and hitting a hard surface do not cause petechiae anyway, but when found in the lungs, they are typical of asphyxia. Falling from a great distance and hitting a hard surface will cause internal bleeding, but petechiae are not the same thing as internal bleeding.
 
Does anyone know how long it takes for petechiae to develop on the lungs and heart?
 
anne11 said:
Does anyone know how long it takes for petechiae to develop on the lungs and heart?
Click to expand...

I am sure there are guidelines for medical examiners to use. They form while a person is still alive (though dying), however. So I'd imagine they do not take very long. Petechiae are tiny burst blood vessels. Try Google to find out more.
 
My daughter was born with the umbilical cord around her neck, she had petechial heamorrages on her eyes and over her face the asphyxiation lasted around 4 minutes (she's fine no thanks to the midwife), but for petechia to reach heart and lungs are we talking greater than 5mins - have been googling but getting side tracked by petechia caused by trauma.
 
Fact . Patsy was jellous of her from the first day she was put in a beauty pagent and then it was to late if patsy took her out what would everyone say ..she is doing it because she knows she will do way better the patsy ever did ..so she left her in hoping to make it hell enough that jon benet would quit she never did and patsy grew more pissed off year after year, when bed wetting became a problem it was an exscuse for her to let loose on her so to speak and she killed her i dont think it was 100 percent on purpose but it was 80 percent rage and that 10 seconds of just loosing her mind and did whatever she did rolled her off the bed or pushed her and she slipped .just some theories but the fact is patsy did it john helped cover it up...and thats that..
 
CanManEh said:
Fact . Patsy was jellous of her from the first day she was put in a beauty pagent and then it was to late if patsy took her out what would everyone say ..she is doing it because she knows she will do way better the patsy ever did ..so she left her in hoping to make it hell enough that jon benet would quit she never did and patsy grew more pissed off year after year, when bed wetting became a problem it was an exscuse for her to let loose on her so to speak and she killed her i dont think it was 100 percent on purpose but it was 80 percent rage and that 10 seconds of just loosing her mind and did whatever she did rolled her off the bed or pushed her and she slipped .just some theories but the fact is patsy did it john helped cover it up...and thats that..
Click to expand...

:banghead:

no,it's not a FACT, it's your opinion and posts like these being posted where they don't belong will always make RDIsts look bad and ruin everything we're trying to build here,makes me sad and angry really
 
madeleine said:
:banghead:

no,it's not a FACT, it's your opinion and posts like these being posted where they don't belong will always make RDIsts look bad and ruin everything we're trying to build here,makes me sad and angry really
Click to expand...

just some THEORIES but the fact is patsy did it john helped cover it up...and thats that..
__________________
ALL MY POSTS ARE GENERALLY J.M.H.O.
 
Finally someone speaks sense
CathyR said:
The odds of it being anyone outside the home is what kept the BPD focused on the family. It doesn't sound like they are so focused on the family now as many announcements "clearing" them as suspects from BPD investigation have been made.

Stranger on stranger crimes are not as common as people who know each other committing crimes against each other. If the BPD had compelling evidence against the family they would have used it by now. Many a person sits in prison now convicted on circumstantial evidence. There are so many scenarios on these JB threads that blame the family and sound very plausible. If BPD has any evidence to support one of these theories I'm sure they would have used it by now. I guess that is all we do, is look at the less than 10% that has been released to public. I sometimes feel like if the evidence was that good they wouldn't have released it or that what they are holding back lessens the investigative value of what they released. The fibers for example. Lets say they did do the dye tests and the tests prove the fibers didn't come from the sweater Patsy wore. While we debate the origin of the fibers and point fingers at who we think the fibers came from, without that dye test results we can't really say.
I wonder how long all the evidence can be held before someone outside the BPD could investigate it. In a lot of the cold case TV shows, private investigators had no problem getting access to the evidence collected. Police helped these investigators who sometimes happen to be retired police officers. They welcomed the help as they had given up and the case gone to a "cold case" status.
Is it like national security issues 50 years before release? or because there is no statute of limitations on murder- never.
Click to expand...

finally someone who speaks sense.
Some posters on here talk about this case as if it is sewn up.
There are many many inconsistencies in all of the evidence, and i do believe BPD fkd up, but so much time was lost all we can deal with is hard cold facts.
some posters take the fact of jon benets sexual assault and say it is proven that she was chronicly molested, this is not fact, she did have evidence of an obvious sexual assault and irritation of the vaginal canal, but there are many explainations for the fact that her vagina was irritated, also her hymen WAS eroded but intact, many girls of JB's age have already inadvertantly BROKEN their hymen, through many INNOCENT activities, it is not proof.
No doctor/Teacher/Friend OR relative has come foward as far as we know to express a concern about either parents behavior toward JB, now while it is true sexual abuse can go undetected it is usual for someone to be quietly suspicious.
Mant posters think the parents behaved oddly, again this is transferring how they would have reacted in a situation none are ever likely to experience, thank god and we only have to look at the Madeline Macann case to see how obstructive and dangerous this can be.
 
tennison said:
Finally someone speaks sense

finally someone who speaks sense.
Some posters on here talk about this case as if it is sewn up.
There are many many inconsistencies in all of the evidence, and i do believe BPD fkd up, but so much time was lost all we can deal with is hard cold facts.
some posters take the fact of jon benets sexual assault and say it is proven that she was chronicly molested, this is not fact, she did have evidence of an obvious sexual assault and irritation of the vaginal canal, but there are many explainations for the fact that her vagina was irritated, also her hymen WAS eroded but intact, many girls of JB's age have already inadvertantly BROKEN their hymen, through many INNOCENT activities, it is not proof.
No doctor/Teacher/Friend OR relative has come foward as far as we know to express a concern about either parents behavior toward JB, now while it is true sexual abuse can go undetected it is usual for someone to be quietly suspicious.
Mant posters think the parents behaved oddly, again this is transferring how they would have reacted in a situation none are ever likely to experience, thank god and we only have to look at the Madeline Macann case to see how obstructive and dangerous this can be.
Click to expand...

Your rebuttals for the Ramseys not being guilty are not based on fact but rather speculations.

Facts are that JonBenet was both chronically and acutely molested. She died. She had a ligature around her neck with the tell-tale penpoint heamorrages associated with asphyxiation.

Her genitals were not the way they were via innocent means. Her hymen was virtually gone. Her genital opening was twice the size of normal little 6 years old girls.She had scarring. Whether people suspected anything before or not is irrelevant as she was abused. Simple as that.These unspecified people and their failure to recognise the abuse prior (depending how long it was going on for) does not mean she was not abused. Her body and the physical effects of abuse were self-explanatory.

Sadly, there isn't "many innocent explanations" for JonBenet's genital trauma.The truth is that a little innocent girl was taken advantage of and the person(s) who did it will be enjoying a life-sentence in hell if they are not already dead yet!

I personally think that we should try to uphold the truth whenever possible and if this case cannot be resolved in absolute terms via a conviction of the guilty party, the next best thing is to be truthful to the best of our ability -- that includes imo acknowledging that the little girl was abused.

You seem to want to dwell on the idea that some intruder did all this -- but no evidence implicates an intruder to this crime.

God bless the little JonBenet for she was a victim of a sick b*stard!
 
Let_Forever_Be said:
Your rebuttals for the Ramseys being guilty are not based on fact but rather speculations.

Facts are that JonBenet was both chronically and acutely molested. She died. She had a ligature around her neck with the tell-tale penpoint heamorrages associated with asphyxiation.

Her genitals were not the way they were via innocent means. Her hymen was virtually gone. Her genital opening was twice the size of normal little 6 years old girls.She had scarring. Whether people suspected anything before or not is irrelevant as she was abused. Simple as that.These unspecified people and their failure to recognise the abuse prior (depending how long it was going on for) does not mean she was not abused. Her body and the physical effects of abuse were self-explanatory.

Sadly, there isn't "many innocent explanations" for JonBenet's genital trauma.The truth is that a little innocent girl was taken advantage of and the person(s) who did it will be enjoying a life-sentence n hell if they are not already dead yet!

I personally think that we should try to uphold the truth whenever possible and if this case cannot be resolved in absolute terms via a conviction of the guilty party, the next best thing is to be truthful to the best of our ability -- that includes imo acknowledging that the little girl was abused.

You seem to want to dwell on the idea that some intruder did all this -- but no evidence implicates an intruder to this crime.

God bless the little JonBenet for she was a victim of sick b*stard!
Click to expand...

:goodpost:
 
Let_Forever_Be said:
Your rebuttals for the Ramseys not being guilty are not based on fact but rather speculations.

Facts are that JonBenet was both chronically and acutely molested. She died. She had a ligature around her neck with the tell-tale penpoint heamorrages associated with asphyxiation.

Her genitals were not the way they were via innocent means. Her hymen was virtually gone. Her genital opening was twice the size of normal little 6 years old girls.She had scarring. Whether people suspected anything before or not is irrelevant as she was abused. Simple as that.These unspecified people and their failure to recognise the abuse prior (depending how long it was going on for) does not mean she was not abused. Her body and the physical effects of abuse were self-explanatory.

Sadly, there isn't "many innocent explanations" for JonBenet's genital trauma.The truth is that a little innocent girl was taken advantage of and the person(s) who did it will be enjoying a life-sentence in hell if they are not already dead yet!

I personally think that we should try to uphold the truth whenever possible and if this case cannot be resolved in absolute terms via a conviction of the guilty party, the next best thing is to be truthful to the best of our ability -- that includes imo acknowledging that the little girl was abused.

You seem to want to dwell on the idea that some intruder did all this -- but no evidence implicates an intruder to this crime.

God bless the little JonBenet for she was a victim of a sick b*stard!
Click to expand...

What I always find unbelievable are excuses like: there was no history of violence or mental illness,they were good loving intelligent parents,if they are guilty how come did the cops never charge/arrest them.
Criminals are NOT always being caught and charged,some of them ARE lucky and smart indeed.

Scott Peterson was a handsome smart man with no criminal history.He's guilty.
M.Peterson was an intelligent, rich writer.He's guilty.
J.macDonald was an intelligent doctor with 2 kids.He's guilty.

People who SEEM normal and are smart and intelligent and loving are capable of murder and CAN turn into monsters.It happens.Not only that but sometimes it's the intelligent "loving" charming ones who are the most dangerous ones,see above @the examples I gave.Intelligent people can be very manipulative,they can be very good liars >>not always easy to catch and sadly some of them get away with it.
 
I'm thinking of Ted Bundy. Smart, handsome, intelligent. And a psychopath. He had a FIRST victim. There is always a FIRST event. Before that first time, there are obviously no priors.
 
madeleine said:
What I always find unbelievable are excuses like: there was no history of violence or mental illness,they were good loving intelligent parents,if they are guilty how come did the cops never charge/arrest them.
Criminals are NOT always being caught and charged,some of them ARE lucky and smart indeed.

Scott Peterson was a handsome smart man with no criminal history.He's guilty.
M.Peterson was an intelligent, rich writer.He's guilty.
J.macDonald was an intelligent doctor with 2 kids.He's guilty.

People who SEEM normal and are smart and intelligent and loving are capable of murder and CAN turn into monsters.It happens.Not only that but sometimes it's the intelligent "loving" charming ones who are the most dangerous ones,see above @the examples I gave.Intelligent people can be very manipulative,they can be very good liars >>not always easy to catch and sadly some of them get away with it.
Click to expand...

I agree.

The rebuttals for the Ramseys perpetrating this crime are not based on conclusive forensic evidence but rather of the inability of the person commenting to picture the Ramseys as guilty.

A killer like Aileen Wuornos looked and acted crazy. People had no issue over her guilt.

But upstanding citizens are deemed 'not guilty' because they, well, look,dress and act too smart to be bad people. Of course, this kind of rational is very common but is ultimately a fallacy -- it assumes a degree of innocence via a person's outward actions and then wrongly concludes this precludes them of any guilt because upstanding citizens don't do nothin' wrong!

And you are correct regarding the intelligence issue -- IQs and intelligence are measures of a person's intellectual capacity, not their morality! Human beings have a proclivity towards evil and quite often this evil is aided and abetted by people who are very intelligent.

Intelligence and emotions are two separate things. The heart always rules the head. That's why clever people can do dumb and evil things. If a person has an impure heart, no matter their intellectual standing, they are more than capable of doing horrible things!
 
DeeDee249 said:
I'm thinking of Ted Bundy. Smart, handsome, intelligent. And a psychopath. He had a FIRST victim. There is always a FIRST event. Before that first time, there are obviously no priors.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

If every crime was dismissed because it could not be rationed that the perpetrator had prior criminal actions, by definition, no crimes would be brought to justice.It's a form of illogical reasoning.

I mean, we'd look at Ted Bundy, after his first slaying and go "well,he didn't have a prior victim". Who cares. He has one now. Deal with what our eyes are actually seeing.
 
madeleine said:
What I always find unbelievable are excuses like: there was no history of violence or mental illness,they were good loving intelligent parents,if they are guilty how come did the cops never charge/arrest them.
Criminals are NOT always being caught and charged,some of them ARE lucky and smart indeed.

Scott Peterson was a handsome smart man with no criminal history.He's guilty.
M.Peterson was an intelligent, rich writer.He's guilty.
J.macDonald was an intelligent doctor with 2 kids.He's guilty.

People who SEEM normal and are smart and intelligent and loving are capable of murder and CAN turn into monsters.It happens.Not only that but sometimes it's the intelligent "loving" charming ones who are the most dangerous ones,see above @the examples I gave.Intelligent people can be very manipulative,they can be very good liars >>not always easy to catch and sadly some of them get away with it.
Click to expand...

No kidding, maddy. I just about go through the ROOF when I hear those arguments!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 206 more.
Total: 2,446 (members: 207, guests: 2,239)

Online statistics

Members online
207
Guests online
2,239
Total visitors
2,446
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,309
Messages
17,967,152
Members
228,739
Latest member
eagerhuntress
Back
Top