655 users online (62 members and 593 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838

    Dumb-bell weights found in JB's room!

    I have posed this before...about two years ago, but it needs to be repeated.

    MIKE KANE: Did you know anything about JonBenet having dumbbells in her room? Did she work out or anything like that?

    JOHN RAMSEY: I don't think so. How big were they? Were they -- Burke might have had some, Patsy had some, she was recovering from cancer, she used to ride her bicycle and work these dumbbells. They were usually -- they usually were in the TV room. I am not sure they were there when she was works out, but those were the dumbbells that we had around

    _________________________-


    Could JB have possibly been shoved, or fell onto one of these weights?
    "This time we get it right."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    I have posed this before...about two years ago, but it needs to be repeated.

    MIKE KANE: Did you know anything about JonBenet having dumbbells in her room? Did she work out or anything like that?

    JOHN RAMSEY: I don't think so. How big were they? Were they -- Burke might have had some, Patsy had some, she was recovering from cancer, she used to ride her bicycle and work these dumbbells. They were usually -- they usually were in the TV room. I am not sure they were there when she was works out, but those were the dumbbells that we had around

    _________________________-


    Could JB have possibly been shoved, or fell onto one of these weights?
    I have smaller size free hand weights varying from 2lbs. to 10 lbs. with a soft plastic type coating. IMO she could've easily been bashed in the head with a similar model. Sounds like they were of a smaller type as Patsy was working with them. Typical Ramsey response---"don't think so", "might have", "not sure", etc. He's seen Patsy working with them, he knows they were in the TV room, but he doesn't know how big they were! Hope Patsy's sister didn't remove them from the house...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    I have posed this before...about two years ago, but it needs to be repeated.

    MIKE KANE: Did you know anything about JonBenet having dumbbells in her room? Did she work out or anything like that?

    JOHN RAMSEY: I don't think so. How big were they? Were they -- Burke might have had some, Patsy had some, she was recovering from cancer, she used to ride her bicycle and work these dumbbells. They were usually -- they usually were in the TV room. I am not sure they were there when she was works out, but those were the dumbbells that we had around

    _________________________-


    Could JB have possibly been shoved, or fell onto one of these weights?
    Ames,
    Yes seems like a possibility. John states they were usually located in the TV room not JonBenet's.

    .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    I"d find this far more likely than the Maglight. The Maglight is heavy, with 3 D batteries and its length, which I think has always put it at the top of the list of "weapons" since it was found in the kitchen, the Ramseys always tried to distance themselves from it, and Thomas brought it up in his book. But somehow I've always had trouble imagining it being the weapon because that weight is distributed over a longer object and the end with the "light" ring which is more consistent with the comminuted fracture at the skull impact site is not where the weight is concentrated--the batteries are loaded and rest at the much skinnier "handle" end...or something. This is why I've leaned more towards a golf club or ball bat. Though I'm just guessing, as we really don't know, do we?

    So a dumbbell seems like a good possibility to me. Its weight is concentrated and its edges curved, so that might explain why there was no broken skin at the scalp.

    One more thing that always irritates me: we have seen the crime scene photos that Team Ramsey leader Lou Smit wanted us to see, and no more. That's why I call his Powerpoint Tour a propaganda blitz: when info is controlled by a biased source with a clear agenda, the message can't be trusted. That's why we have a free press in this country--or once did, anyway. The BDA certainly isn't allowing ANY OTHER PRIVATE CITIZEN to have photo/slide copies of the evidence, like Smit originally created as an employee of the DA and took with him when he quit, then was GIVEN CONTROL OF AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. Boy, if I were a rich person, I'd be all over Boulder in court making sure that HUGE injustice didn't stand. But I digress....

    We haven't seen all of the crime scene photos by any means, not even in JonBenet's room. I'd never argue we should have seen them all, or any of them, really, but Smit is the one who released what he chose for us to see and so we have. But I believe there are plenty we haven't seen, and maybe dumbbells are in a picture, and that's what Kane was asking about?

    Very interesting, Ames. Good catch.
    Last edited by KoldKase; 10-21-2010 at 11:34 AM.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    Plastic coated like the flashlight? I wonder if anyone compared them to the wound on her skull.
    I don't think a fall into the weights would have enough force to cause the injury. What about dropping them from a height? I have seen photos but need to ask as I can't tell. Were the upstairs open to the bottom floors. Was there a railing or something that prevented people from falling off the upper floor but wouldn't prevent something from being dropped or thrown from them.
    Even so that would most likely be considered an accident and I see no reason to stage.
    I know a lot of the posters feel the staging was needed to cover up prior sexual assault but all her injuries except the ones she sustained that night are easily explainable due to her long history of infections and such. Still just because evidence might be construed as evidence of prior sexual assault they could always lie, something posters point to Patsy doing a lot of.
    What.... our daughter had been abused..... We were very close and she never TOLD ME ANYTHING. Oh our poor baby. I wonder if that why he killed her to keep her silent so she couldn't tell us........ You get the point.

    The same reasons people point to the evidence they needed to stage could just as easily be a reason "an intruder did it". Evidence of prior sexual abuse does not mean it was the R's who did it, they could have just as easily pointed to that as reasons or motive for an IDI.

    If engaged in a giant cover up why didn't they just bathe her well, removing all trace evidence. Patsy could have said she woke up complaining of her private area burning and itching so she ran a bath and bathed her. Of course this bath would have had to occur before her death so Patsy could account for the time. The fact that Burke is unaware of it or even John is because they never woke during the bath, or heard JBR crying. Evidence she gave her a bath would be present ( wet drains, towels moist, etc.) would support Patsy's claim.
    JBR was wiped down and only her private areas. I wonder if Patsy wiped her down before going to the party? Another poster has queried as to someone else "helping" her in the bathroom at the party. Could this person have wiped her down. In other words what makes the coroner or police think the wiping occurred at the time of assault.

    If they know it occurred at the time of assault then it is obvious they ( who ever killed her) tried to obscure or get rid of evidence that they believe might tie them to the crime. It could be anyone of the who dun its here. JDI, BDI, PDI, or IDI.

    If they can't prove the wiping down was done at the time of the crime then they will face great difficulty proving it was unusual behavior for the R's to do. Her medical issues would require more than baths to keep her clean in that area. The R's would be successful in proving why JBR needed wiping done by an adult. She is not successful in handling her hygiene herself.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
    Plastic coated like the flashlight? I wonder if anyone compared them to the wound on her skull.
    I don't think a fall into the weights would have enough force to cause the injury. What about dropping them from a height? I have seen photos but need to ask as I can't tell. Were the upstairs open to the bottom floors. Was there a railing or something that prevented people from falling off the upper floor but wouldn't prevent something from being dropped or thrown from them.
    Even so that would most likely be considered an accident and I see no reason to stage.
    I know a lot of the posters feel the staging was needed to cover up prior sexual assault but all her injuries except the ones she sustained that night are easily explainable due to her long history of infections and such. Still just because evidence might be construed as evidence of prior sexual assault they could always lie, something posters point to Patsy doing a lot of.
    What.... our daughter had been abused..... We were very close and she never TOLD ME ANYTHING. Oh our poor baby. I wonder if that why he killed her to keep her silent so she couldn't tell us........ You get the point.

    The same reasons people point to the evidence they needed to stage could just as easily be a reason "an intruder did it". Evidence of prior sexual abuse does not mean it was the R's who did it, they could have just as easily pointed to that as reasons or motive for an IDI.

    If engaged in a giant cover up why didn't they just bathe her well, removing all trace evidence. Patsy could have said she woke up complaining of her private area burning and itching so she ran a bath and bathed her. Of course this bath would have had to occur before her death so Patsy could account for the time. The fact that Burke is unaware of it or even John is because they never woke during the bath, or heard JBR crying. Evidence she gave her a bath would be present ( wet drains, towels moist, etc.) would support Patsy's claim.
    JBR was wiped down and only her private areas. I wonder if Patsy wiped her down before going to the party? Another poster has queried as to someone else "helping" her in the bathroom at the party. Could this person have wiped her down. In other words what makes the coroner or police think the wiping occurred at the time of assault.

    If they know it occurred at the time of assault then it is obvious they ( who ever killed her) tried to obscure or get rid of evidence that they believe might tie them to the crime. It could be anyone of the who dun its here. JDI, BDI, PDI, or IDI.

    If they can't prove the wiping down was done at the time of the crime then they will face great difficulty proving it was unusual behavior for the R's to do. Her medical issues would require more than baths to keep her clean in that area. The R's would be successful in proving why JBR needed wiping done by an adult. She is not successful in handling her hygiene herself.
    Yes, a dumbbell could have been dropped on JB's head through the railing upstairs. Though now that I'm thinking about a "fall onto a dumbbell" on the floor, I suppose if someone fell with JonBenet and landed on top of her at the same time, like kids wrestling, playing, etc., that might have put enough weight/force into the fall to have caused that kind of head injury. I can only suppose, of course. It's an idea.

    As to Patsy coming up with an IDI train of thought to cover up the prior molestation, think about that: it would be quite unbelievable, which is why IDI resist the evidence of prior molestation, after all. LE would have to believe an intruder came in prior to that night and molested the child, who said not a word about it nor showed any signs of it that anyone noticed, including her mother. Then he returned Dec. 25, committing crimes in the home for hours while the Ramseys slept upstairs, leaving no evidence of himself behind other than a ransom note written on her pad with her pen, very familiar with family workings, yet no one the Ramseys knew. Since Patsy could not have known about the unsourced DNA, essentially invisible to the naked eye, she surely wouldn't have been able to predict it would end up being found, in this scenario, so an already fantastic intruder story including previous time alone with the child for molestation would be much more fantastic.

    That's even harder to expect anyone to believe, don't you think?

    LE does know that the "wiping down" was done that night because the medical examiner made note that the bloodstains on the panties did not match up to blood in her genital area--I think Thomas wrote of this in his book, but it might have been another. (This is also possibly when the medical examiner transferred DNA he might have had on contaminated gloves to the bloodspots in the Bloomies--matching the bloodstains in the crotch to her genital area would have involved close handling.)

    As to JB's "medical issues," Patsy was asked directly by Det. Haney if she ever used anything to treat JB around the genitals, and she said all she used was a salve--Desitin, I think. Is that what you mean?
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,748
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    LE does know that the "wiping down" was done that night because the medical examiner made note that the bloodstains on the panties did not match up to blood in her genital area--I think Thomas wrote of this in his book, but it might have been another. (This is also possibly when the medical examiner transferred DNA he might have had on contaminated gloves to the bloodspots in the Bloomies--matching the bloodstains in the crotch to her genital area would have involved close handling.
    KoldKase,

    http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm
    Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.
    Also:-
    Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.
    Its an open and shut case!

    .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    My point is about an accident no staging would be needed to cover an accident. The question of her death being an accident wouldn't be an issue. No garrote or sexual assault would be needed. The evidence pointed to that she had been abused ( the erosion and reddened labia) could be explained as her UTI's, or no knowledge of abuse given.
    The coroner is going to be able to match up the stories.
    JR says Burke dropped his weight over the rail and it hit JBR on the head. The parents call 911 and tell them there has been an accident. A still living JBR is taken to hospital. Even if she died on the way the coroner is going to check the head wound against their story. It matches he concludes she died of it. During his exam he discovers the reddened labia and erosion. He suspects abuse, but asks about her medical history. He finds out about her frequent UTI's etc. Even if he starts a detective on an investigation of alleged abuse it doesn't mean the R's were responsible. Since the cause of death is clearly an accident the LE investigating this abuse may not think the two are related to each other. All the R's had to do is act surprised and say oh Lord Jesus no, yes she wet the bed, yes she had all these numerous issues. I took her to the doctor on several occasions for it. Are you saying my daughter was being abused, another round of oh no Lord Jesus no, feign ignorance of the symptoms and displace blame on the Dr as they are trained to know that kind of stuff. The need for staging is not there. It would only be coincidental that she died from an accident after prior abuse of an unknown origin. If Patsy managed to fool a Dr. that examined JBR into not even looking for it then who is to say she couldn't pull off 1 lie and 1 lie only. The fact she took JBR to the doctor is something most guilty of molesting their children parents wouldn't do. Munchhausen's is when someone makes their kid sick for the attention. Molestation and making your kid sick are not even remotely related. One derives pleasure from the act the other enjoys the attention the sickness brings.

    The only lie that needs to be told is one - any knowledge that JBR was being molested. The more elaborate a lie is the harder it is to cover up the truth. The more staging that is done at a crime scene the easier it is to detect. If the R's did it they are good, like experienced criminals would be. Even experienced criminals would mess this up -the staging that is. In almost all RDI theories a series of elaborate lies are told.

    Since the panties don't fit and were likely wadded up at her crotch area how could anyone get a pattern match unless it was folded exactly. Did additional testing to see if the stain came from which side of the panties etc. I can easily see why the stains don't match up.

    The ME did not put what Detective Arndt quotes in his report. He may have thought it at the time but didn't. Could it be he read her medical history after he did the autopsy and CHANGED HIS MIND about the abuse. If it was related to and part of what might have led to her death he is required to put it in the report.

    I will repeat again.

    He did not put it in the report.

    Quoting hearsay evidence is not allowed in a criminal court trial.

    How is the DA going to be able to prove this in court?

    It isn't that I'm not able to see your point and the possibility it may be 100% true, but the evidence we quote here isn't going to do a DA any good when he is in court. It is too flimsy and too easily explained.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
    My point is about an accident no staging would be needed to cover an accident. The question of her death being an accident wouldn't be an issue. No garrote or sexual assault would be needed. The evidence pointed to that she had been abused ( the erosion and reddened labia) could be explained as her UTI's, or no knowledge of abuse given.
    The coroner is going to be able to match up the stories.
    JR says Burke dropped his weight over the rail and it hit JBR on the head. The parents call 911 and tell them there has been an accident. A still living JBR is taken to hospital. Even if she died on the way the coroner is going to check the head wound against their story. It matches he concludes she died of it. During his exam he discovers the reddened labia and erosion. He suspects abuse, but asks about her medical history. He finds out about her frequent UTI's etc. Even if he starts a detective on an investigation of alleged abuse it doesn't mean the R's were responsible. Since the cause of death is clearly an accident the LE investigating this abuse may not think the two are related to each other. All the R's had to do is act surprised and say oh Lord Jesus no, yes she wet the bed, yes she had all these numerous issues. I took her to the doctor on several occasions for it. Are you saying my daughter was being abused, another round of oh no Lord Jesus no, feign ignorance of the symptoms and displace blame on the Dr as they are trained to know that kind of stuff. The need for staging is not there. It would only be coincidental that she died from an accident after prior abuse of an unknown origin. If Patsy managed to fool a Dr. that examined JBR into not even looking for it then who is to say she couldn't pull off 1 lie and 1 lie only. The fact she took JBR to the doctor is something most guilty of molesting their children parents wouldn't do. Munchhausen's is when someone makes their kid sick for the attention. Molestation and making your kid sick are not even remotely related. One derives pleasure from the act the other enjoys the attention the sickness brings.

    The only lie that needs to be told is one - any knowledge that JBR was being molested. The more elaborate a lie is the harder it is to cover up the truth. The more staging that is done at a crime scene the easier it is to detect. If the R's did it they are good, like experienced criminals would be. Even experienced criminals would mess this up -the staging that is. In almost all RDI theories a series of elaborate lies are told.

    Since the panties don't fit and were likely wadded up at her crotch area how could anyone get a pattern match unless it was folded exactly. Did additional testing to see if the stain came from which side of the panties etc. I can easily see why the stains don't match up.

    The ME did not put what Detective Arndt quotes in his report. He may have thought it at the time but didn't. Could it be he read her medical history after he did the autopsy and CHANGED HIS MIND about the abuse. If it was related to and part of what might have led to her death he is required to put it in the report.

    I will repeat again.

    He did not put it in the report.

    Quoting hearsay evidence is not allowed in a criminal court trial.

    How is the DA going to be able to prove this in court?

    It isn't that I'm not able to see your point and the possibility it may be 100% true, but the evidence we quote here isn't going to do a DA any good when he is in court. It is too flimsy and too easily explained.
    BBM & red

    Websleuths is not a criminal court. Period. This case will never be seen in a court of law. Just get over it, I did.


    Nosy by Nature and a Websleuther by choice

  10. #10
    Dr Meyer has notes on JonBenet's autopsy that we are not privy to. Nobody but Law Enforcement knows what the Coroner wrote.
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
    BBM & red

    Websleuths is not a criminal court. Period. This case will never be seen in a court of law. Just get over it, I did.
    Hey I haven't given up hope... yet. Hope is the only thing sustaining this conversation. No matter who did it we all hope they/ he/ she will be caught.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Toltec View Post
    Dr Meyer has notes on JonBenet's autopsy that we are not privy to. Nobody but Law Enforcement knows what the Coroner wrote.
    I have no vested interest in who is found to be the killer other than for the case to be strong for the prosecution. If abuse did occur and we are not privy to that info then I hope it is better evidence than what we have here cause a good lawyer could blow holes in it bigger than the barn door.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,748
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
    My point is about an accident no staging would be needed to cover an accident. The question of her death being an accident wouldn't be an issue. No garrote or sexual assault would be needed. The evidence pointed to that she had been abused ( the erosion and reddened labia) could be explained as her UTI's, or no knowledge of abuse given.
    The coroner is going to be able to match up the stories.
    JR says Burke dropped his weight over the rail and it hit JBR on the head. The parents call 911 and tell them there has been an accident. A still living JBR is taken to hospital. Even if she died on the way the coroner is going to check the head wound against their story. It matches he concludes she died of it. During his exam he discovers the reddened labia and erosion. He suspects abuse, but asks about her medical history. He finds out about her frequent UTI's etc. Even if he starts a detective on an investigation of alleged abuse it doesn't mean the R's were responsible. Since the cause of death is clearly an accident the LE investigating this abuse may not think the two are related to each other. All the R's had to do is act surprised and say oh Lord Jesus no, yes she wet the bed, yes she had all these numerous issues. I took her to the doctor on several occasions for it. Are you saying my daughter was being abused, another round of oh no Lord Jesus no, feign ignorance of the symptoms and displace blame on the Dr as they are trained to know that kind of stuff. The need for staging is not there. It would only be coincidental that she died from an accident after prior abuse of an unknown origin. If Patsy managed to fool a Dr. that examined JBR into not even looking for it then who is to say she couldn't pull off 1 lie and 1 lie only. The fact she took JBR to the doctor is something most guilty of molesting their children parents wouldn't do. Munchhausen's is when someone makes their kid sick for the attention. Molestation and making your kid sick are not even remotely related. One derives pleasure from the act the other enjoys the attention the sickness brings.

    The only lie that needs to be told is one - any knowledge that JBR was being molested. The more elaborate a lie is the harder it is to cover up the truth. The more staging that is done at a crime scene the easier it is to detect. If the R's did it they are good, like experienced criminals would be. Even experienced criminals would mess this up -the staging that is. In almost all RDI theories a series of elaborate lies are told.

    Since the panties don't fit and were likely wadded up at her crotch area how could anyone get a pattern match unless it was folded exactly. Did additional testing to see if the stain came from which side of the panties etc. I can easily see why the stains don't match up.

    The ME did not put what Detective Arndt quotes in his report. He may have thought it at the time but didn't. Could it be he read her medical history after he did the autopsy and CHANGED HIS MIND about the abuse. If it was related to and part of what might have led to her death he is required to put it in the report.

    I will repeat again.

    He did not put it in the report.

    Quoting hearsay evidence is not allowed in a criminal court trial.

    How is the DA going to be able to prove this in court?

    It isn't that I'm not able to see your point and the possibility it may be 100% true, but the evidence we quote here isn't going to do a DA any good when he is in court. It is too flimsy and too easily explained.
    CathyR,
    The ME did not put what Detective Arndt quotes in his report.
    If the case ever comes to court Coroner Meyer would take the stand and be questioned on his autopsy report.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm
    Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.
    Since the document stating the alleged sexual abuse takes the form of an an affadavit e.g. a legal document and that Detective Arndt is a Law Enforcement Officer her evidence carries much more weight than John Doe's. Also Detective Arndt was present at the autopsy along with other witnesses who can be called to the stand to testify on the reliability of Detective Arndt's account.

    This means her evidence is not mere hearsay, it is an excerpt from a legal process e.g. an autopsy and as such carries legal weight.

    JonBenet was was sexually molested prior to her death thats what the phrase sexual contact. tells us. This unambiguous, sexual contact. does not result from urinary tract infections.

    Coroner Meyer need not have elaborated but his remark regarding digital penetration which goes beyond merely stating an injury consistent with the insertion of a foreign object it specifies a human finger, and not male genitalia.

    The two phrases unambiguously state that Coroner Meyer suspected JonBenet had been sexually molested prior to her death and not simply physically injured e.g. a staged injury.

    Autopsy photographs taken of JonBenet's vagina were compared to that of a normal healthy 6-year old girl, and a close majority of experts, here I am excluding the BPD, cited chronic molsetation as the cause of the observed difference.

    The latter conclusion may be wrong based on peer pressure and flavor of the month reporting. But given it offers a consistent explanation for motivation related to the staging, whereas accidental death does not. Then prior molestation is a sound conclusion based on evidence.


    .

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,201
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyR View Post
    The more elaborate a lie is the harder it is to cover up the truth. The more staging that is done at a crime scene the easier it is to detect.
    And it was. I'm not being a wise-*** either. Experienced LE agents could and DID notice it. "Staging within staging" were their words.

    If the R's did it they are good, like experienced criminals would be. Even experienced criminals would mess this up -the staging that is.
    No, not good. Just better disposed than the DA.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    Hey as long as it isn't a direct insult I wouldn't consider anyone to be a wise a**. It is better to be a wise a ** than a dumb bu**.

    That was my whole point about the staging.... It couldn't have been an accident, even if someone from her own home was molesting her.
    The need for staging wouldn't be there as the most severe of her vaginal injuries had not been inflicted yet.

    I think I have figured out why we don't "get" each other.
    It is the order of events.
    I think she was head bashed first, molested second then strangled last.

    In the RDI because of molestation she is (more severely) molested first, head bashed second, and strangled last.

    Am I correct in assuming this is what the difference in opinion hinges on, the order of events?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. WA WA: Stanley Bell dob 6/7/1953; date found: 10/9/2002
    By nemo'smom in forum Unclaimed Persons
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-28-2015, 07:07 PM
  2. WA WA: Colin Albert Bell; dob 10/6/1917; date found: 4/20/1996
    By nemo'smom in forum Unclaimed Persons
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-28-2015, 07:05 PM
  3. Match! WA: Phillip Jack Bell; dob: 6/4/1953; date found: unknown
    By nemo'smom in forum Matches & Resolved
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 03:08 PM
  4. Dumbbell Weights Found in JB's Room!?!?!
    By Ames in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-10-2007, 11:47 PM