1210 users online (205 members and 1005 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 55
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Seriously - I have to ask

    Sissi has posted that the Schiller documentary flashed an autopsy photo pf JonBenet's face and that she was shocked by the injuries to her face which hadn't been shown before.

    A few weeks ago, I read an article by a journalist who wrote of being shown such an autopsy photo by Michael Tracey. She had seen part of the photo before - but the face had always been "cropped out". She decribed being traumatised by the image. In response to this article, jameson posted that she had a copy of that photo.

    Sissi has volunteered to e-mail the photo to anyone who wishes to see it and already, some members of jameson's forum are asking to be sent copies of it.

    I am asking - why? Why would anyone want to "see" a dead baby's face? For what purpose? If your child were brutally murdered, how would you feel if someone got hold of the most gruesome of the autopsy photos - showing your child's face and posted it on the Internet? How would you feel about people "wanting to see it"?

    Am I alone in thinking this is unbearably ghoulish?

    I admit to being more squeamish than the average bear, but come on folks - what about decency and respect for this dead child? We've already seen dreadful images of her battered body and her little neck with the life wrung out of it. Why does anyone *need* to see her face in death?

    This really does make me feel sick.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Sissi has posted that the Schiller documentary flashed an autopsy photo pf JonBenet's face and that she was shocked by the injuries to her face which hadn't been shown before.

    A few weeks ago, I read an article by a journalist who wrote of being shown such an autopsy photo by Michael Tracey. She had seen part of the photo before - but the face had always been "cropped out". She decribed being traumatised by the image. In response to this article, jameson posted that she had a copy of that photo.

    Sissi has volunteered to e-mail the photo to anyone who wishes to see it and already, some members of jameson's forum are asking to be sent copies of it.

    I am asking - why? Why would anyone want to "see" a dead baby's face? For what purpose? If your child were brutally murdered, how would you feel if someone got hold of the most gruesome of the autopsy photos - showing your child's face and posted it on the Internet? How would you feel about people "wanting to see it"?

    Am I alone in thinking this is unbearably ghoulish?

    I admit to being more squeamish than the average bear, but come on folks - what about decency and respect for this dead child? We've already seen dreadful images of her battered body and her little neck with the life wrung out of it. Why does anyone *need* to see her face in death?

    This really does make me feel sick.
    It's funny, Jay. When the tabs got them, the Rams threw a fit. When Smit began broadcasting them, they didn't mind one whit! Hell, no, I don't want to see that!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    It's funny, Jay. When the tabs got them, the Rams threw a fit. When Smit began broadcasting them, they didn't mind one whit! Hell, no, I don't want to see that!
    You are right. Smit might have convinced them that the public needed to see the injuries so that they wouldn't believe a parent could do that. Or perhaps the Ramseys were more immune to the images by then

    However, there IS a distinction between photos depicting injuries and photos of a dead baby's face. The face was cropped out of the other photos for a reason - to depersonalise them. She died of strangulation by ligature and a blow to the head. We've seen the head wound and we've seen the poor little neck. I cannot bear to think of the ghouls drooling over photos of her dead little face.

    Sissi - please don't distribute these images. For all we know, the killer could be out there and could be among those seeking a copy of the image to drool over and relive the thrill. How would you feel if you discovered you'd supplied him with that?

    Please, please don't. Let JonBenet retain some respect in death.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Smit might have convinced them that the public needed to see the injuries so that they wouldn't believe a parent could do that.
    After he convinced himself, of course.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    I couldn't agree more. Put the pictures away. Remember JonBenet as the pretty child happy in photos, not as a victim of unspeakable abuse. Allow her to be a little girl, not a corpse. What good there to be found in seeing her sweet face injured?
    Where is Trenton Duckett?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    I couldn't agree more. Put the pictures away. Remember JonBenet as the pretty child happy in photos, not as a victim of unspeakable abuse. Allow her to be a little girl, not a corpse. What good there to be found in seeing her sweet face injured?
    Excellent point. Let those who agree with this unite against this image being circulated.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    First, settle down, I don't have it in my possession as yet.
    This photo appeared on National Tv, last week you all decided it was a figment of my imagination and now you think I'm a ghoul for wanting to see it.
    Part of the reason so many jumped on the "Ramsey did it bandwagon "was because exculpatory evidence was hidden, while those with lies and innuendo were given a free reign to promote a hateful myth. It's not pleasant, in fact it's horrible to face "the fact" that this child was so brutalized, but it's a FACT, and FACTS are something that we haven't heard many of since that rogue cop decided Patsy did it!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Excellent point. Let those who agree with this unite against this image being circulated.
    You forget this was on NATIONAL TV, it's over. Evidently it was part of Tracy's documentary ,as well. If there is a legal reason that the guy can't send it to me, or that I can not send it to a friend, then I will not do so. In fact I am composing a note at this moment to see what if any rights I may or may not have, but to suggest the members of this forum, who have in large numbers crucified an innocent woman without conscience should decide what I do with a "fact", is ludicrous . Why didn't you , Jayelles, try to stop or at least suggest that "that" didn't happen! Who draws the moral line here?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    First, settle down, I don't have it in my possession as yet.
    This photo appeared on National Tv, last week you all decided it was a figment of my imagination and now you think I'm a ghoul for wanting to see it.
    Part of the reason so many jumped on the "Ramsey did it bandwagon "was because exculpatory evidence was hidden, while those with lies and innuendo were given a free reign to promote a hateful myth. It's not pleasant, in fact it's horrible to face "the fact" that this child was so brutalized, but it's a FACT, and FACTS are something that we haven't heard many of since that rogue cop decided Patsy did it!
    Sissi, just because it was flashed on national tv doesn't justify capturing it and circulating it on the Internet. Nor do I recall ever saying anything was a figment of your imagination ( I remember questions about male, caucasian DNA but not about photos of this little angel's face in death)

    We don't need to see a photo her her face to understand that she was brutalised. We KNOW that she was brutalised. It is a FACT that she was briutalised - that her last moments would have been filled with terror and pain. There is nothing to be gained from seeing her little face IMO other than to satisfy some ghoulish desire to look.

    You are NOT going to change people's opinions by showing JonBenet's face in death and you are certainly not going to change perceptions of the RST - other than for the worse by doing this.

    Note that it is the RST who want to look at/circulate photos of JonBenet's little dead face - not the "hateful BORG".

    FWIW, jameson posted only a week or so ago that she seriously hoped this photo would not end up in the public domain.

    I have this photo - - I have been careful not to publish it. It is haunting, more sad than any photo I have shared. I hope it is never made public.


    http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/d...um=DCForumID61

    I really hope you show JonBenet (and her family) some respect by NOT circulating this.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    You forget this was on NATIONAL TV, it's over. Evidently it was part of Tracy's documentary ,as well. If there is a legal reason that the guy can't send it to me, or that I can not send it to a friend, then I will not do so. In fact I am composing a note at this moment to see what if any rights I may or may not have, but to suggest the members of this forum, who have in large numbers crucified an innocent woman without conscience should decide what I do with a "fact", is ludicrous . Why didn't you , Jayelles, try to stop or at least suggest that "that" didn't happen! Who draws the moral line here?
    Patsy Ramsey was a suspect in her daughters death - that is a FACT. People unite on these forums to discuss the case - who knows? even help solve it! Circulating this photo won't help solve the case.

    JonBenet was a beautiful child - a radiant child and she ended up like meat on a slab. We *really* don't need to see that.

    Tracey's documentary didn't show her face. The upper part of her face was cropped out of all images. Why? Decency and respect. Ask Lou Smit. Ask John Ramsey. Ask jameson.

    I really question the motives of anyone who has a desire to see this particular image.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Let us not forget that Jonbenet was the victim. Her parents could have made things a lot easier for themselves - they made choices. JonBenet had no choice.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475
    I don't believe there was any damage to her face. It may be that just that photo was doctored, or the photo itself was damaged. I don't doubt sissi saw something that shocked her, but I believe it was manufactured just for that purpose.

    There is no mention of any damage to JonBenet's face in the autopsy report. All injuries were documented.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Do you deny that there continues to be those that believe a child or a woman did this? Why are the real facts ignored? These are decent people who had a monster come into their home and murder their child. A mother who never lived to see justice, yet lived under the umbrella of suspicion because evidence was overlooked. Why , for example, did they NOT test the dna on the spoon or the cup? BECAUSE they NEEDED Patsy to be "good" for this. It's time to dispel all of the myths. I would expect someone has captured this picture, and sent it all over the internet by now. It probably IS in some "dark serial killer" area, or some sadistic site. Let's not let the people who want this case solved see it, leave it in the dungeons or for next months front page of the Globe. I never said I was posting it on a site, I would not do that without permission of the host. Hell I have it on hold at this very moment waiting to hear of the legalities. But remember, there are those that continue to believe it was a soft staging after an accident or a mommy's potty training rage. This was NO accident this was a brutal OVERKILL!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker
    I don't believe there was any damage to her face. It may be that just that photo was doctored, or the photo itself was damaged. I don't doubt sissi saw something that shocked her, but I believe it was manufactured just for that purpose.

    There is no mention of any damage to JonBenet's face in the autopsy report. All injuries were documented.

    This was dislocated skull , deforming the face. However, you don't have to believe it happened.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    [sissi] "Part of the reason so many jumped on the "Ramsey did it bandwagon "was because exculpatory evidence was hidden, while those with lies and innuendo were given a free reign to promote a hateful myth."

    WRONG! There was/is no exculpatory evidence, only speculation on bits of random, undateable material.

    [sissi] "It's not pleasant, in fact it's horrible to face "the fact" that this child was so brutalized, but it's a FACT, and FACTS are something that we haven't heard many of since that rogue cop decided Patsy did it!"

    That "rogue" cop had more guts than most of us, and he wasn't alone. He had the FBI behind him.

    [sissi] "Do you deny that there continues to be those that believe a child or a woman did this?"

    I deny nothing.

    [sissi] "Why are the real facts ignored?"

    I've been asking that for years.

    [sissi] "These are decent people who had a monster come into their home and murder their child."

    Yes, one of them lived there.

    [sissi] "A mother who never lived to see justice, yet lived under the umbrella of suspicion because evidence was overlooked"

    Michael Kane said that this "evidence" was long explained.

    [sissi] "Why , for example, did they NOT test the dna on the spoon or the cup? BECAUSE they NEEDED Patsy to be "good" for this"

    The only people who NEED something from her is for her to be innocent.

    [sissi] "But remember, there are those that continue to believe it was a soft staging after an accident or a mommy's potty training rage. This was NO accident this was a brutal OVERKILL!"

    Right...why should we believe the experts?

    You're telling me a crazy woman isn't capable of murder?

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast