View Poll Results: Are the Ramseys involved or not?

Voters
1005. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Ramseys are somehow involved in the crime and/or cover-up

    742 73.83%
  • The Ramseys are not involved at all in the crime or cover-up

    263 26.17%
Page 49 of 76 FirstFirst ... 394041424344454647484950515253545556575859 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,225 of 1895

Thread: Are the Ramseys involved or not?

  1. #1201
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632

    FBI profiling not so foolproof

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikebr View Post
    By what she put in the note, you can tell she is not very sophisticated in the ways of criminals...she wrote way too much...so I don't think she learned much from those books...she just thought she had...interesting link I found and it falls along with my first post to some degree about the letter, though I just found it. Haven't looked into who this profiler is, so it could be one of the many cranks that are out there..

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...8/193035.shtml

    http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html

    Excerpted...
    "...Now comes a group of psychologists at the University of Liverpool who conclude that FBI profiling of criminals is little more than cold reading and subjective validation at work. This was apparent to many people about ten years ago when Ted Kaczynski, the so-called Unabomber, was caught and the profile was matched to the man. The FBI said the Unabomber would be in his late 30's or early 40's. Kaczynski was 53 when caught. The profile was correct in predicting a white male, though this doesn't seem like a tough trait to guess. The FBI said he'd be 5'10" to 6' tall, 165 pounds, with reddish-blond hair, a thin mustache, and a ruddy complexion. Kaczynski was 5'8", weighed 143 pounds, had brown hair, pale skin, and was bearded. The profile predicted he would be a blue collar worker with a high school degree. Kaczynski hadn't had a job in 25 years and earned a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan in addition to being a graduate of Harvard University. The FBI profile predicted the Unabomber would be a meticulously organized person, reclusive and having problems dealing with women. Kaczynski was a recluse (again, not a tough call) who apparently did not deal with women at all, but he was slovenly and unkempt. The FBI profile was wrong about almost everything regarding a man they'd been tracking for years.

    The Liverpool psychologists argue that profiling won't work the way the FBI does it. (FBI profiling assumes a stable relationship between configurations of offense behaviors and background characteristics, which is not supported by the research evidence.) Second, they note that the FBI claims a high degree of accuracy for the method that supposedly shouldn't work. Then, they explain the illusion of accuracy as due to subjective validation. The whole sordid story is detailed in Malcom Gladwell's recent article in the New Yorker, "Dangerous Minds - criminal profiling made easy."

    According to Gladwell, the psychologists tested the FBI's profile of serial sex-offender killers, who the profilers divide into two types based on their level of organization.

    First, they [the psychologists] made a list of crime-scene characteristics generally considered to show organization: perhaps the victim was alive during the sex acts, or the body was posed in a certain way, or the murder weapon was missing, or the body was concealed, or torture and restraints were involved. Then they made a list of characteristics showing disorganization: perhaps the victim was beaten, the body was left in an isolated spot, the victim’s belongings were scattered, or the murder weapon was improvised.

    If the FBI was right, they reasoned, the crime-scene details on each of those two lists should “co-occur”—that is, if you see one or more organized traits in a crime, there should be a reasonably high probability of seeing other organized traits. When they looked at a sample of a hundred serial crimes, however, they couldn’t find any support for the FBI’s distinction. Crimes don’t fall into one camp or the other. It turns out that they’re almost always a mixture of a few key organized traits and a random array of disorganized traits.*
    It also turns out that it shouldn't be surprising that the profile is bogus. It wasn't based on a representative sample. According to Gladwell, the FBI profilers who came up with the serial killer profile, John Douglas and Robert Ressler, chatted only with convicts who were in prison in California. Furthermore, they had no standardized protocol for interviewing their subjects. There are other reasons FBI profiles are bound to be inaccurate. I noted some of these in a newsletter five years ago. Even if the profilers got a representative sample of, say, serial rapists, they can never interview the ones they don't catch nor the ones they catch but don't convict. Also, it would be naive to believe that serial rapists or killers are going to be forthright and totally truthful in any interview.

    FBI profiles are based on the assumption that there is a pattern where in fact there is none. The assumption is that facts about the crime will match up with facts about the criminal. The Liverpool psychologists tested this hypothesis:

    the Liverpool group selected a hundred stranger rapes in the United Kingdom, classifying them according to twenty-eight variables, such as whether a disguise was worn, whether compliments were given, whether there was binding, gagging, or blindfolding, whether there was apologizing or the theft of personal property, and so on. They then looked at whether the patterns in the crimes corresponded to attributes of the criminals—like age, type of employment, ethnicity, level of education, marital status, number of prior convictions, type of prior convictions, and drug use. Were rapists who bind, gag, and blindfold more like one another than they were like rapists who, say, compliment and apologize? The answer is no—not even slightly.*
    As one vocal critic of FBI profiling, Brent Turvey, put it: "The fact is that different offenders can exhibit the same behaviors for completely different reasons."* Turvey supports a method of profiling known as Behavioural Evidence Analysis, which is not discussed here or in Gladwell's article. "You’ve got a rapist who attacks a woman in the park and pulls her shirt up over her face," says Turvey. "Why? What does that mean? There are ten different things it could mean. It could mean he doesn’t want to see her. It could mean he doesn’t want her to see him. It could mean he wants to see her breasts, he wants to imagine someone else, he wants to incapacitate her arms—all of those are possibilities. You can’t just look at one behavior in isolation.”

    Does this sound familiar? The same problem exists with the polygraph, a favorite tool of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. The polygraph measures such things as heartbeat, blood pressure, and respiration. The polygraph is not a lie detector because changes in heartbeat, blood pressure, and respiration can be caused by many things. Nervousness, anger, sadness, embarrassment, and fear can all be causal factors in altering one's heart rate, blood pressure, or respiration rate. Having to go to the bathroom can also be causative. There are also a number of medical conditions such as colds, headaches, constipation, or neurological and muscular problems that can cause the physiological changes measured by the polygraph. The claim that an expert can tell when the changes are due to a lie and when they are due to other factors has never been proven. Why do so many people, in and out of law enforcement, believe the polygraph is a lie detector? For the same reason that many believe that profiling is accurate, that their daily horoscope is right on, that their tarot card reader is clairvoyant, that John Edward gets messages from the dead, that graphology can reveal the true character of a person, and that Rush Limbaugh is a national treasure: the belief is rooted in cold reading and subjective validation, and grows in soil fertilized with a lot of confirmation bias and communal reinforcement.

    Laurence Alison, one of the leaders of the Liverpool group and the author of The Forensic Psychologist's Casebook: Psychological Profiling and Criminal Investigation, examined one of the FBI's prime exhibits for the validity of their profiling method, the profile of the so-called "rooftop killer." He found, according to Gladwell, that the profile was written in unverifiable, contradictory, and ambiguous language so that "it could support virtually any interpretation."
    ___

    from Malcolm Gladwell's "Dangerous Minds"

    Let’s pretend that we’re an FBI profiler. First question: race. The victim is white, so let’s call the offender white. Let’s say he’s in his mid-twenties to early thirties, which is when the thirty-six men in the FBI’s sample started killing. Is the crime organized or disorganized? Disorganized, clearly. It’s on a rooftop, in the Bronx, in broad daylight—high risk. So what is the killer doing in the building at six-thirty in the morning? He could be some kind of serviceman, or he could live in the neighborhood. Either way, he appears to be familiar with the building. He’s disorganized, though, so he’s not stable. If he is employed, it’s blue-collar work, at best. He probably has a prior offense, having to do with violence or sex. His relationships with women will be either nonexistent or deeply troubled. And the mutilation and the defecation are so strange that he’s probably mentally ill or has some kind of substance-abuse problem. How does that sound? As it turns out, it’s spot-on.
    ___

    Alison "gave the details of the crime, the profile prepared by the FBI, and a description of the offender [who had been caught] to a group of senior police officers and forensic professionals in England." They rated the profile as highly accurate. Alison then gave another group of officers the same case materials to evaluate, except that he created an imaginary set of traits for the killer. Again, the officers rated the profile as highly accurate. Like Ray Hyman discovered years ago, it doesn't matter what you tell people; they'll validate your claims if they want you to be right. They'll ignore what doesn't fit and work hard to find meaning and significance in your reading or profile.

    I hope that the police community reads Gladwell's account and recognizes that it is not an accident that some of them think that people claiming to be psychic sometimes seem to be right. They'll at least get a laugh, as I did, when Gladwell reports that after Douglas told a group of detectives what traits were likely in the bad guy they were after, one of the detectives asked him if he were psychic. He wanted to know because the FBI profiler was saying the same things a psychic had told them the week before.
    __

    If you want to learn more about cold reading, take a look at Skeptico's posting for Nov. 12. It's about tomorrow night's "Larry King Live" show that will feature two cold readers who call themselves mediums, James Van Praagh and John Edward. There is even a Bingo game card to help you see what is going on while you watch the performances—a good exercise for those new to the study of cold reading.

    At least one psychic has made the connection between cold reading and profiling, although she doesn't have a clue what she's done. Julianna Suranyi of Brisbane, Australia, claims she's psychic and an intuitive profiler. She even offers seminars on profiling.

    further reading

    •new Psychological profiling 'worse than useless'

    ...according to a team of psychologists at Birmingham City University, the practice of offender profiling is deeply unscientific and risks bringing the field into disrepute....Behavioral profiling has never led to the direct apprehension of a serial killer, a murderer, or a spree killer...

    •Whodunnit? by Jon Ronson
    Criminal profilers were once the heroes of police work, nailing offenders with their astonishing psychological insights. So why did it all fall apart? "On 15 July 1992, 23-year-old Rachel Nickell was found murdered on Wimbledon Common. She'd been stabbed 49 times in front of her two-year-old son. The police, as had become customary in cases like this, asked [famous profiler Paul] Britton to draw up an offender profile. Britton visualized the crime scene: "Closing my eyes I tried to step back into the pretty woodland glade on Wimbledon Common... I rubbed my eyes until white stars bounced across the ceiling," he later wrote. "I'd been concentrating so hard it was difficult to refocus" – and emerged to say the killer would be a single man, a manual laborer who lived at home with his parents or alone in a bedsit within walking distance of Wimbledon Common, and owned a collection of pornography. His deviancy would be escalating, he added. This would be his first murder (it was messy and amateurish) but he'd already be known for minor sexual offences.

    It is, in retrospect, sort of understandable why they wrongly believed Colin Stagg was their man. In a terrible twist of fate, he fitted Britton's profile even more snugly, in fact, than the actual killer, Robert Napper, would turn out to. For instance, Stagg did indeed live in a bedsit a short walk from the common, whereas Napper lived 17 miles across London, in Plumstead."

    •"Criminal Profiling: Granfalloons and Gobbledygook." 2008. Brent Snook, Paul Gendreau, Craig Bennell, and Paul J. Taylor. Skeptic. volume 14, number 2, pp. 42-47. In this article, the authors claim that police and the general public believe profiling "works" for the same reasons that they believe psychic detectives are operationally useful. Believers rely on anecdotal evidence. There is significant communal reinforcement of the beliefs and a great deal of selective thinking and confirmation bias. There is widespread belief that profilers and psychics have some sort of expertise that others lack. They don't. The claims of both profilers and psychics are often vague or ambiguous, allowing for retroactive validation of just about anything claimed by the profiler or the psychic. The media feeds into the inability of many people to distinguish fact from fiction with its many television shows and movies that portray fantastic feats by profilers and psychics. In addition, with regard to criminal profiling, police and many laypersons put too much emphasis on personality characteristics and not enough on situational factors when evaluating behavior (what is called the fundamental attribution error)."
    __

    ...I think it's right under everyone's noses and most don't see it. John wrote the note. Not Patsy. Despite what the profilers say.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  3. #1202
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,707
    [quote=Mikebr;7069706][QUOTE=FairM;7068902]Hi there,

    It has not been proved conclusively that JonBenet had been previously molested , the experts can't agree on it. She did have bed wetting problems and may have had a reaction to a particular type of bubble bath lotion. Her own GP said he did not see any evidence of sexual molestation and you would think he would be best placed to notice anything.


    From what i have read, she had recently seen her GP perhaps a week before not sure, and he saw nothing. So if the coroner saw evidence of chronic abuse and cyril wecht said the abuse happened not at death but in the days before..is it possible the sex abuse by someone in their circle occurred between the last doctors visit and the death. I am convincing myself that Patsy discovered the abuse that night...but reacted to protect the molester, assuming she was not the molester. But something possibly made her believe the molestation would be exposed and she either in a violent outburst or a planned attack silenced Jonbenet by killing her. Then the staging began. If John was involved at that point, he would have dumped the body before calling the police. As I have said over and over, Patsy wrote that note to convince him not to call the police but to go get the money out of his "account," because the writer (Patsy) knew the money was in an account and not invested. The writer only addresses John and of course the ransom letter was completely fake and was not an attempt to get money..it was trying to get John out of the house long enough for Patsy to finish.....So my question is, who was she protecting?

    Let's be clear about exactly what a pediatrician does when he examines the pubic area of a 6-year old girl. He SAW nothing because he did NOT do an internal examination. JB had repeated vaginal irritation, which her doctor suggested may have been from bubble baths. How many times does a mother have to hear that before she STOPS giving her daughter bubble baths? JB went to the doctor SEVERAL times about this "condition".
    The autopsy report noted that JB's hymen was "represented by a RIM of tissue" and then went on to note where the remaining tissue was present. An intact hymen is like a "shield" of tissue which COVERS the vaginal opening. JB's was worn away except for a thin rim of tissue around a partial edge of the opening. It was not "torn" in the way that is indicative of penetration by a penis. In JB's vagina, the vaginal rugae were exposed, a structure of the vagina that is normally covered by an intact hymen.
    In order for JB's doctor to see the erosion of the vaginal wall and the rubbed-away hymen, he would have had to use a speculum to see in there. This would never be done routinely on a child brought in for what would have been assumed to be irritation caused by bubble baths. A child that age would have had to be anesthetized for a speculum to be inserted.
    It is no surprise her doctor "saw nothing". With the type of examination he did, he could never have seen it.
    Remember this damage was seen at the AUTOPSY. Her vagina was dissected.
    Keep in mind also that JB's doctor was said to be "impressed" with the Rs and was a member of the same country club. They were friends. In other circumstances, a doctor would have become suspicious about the repeated "infections" and today, would be required to report it. If JB's doctor had any misgivings, he never said so.
    JB also went to see the school nurse on many occasions, usually on a Monday morning. Today, this would also be thought suspicious, and the school would be required to report that as well. JB's school refused to release her records, including her visits to the school nurse, and JB's doctor refused to release her medical records. The DA refused to ask for a warrant to obtain them. Ask yourself this...in what case of a murdered child would a school or doctor refuse to release ANY information that might help in solving the murder? The answer? Easy. In a case where those records might incriminate someone who did not want to be exposed and had the power to prevent it. In no other case (that I know of) besides THIS case.
    So to dismiss out if hand any prior abuse because her doctor "saw nothing" is simply short-sighted, and exactly what the Rs and their "team" want you to do.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  5. #1203
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    DeeDee, I wonder how many more times/ways, this information will need to be exposed, before people finally see that what was found in JonBenets autopsy was ABnormal! A 6 year old child should not have had a hymen or vaginal vault in that condition, period.

    As for the school nurse and the pediatrician not giving JonBenets records, I even more greatly blame the DA's office, who should have at least pretended to prepare for a trial against the person(s) who killed JonBenet.

    But, the R's 'legal team' and 'private investigators', were very persuasive in keeping everyone involved quiet! Have there ever been any interviews of any of the R's friends who were in the home that day? It is amazing how everyone except FW has remained mum.

    Remember Patsys words. Two people know what happened.

    Grrrrr!
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SunnieRN For This Useful Post:


  7. #1204
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html

    Excerpted...
    "...Now comes a group of psychologists at the University of Liverpool who conclude that FBI profiling of criminals is little more than cold reading and subjective validation at work. This was apparent to many people about ten years ago when Ted Kaczynski, the so-called Unabomber, was caught and the profile was matched to the man. The FBI said the Unabomber would be in his late 30's or early 40's. Kaczynski was 53 when caught. The profile was correct in predicting a white male, though this doesn't seem like a tough trait to guess. The FBI said he'd be 5'10" to 6' tall, 165 pounds, with reddish-blond hair, a thin mustache, and a ruddy complexion. Kaczynski was 5'8", weighed 143 pounds, had brown hair, pale skin, and was bearded. The profile predicted he would be a blue collar worker with a high school degree. Kaczynski hadn't had a job in 25 years and earned a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan in addition to being a graduate of Harvard University. The FBI profile predicted the Unabomber would be a meticulously organized person, reclusive and having problems dealing with women. Kaczynski was a recluse (again, not a tough call) who apparently did not deal with women at all, but he was slovenly and unkempt. The FBI profile was wrong about almost everything regarding a man they'd been tracking for years.

    The Liverpool psychologists argue that profiling won't work the way the FBI does it. (FBI profiling assumes a stable relationship between configurations of offense behaviors and background characteristics, which is not supported by the research evidence.) Second, they note that the FBI claims a high degree of accuracy for the method that supposedly shouldn't work. Then, they explain the illusion of accuracy as due to subjective validation. The whole sordid story is detailed in Malcom Gladwell's recent article in the New Yorker, "Dangerous Minds - criminal profiling made easy."

    According to Gladwell, the psychologists tested the FBI's profile of serial sex-offender killers, who the profilers divide into two types based on their level of organization.

    First, they [the psychologists] made a list of crime-scene characteristics generally considered to show organization: perhaps the victim was alive during the sex acts, or the body was posed in a certain way, or the murder weapon was missing, or the body was concealed, or torture and restraints were involved. Then they made a list of characteristics showing disorganization: perhaps the victim was beaten, the body was left in an isolated spot, the victim’s belongings were scattered, or the murder weapon was improvised.

    If the FBI was right, they reasoned, the crime-scene details on each of those two lists should “co-occur”—that is, if you see one or more organized traits in a crime, there should be a reasonably high probability of seeing other organized traits. When they looked at a sample of a hundred serial crimes, however, they couldn’t find any support for the FBI’s distinction. Crimes don’t fall into one camp or the other. It turns out that they’re almost always a mixture of a few key organized traits and a random array of disorganized traits.*
    It also turns out that it shouldn't be surprising that the profile is bogus. It wasn't based on a representative sample. According to Gladwell, the FBI profilers who came up with the serial killer profile, John Douglas and Robert Ressler, chatted only with convicts who were in prison in California. Furthermore, they had no standardized protocol for interviewing their subjects. There are other reasons FBI profiles are bound to be inaccurate. I noted some of these in a newsletter five years ago. Even if the profilers got a representative sample of, say, serial rapists, they can never interview the ones they don't catch nor the ones they catch but don't convict. Also, it would be naive to believe that serial rapists or killers are going to be forthright and totally truthful in any interview.

    FBI profiles are based on the assumption that there is a pattern where in fact there is none. The assumption is that facts about the crime will match up with facts about the criminal. The Liverpool psychologists tested this hypothesis:

    the Liverpool group selected a hundred stranger rapes in the United Kingdom, classifying them according to twenty-eight variables, such as whether a disguise was worn, whether compliments were given, whether there was binding, gagging, or blindfolding, whether there was apologizing or the theft of personal property, and so on. They then looked at whether the patterns in the crimes corresponded to attributes of the criminals—like age, type of employment, ethnicity, level of education, marital status, number of prior convictions, type of prior convictions, and drug use. Were rapists who bind, gag, and blindfold more like one another than they were like rapists who, say, compliment and apologize? The answer is no—not even slightly.*
    As one vocal critic of FBI profiling, Brent Turvey, put it: "The fact is that different offenders can exhibit the same behaviors for completely different reasons."* Turvey supports a method of profiling known as Behavioural Evidence Analysis, which is not discussed here or in Gladwell's article. "You’ve got a rapist who attacks a woman in the park and pulls her shirt up over her face," says Turvey. "Why? What does that mean? There are ten different things it could mean. It could mean he doesn’t want to see her. It could mean he doesn’t want her to see him. It could mean he wants to see her breasts, he wants to imagine someone else, he wants to incapacitate her arms—all of those are possibilities. You can’t just look at one behavior in isolation.”

    Does this sound familiar? The same problem exists with the polygraph, a favorite tool of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. The polygraph measures such things as heartbeat, blood pressure, and respiration. The polygraph is not a lie detector because changes in heartbeat, blood pressure, and respiration can be caused by many things. Nervousness, anger, sadness, embarrassment, and fear can all be causal factors in altering one's heart rate, blood pressure, or respiration rate. Having to go to the bathroom can also be causative. There are also a number of medical conditions such as colds, headaches, constipation, or neurological and muscular problems that can cause the physiological changes measured by the polygraph. The claim that an expert can tell when the changes are due to a lie and when they are due to other factors has never been proven. Why do so many people, in and out of law enforcement, believe the polygraph is a lie detector? For the same reason that many believe that profiling is accurate, that their daily horoscope is right on, that their tarot card reader is clairvoyant, that John Edward gets messages from the dead, that graphology can reveal the true character of a person, and that Rush Limbaugh is a national treasure: the belief is rooted in cold reading and subjective validation, and grows in soil fertilized with a lot of confirmation bias and communal reinforcement.

    Laurence Alison, one of the leaders of the Liverpool group and the author of The Forensic Psychologist's Casebook: Psychological Profiling and Criminal Investigation, examined one of the FBI's prime exhibits for the validity of their profiling method, the profile of the so-called "rooftop killer." He found, according to Gladwell, that the profile was written in unverifiable, contradictory, and ambiguous language so that "it could support virtually any interpretation."
    ___

    from Malcolm Gladwell's "Dangerous Minds"

    Let’s pretend that we’re an FBI profiler. First question: race. The victim is white, so let’s call the offender white. Let’s say he’s in his mid-twenties to early thirties, which is when the thirty-six men in the FBI’s sample started killing. Is the crime organized or disorganized? Disorganized, clearly. It’s on a rooftop, in the Bronx, in broad daylight—high risk. So what is the killer doing in the building at six-thirty in the morning? He could be some kind of serviceman, or he could live in the neighborhood. Either way, he appears to be familiar with the building. He’s disorganized, though, so he’s not stable. If he is employed, it’s blue-collar work, at best. He probably has a prior offense, having to do with violence or sex. His relationships with women will be either nonexistent or deeply troubled. And the mutilation and the defecation are so strange that he’s probably mentally ill or has some kind of substance-abuse problem. How does that sound? As it turns out, it’s spot-on.
    ___

    Alison "gave the details of the crime, the profile prepared by the FBI, and a description of the offender [who had been caught] to a group of senior police officers and forensic professionals in England." They rated the profile as highly accurate. Alison then gave another group of officers the same case materials to evaluate, except that he created an imaginary set of traits for the killer. Again, the officers rated the profile as highly accurate. Like Ray Hyman discovered years ago, it doesn't matter what you tell people; they'll validate your claims if they want you to be right. They'll ignore what doesn't fit and work hard to find meaning and significance in your reading or profile.

    I hope that the police community reads Gladwell's account and recognizes that it is not an accident that some of them think that people claiming to be psychic sometimes seem to be right. They'll at least get a laugh, as I did, when Gladwell reports that after Douglas told a group of detectives what traits were likely in the bad guy they were after, one of the detectives asked him if he were psychic. He wanted to know because the FBI profiler was saying the same things a psychic had told them the week before.
    __

    If you want to learn more about cold reading, take a look at Skeptico's posting for Nov. 12. It's about tomorrow night's "Larry King Live" show that will feature two cold readers who call themselves mediums, James Van Praagh and John Edward. There is even a Bingo game card to help you see what is going on while you watch the performances—a good exercise for those new to the study of cold reading.

    At least one psychic has made the connection between cold reading and profiling, although she doesn't have a clue what she's done. Julianna Suranyi of Brisbane, Australia, claims she's psychic and an intuitive profiler. She even offers seminars on profiling.

    further reading

    •new Psychological profiling 'worse than useless'

    ...according to a team of psychologists at Birmingham City University, the practice of offender profiling is deeply unscientific and risks bringing the field into disrepute....Behavioral profiling has never led to the direct apprehension of a serial killer, a murderer, or a spree killer...

    •Whodunnit? by Jon Ronson
    Criminal profilers were once the heroes of police work, nailing offenders with their astonishing psychological insights. So why did it all fall apart? "On 15 July 1992, 23-year-old Rachel Nickell was found murdered on Wimbledon Common. She'd been stabbed 49 times in front of her two-year-old son. The police, as had become customary in cases like this, asked [famous profiler Paul] Britton to draw up an offender profile. Britton visualized the crime scene: "Closing my eyes I tried to step back into the pretty woodland glade on Wimbledon Common... I rubbed my eyes until white stars bounced across the ceiling," he later wrote. "I'd been concentrating so hard it was difficult to refocus" – and emerged to say the killer would be a single man, a manual laborer who lived at home with his parents or alone in a bedsit within walking distance of Wimbledon Common, and owned a collection of pornography. His deviancy would be escalating, he added. This would be his first murder (it was messy and amateurish) but he'd already be known for minor sexual offences.

    It is, in retrospect, sort of understandable why they wrongly believed Colin Stagg was their man. In a terrible twist of fate, he fitted Britton's profile even more snugly, in fact, than the actual killer, Robert Napper, would turn out to. For instance, Stagg did indeed live in a bedsit a short walk from the common, whereas Napper lived 17 miles across London, in Plumstead."

    •"Criminal Profiling: Granfalloons and Gobbledygook." 2008. Brent Snook, Paul Gendreau, Craig Bennell, and Paul J. Taylor. Skeptic. volume 14, number 2, pp. 42-47. In this article, the authors claim that police and the general public believe profiling "works" for the same reasons that they believe psychic detectives are operationally useful. Believers rely on anecdotal evidence. There is significant communal reinforcement of the beliefs and a great deal of selective thinking and confirmation bias. There is widespread belief that profilers and psychics have some sort of expertise that others lack. They don't. The claims of both profilers and psychics are often vague or ambiguous, allowing for retroactive validation of just about anything claimed by the profiler or the psychic. The media feeds into the inability of many people to distinguish fact from fiction with its many television shows and movies that portray fantastic feats by profilers and psychics. In addition, with regard to criminal profiling, police and many laypersons put too much emphasis on personality characteristics and not enough on situational factors when evaluating behavior (what is called the fundamental attribution error)."
    __

    ...I think it's right under everyone's noses and most don't see it. John wrote the note. Not Patsy. Despite what the profilers say.
    Whaleshark,
    Criminal Profiling is an Art not a Science. The use of obvious profile failures does not invalidate profiling per se.

    Similarly handwiting analysis is also an art and not a science.

    You appear to be claiming that the invalidation of one art by selective quoting of failures implies the success of another?

    Profiling of Violent Crimes: Holmes & Holmes Sage Publications

    This book deals with JonBenet's homicide and has a chapter that offers a Profile Analysis of the ransom note. e.g.

    JonBenet Ramsey: The Murder Of A Beauty Queen
    The Principal Players In The Ramsey Murder Case
    The Morning After The Murder, December 26, 1996
    Aftermath Of The Investigation
    The Autopsy Report
    Conclusion


    .

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  9. #1205
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html

    ...I think it's right under everyone's noses and most don't see it. John wrote the note. Not Patsy. Despite what the profilers say.
    I disagree with you. No man would write that letter and very few women. It is clearly written by Patsy. And as far as your indictment of the FBI profilers I also disagree. They are not perfect but they are not cold readers either.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikebr For This Useful Post:


  11. #1206
    Quote Originally Posted by shgrbkr View Post
    Question: If JonBenet went to her regular doctor, WHY would he be examining a 6 year old's vaginal area?? That in and of itself is very strange indeed. The only reason I can think of is Was there a concern from someone that JB had possibly been molested? Did JB herself say something to that effect? It doesn't seem likely that either of these scenarios took place. So why was the GP looking down there?

    I have to agree that either Burke or Patsy would have been the most likely culprits, but it just makes me nauseous. Did Burke have some sort of explosive disorder? And is the bedwetting that big of a deal? My daughter had some bedwetting problems even into her teens and I can tell you she was never molested. She just slept really hard. Sorry for all the amateur questions, I just want to understand.

    I believe she may have had an infection so he may well have examined her. I can't recall now.

    "explosive disorder" - what's that?

  12. #1207
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikebr View Post
    I disagree with you. No man would write that letter and very few women. It is clearly written by Patsy. And as far as your indictment of the FBI profilers I also disagree. They are not perfect but they are not cold readers either.
    No one can prove who wrote the note. So we are all entitled to our opinion on it.

  13. #1208
    [quote=DeeDee249;7070561][quote=Mikebr;7069706]
    Quote Originally Posted by FairM View Post
    Hi there,

    It has not been proved conclusively that JonBenet had been previously molested , the experts can't agree on it. She did have bed wetting problems and may have had a reaction to a particular type of bubble bath lotion. Her own GP said he did not see any evidence of sexual molestation and you would think he would be best placed to notice anything.




    Let's be clear about exactly what a pediatrician does when he examines the pubic area of a 6-year old girl. He SAW nothing because he did NOT do an internal examination. JB had repeated vaginal irritation, which her doctor suggested may have been from bubble baths. How many times does a mother have to hear that before she STOPS giving her daughter bubble baths? JB went to the doctor SEVERAL times about this "condition".
    The autopsy report noted that JB's hymen was "represented by a RIM of tissue" and then went on to note where the remaining tissue was present. An intact hymen is like a "shield" of tissue which COVERS the vaginal opening. JB's was worn away except for a thin rim of tissue around a partial edge of the opening. It was not "torn" in the way that is indicative of penetration by a penis. In JB's vagina, the vaginal rugae were exposed, a structure of the vagina that is normally covered by an intact hymen.
    In order for JB's doctor to see the erosion of the vaginal wall and the rubbed-away hymen, he would have had to use a speculum to see in there. This would never be done routinely on a child brought in for what would have been assumed to be irritation caused by bubble baths. A child that age would have had to be anesthetized for a speculum to be inserted.
    It is no surprise her doctor "saw nothing". With the type of examination he did, he could never have seen it.
    Remember this damage was seen at the AUTOPSY. Her vagina was dissected.
    Keep in mind also that JB's doctor was said to be "impressed" with the Rs and was a member of the same country club. They were friends. In other circumstances, a doctor would have become suspicious about the repeated "infections" and today, would be required to report it. If JB's doctor had any misgivings, he never said so.
    JB also went to see the school nurse on many occasions, usually on a Monday morning. Today, this would also be thought suspicious, and the school would be required to report that as well. JB's school refused to release her records, including her visits to the school nurse, and JB's doctor refused to release her medical records. The DA refused to ask for a warrant to obtain them. Ask yourself this...in what case of a murdered child would a school or doctor refuse to release ANY information that might help in solving the murder? The answer? Easy. In a case where those records might incriminate someone who did not want to be exposed and had the power to prevent it. In no other case (that I know of) besides THIS case.
    So to dismiss out if hand any prior abuse because her doctor "saw nothing" is simply short-sighted, and exactly what the Rs and their "team" want you to do.
    To clarify I did not say I had dismissed it out of hand because her doctor saw nothing - it is on the basis that the "experts" have not agreed on this. If the experts cant agree then it can't be conclusive evidence can it?
    When I referred to the GP I meant he saw nothing re examination or anything else such as demeanour etc that might have caused him to be suspecious.
    I was unaware there is any obligation on doctors to report "repeated infections in children" - who are they required to report that to? also who are the school suposed to report to?
    There isn't anything I am aware of in the UK that means just on the basis of repeated infections a doctor would be compelled to report a child.

  14. #1209
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikebr View Post
    I know you were addressing another poster........

    I don't know about a staged assault but the staging of the crime scene is not done by strangers. strangers have no reason to make a crime seem like its not since they have no connection to the victim. The note was clearly staging, the garrotting could be staging and in my opinion is, the sexual assault i cannot explain but if the stager and in my opinion is Patsy wanted the stage to insinuate a sexual predator then perhaps she committed the assault. Perhaps the sexual assault was earlier in the evening...i don't know....but Patsy wrote that note and until that is explained away Patsy is my suspect.
    If Patsy knew that JonBenet was being sexually abused and that was why she killed her ( that seems to be the theory some have) then why would she need to "stage" sexual abuse?

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to FairM For This Useful Post:


  16. #1210
    Fair sorry for my earlier post saying i disagreed..i didn't mean to sound so abrupt.

    I am a little confused on the need to stage the abuse myself. But staging is done by people who attempt to make a crime look like its not. The note was staging to make it look like a kidnapping. I also contend it was first staged for John to get him out of the house to the bank...but i said that....
    When i was writing my previous post I realized that staging it to look like a sexual assault may be the killer's way of covering evidence of an earlier attack by someone Patsy was trying to protect. I think patsy planned to dump the body and staged the body for the dumpsite not the basement. John just did not react the way Patsy thought. He made her call the police which based on the note Patsy thought she was going to be convincing about not calling the police..remember over and over how the daughter will die. I think John was in a panic and had not digested the note until after the 911 call. At that point either by admissions by Patsy or by his own reasoning he realized the note was fake, patsy was acting weird and maybe even recognized patsy had written the note. Perhaps John was who she was protecting, not sure. Maybe she confessed. but after the police got there, they both were putting on a performance. In cases i have heard of where a father kills their child and stages an abduction, the child is dumped. I think Patsy could not get the body to the car and drive off to dump it with John in the house. He would have heard or seen her in the act. A man could easily move the body with ease and since its my belief Patsy wrote the note, it would have to be both involved or patsy by herself. If both were involved the body would have been dumped not left in the basement for the police to find it.

  17. #1211
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikebr View Post
    Fair sorry for my earlier post saying i disagreed..i didn't mean to sound so abrupt.

    I am a little confused on the need to stage the abuse myself. But staging is done by people who attempt to make a crime look like its not. The note was staging to make it look like a kidnapping. I also contend it was first staged for John to get him out of the house to the bank...but i said that....
    When i was writing my previous post I realized that staging it to look like a sexual assault may be the killer's way of covering evidence of an earlier attack by someone Patsy was trying to protect. I think patsy planned to dump the body and staged the body for the dumpsite not the basement. John just did not react the way Patsy thought. He made her call the police which based on the note Patsy thought she was going to be convincing about not calling the police..remember over and over how the daughter will die. I think John was in a panic and had not digested the note until after the 911 call. At that point either by admissions by Patsy or by his own reasoning he realized the note was fake, patsy was acting weird and maybe even recognized patsy had written the note. Perhaps John was who she was protecting, not sure. Maybe she confessed. but after the police got there, they both were putting on a performance. In cases i have heard of where a father kills their child and stages an abduction, the child is dumped. I think Patsy could not get the body to the car and drive off to dump it with John in the house. He would have heard or seen her in the act. A man could easily move the body with ease and since its my belief Patsy wrote the note, it would have to be both involved or patsy by herself. If both were involved the body would have been dumped not left in the basement for the police to find it.


    you touched on a part that has always nagged at me. the police didnt find her. so why that particular time to find her himself and disturb the scene?

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to runsdeep For This Useful Post:


  19. #1212
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    you touched on a part that has always nagged at me. the police didnt find her. so why that particular time to find her himself and disturb the scene?
    Small town detectives in a rich man's house who at first believed what they had been told. If this was a middle class family...the family would have been sent outside and tape would have been put up all over...and police would have cleared the entire house room by room with guns drawn. The perp for all anyone knew was still there.

    But you are right...clearly a bad start to a murder investigation.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mikebr For This Useful Post:


  21. #1213
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    you touched on a part that has always nagged at me. the police didnt find her. so why that particular time to find her himself and disturb the scene?
    Police officer French had his hand on the door handle of the wine cellar room where JonBenet was found , he pushed but because it gave some resistance he didnt use any further effort to open the door and enter , if he had have done it would have been a whole different ball game. I read that he lives with that as the worst mistake of his life!

    It was only fate that John happened to find her, clearly if the police had just searched that room she would have been found a lot earlier and it would have become a murder investigation far sooner.

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to FairM For This Useful Post:


  23. #1214
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by FairM View Post
    I believe she may have had an infection so he may well have examined her. I can't recall now.

    "explosive disorder" - what's that?
    Her doctor admitted he NEVER did an internal exam on JB. He almost certainly examined her external pubic area, but there was NO way he could have seen any evidence of prior abuse with the type of exam he performed.

    The internet is gender-blind, so I don't know if you are male or female, but if you are male, you may not be familiar with a speculum, used for internal pelvic exams. Though there are pediatric speculums, they are not a part of the normal pediatrician's office equipment. They require that a pediatric patient be unconscious (anesthetized) to be used, so they would be found in a hospital setting, not a primary care physician's office.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  25. #1215
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    you touched on a part that has always nagged at me. the police didnt find her. so why that particular time to find her himself and disturb the scene?
    JR was TOLD by Det. Arndt to "have another look around". He went STRAIGHT to the basement, which surprised the detective, who expected he would have gone to the last place he'd seen his daughter- her bedroom.

    I believe the parents WANTED her body to be found by LE. There was no way they were going to have her corpse eaten by animals, insects or decomposing in the elements (a la Caylee). Casey Anthony is a sociopath and pathological liar. The Rs are not. They lied to protect themselves and possibly another family member, and staged the crime as a kidnapping/sexual assault for one reason- to hide abuse that had been ongoing.
    Nedra (Patsy's mother) made a chilling comment- she said that JB "was only a little bit molested". What the He** does THAT mean? LIke being a "little bit pregnant", either you are or you are not.
    When LE failed to find her, JR used the first opportunity he had to "find her" himself. The longer they waited the more horrible finding her would be. Cadaver dogs? No way for THIS family. This was also a big reason I feel they wanted their son OUT of the house ASAP. They didn't want him to see anything, and they didn't want him to SAY anything. There is simply no other reason why parents of a supposedly kidnapped child would let their OTHER child out of their sight.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  27. #1216
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Her doctor admitted he NEVER did an internal exam on JB. He almost certainly examined her external pubic area, but there was NO way he could have seen any evidence of prior abuse with the type of exam he performed.

    The internet is gender-blind, so I don't know if you are male or female, but if you are male, you may not be familiar with a speculum, used for internal pelvic exams. Though there are pediatric speculums, they are not a part of the normal pediatrician's office equipment. They require that a pediatric patient be unconscious (anesthetized) to be used, so they would be found in a hospital setting, not a primary care physician's office.
    I was 10 the first time a Dr. looked at my privates and it was traumatizing. I kicked him and knocked his glasses off - he was pist and told my mother to teach me manners. My daughter never had a pediatrician look at her privates for any reason. Did you hear about the pediatrician who was recently convicted of video taping himself examining hundreds of little children - he was molesting them behind the privacy drape. I immediately thought of Dr. Beuff. Why did they call him the morning of the 26th? That was so odd to me. According to his records, he did a vaginal exam twice on her and one time he didn't recall whether he had or not.

    If your child went missing, would you call her pediatrician? Was Patsy wanting a witness to the prior abuse in case it came up that day when they found her? From what I remember, Beuff gave Patsy a sedative. Again, weird? I know they were purported to be friends, but he was certainly not in the circle of friends she had called that morning.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  29. #1217
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikebr View Post
    Small town detectives in a rich man's house who at first believed what they had been told. If this was a middle class family...the family would have been sent outside and tape would have been put up all over...and police would have cleared the entire house room by room with guns drawn. The perp for all anyone knew was still there.

    But you are right...clearly a bad start to a murder investigation.
    These cops had no real experience with murder. This was the first one of the year in Boulder, only 5 days before the new year. Even Steve Thomas admitted the experience wasn't there. The CSI team probably had to dust off their "how to" manual.

  30. #1218
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    I was 10 the first time a Dr. looked at my privates and it was traumatizing. I kicked him and knocked his glasses off - he was pist and told my mother to teach me manners. My daughter never had a pediatrician look at her privates for any reason. Did you hear about the pediatrician who was recently convicted of video taping himself examining hundreds of little children - he was molesting them behind the privacy drape. I immediately thought of Dr. Beuff. Why did they call him the morning of the 26th? That was so odd to me. According to his records, he did a vaginal exam twice on her and one time he didn't recall whether he had or not.

    If your child went missing, would you call her pediatrician? Was Patsy wanting a witness to the prior abuse in case it came up that day when they found her? From what I remember, Beuff gave Patsy a sedative. Again, weird? I know they were purported to be friends, but he was certainly not in the circle of friends she had called that morning.
    in my book its intrusive for a little girl to have a pelvic exam unless something makes it very necessary.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to runsdeep For This Useful Post:


  32. #1219
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by vlpate View Post
    These cops had no real experience with murder. This was the first one of the year in Boulder, only 5 days before the new year. Even Steve Thomas admitted the experience wasn't there. The CSI team probably had to dust off their "how to" manual.
    and probably holiday skeleton crew too

  33. #1220
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    JR was TOLD by Det. Arndt to "have another look around". He went STRAIGHT to the basement, which surprised the detective, who expected he would have gone to the last place he'd seen his daughter- her bedroom.

    I believe the parents WANTED her body to be found by LE. There was no way they were going to have her corpse eaten by animals, insects or decomposing in the elements (a la Caylee). Casey Anthony is a sociopath and pathological liar. The Rs are not. They lied to protect themselves and possibly another family member, and staged the crime as a kidnapping/sexual assault for one reason- to hide abuse that had been ongoing.
    Nedra (Patsy's mother) made a chilling comment- she said that JB "was only a little bit molested". What the He** does THAT mean? LIke being a "little bit pregnant", either you are or you are not.
    When LE failed to find her, JR used the first opportunity he had to "find her" himself. The longer they waited the more horrible finding her would be. Cadaver dogs? No way for THIS family. This was also a big reason I feel they wanted their son OUT of the house ASAP. They didn't want him to see anything, and they didn't want him to SAY anything. There is simply no other reason why parents of a supposedly kidnapped child would let their OTHER child out of their sight.
    exactly...he went straight for it. any wealthy business person who knows to get a lawyer asap also knows better than to disturb the find, even back then. he did seem to be in a hurry to leave, like time was up lets get this show on the road.

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to runsdeep For This Useful Post:


  35. #1221
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    exactly...he went straight for it. any wealthy business person who knows to get a lawyer asap also knows better than to disturb the find, even back then. he did seem to be in a hurry to leave, like time was up lets get this show on the road.
    I think JR began to worry about JB in the basement. I have always felt that the Rs expected that the police would eventually leave, and they'd be allowed to remain in the house. After LE left, I think they figured they would bring her up from the basement, call police and say "They left her on the porch - DEAD- because we were warned not to call police and we did". But they realized that LE was never going to allow them to remain in the house, so as soon as Arndt inadvertently gave JR the opportunity, he went straight to the basement and "found" her. I believe when Arndt lost track of JR at some point that morning, he was likely in the basement moving the body a little closer to the door. The livor mortis pattern on the body meant that she was placed flat on her back, legs out straight, within 20 minutes of death. After livor became "fixed", she could have been moved and there would be no further evidence of it.
    The rigor mortis also determined that she was placed on her back, legs straight out, soon after death and that is how she remained. Some people have speculated that she may have been in the suitcase, or in the basement freezer, or hidden somewhere else. But rigor starts to form relatively soon after death, though it takes 12 hours to reach full rigor. Had she been bent, folded, or curled up in any way right after her death, the livor and rigor mortis pattern would have shown that.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  37. #1222
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I think JR began to worry about JB in the basement. I have always felt that the Rs expected that the police would eventually leave, and they'd be allowed to remain in the house. After LE left, I think they figured they would bring her up from the basement, call police and say "They left her on the porch - DEAD- because we were warned not to call police and we did". But they realized that LE was never going to allow them to remain in the house, so as soon as Arndt inadvertently gave JR the opportunity, he went straight to the basement and "found" her. I believe when Arndt lost track of JR at some point that morning, he was likely in the basement moving the body a little closer to the door. The livor mortis pattern on the body meant that she was placed flat on her back, legs out straight, within 20 minutes of death. After livor became "fixed", she could have been moved and there would be no further evidence of it.
    The rigor mortis also determined that she was placed on her back, legs straight out, soon after death and that is how she remained. Some people have speculated that she may have been in the suitcase, or in the basement freezer, or hidden somewhere else. But rigor starts to form relatively soon after death, though it takes 12 hours to reach full rigor. Had she been bent, folded, or curled up in any way right after her death, the livor and rigor mortis pattern would have shown that.
    that is entirely plausible. i always wondered about the arms straight overhead too.

    did either of them have a tendency to fly into a rage?

  38. #1223
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7,507
    I've heard so many excuses made up by some IDI's about the pineapple and the prior sexual abuse. For the pineapple, they say that it could really be the cooked crab that she ate at the Whites', or that she ate it prior to going to the Whites' house or right after they got home but no one noticed. And I've seen them disregard the prior sexual abuse because JonBenet was an outgoing child who would have told her Mom if someone was abusing her.

  39. #1224
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye View Post
    I've heard so many excuses made up by some IDI's about the pineapple and the prior sexual abuse. For the pineapple, they say that it could really be the cooked crab that she ate at the Whites', or that she ate it prior to going to the Whites' house or right after they got home but no one noticed. And I've seen them disregard the prior sexual abuse because JonBenet was an outgoing child who would have told her Mom if someone was abusing her.
    IDI can spin the pineapple all they want, it is what it is. She had pineapple just a couple of hours before she died - there's no disputing that.

    I'm not so sure they are wrong about JonBenet probably telling Patsy - but Patsy may not have believed her - not uncommon, as you already know, for mothers to go into denial mode when their children claim they are being abused (usually when the claim involves the parent's spouse or significant other).

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vlpate For This Useful Post:


  41. #1225
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye View Post
    I've heard so many excuses made up by some IDI's about the pineapple and the prior sexual abuse. For the pineapple, they say that it could really be the cooked crab that she ate at the Whites', or that she ate it prior to going to the Whites' house or right after they got home but no one noticed. And I've seen them disregard the prior sexual abuse because JonBenet was an outgoing child who would have told her Mom if someone was abusing her.
    The contents of JB's small intestine (into which the stomach empties) was found to be PINEAPPLE that matched the pineapple in the bowl on the table. It was tested and found to be identical, down to the rind. The TRUTH is out there on these matters- it is just that people do not do the research. It was NOT cracked crab. Whatever JB may have eaten that day had been digested and was probably represented by the "soft green fecal material" found at the autopsy farther down in the digestive tract. From a medical point of view, when food is eaten, it goes into the stomach first, then to the small intestine. The pineapple took about 2 hours to get to the small intestine from the time it was eaten.
    Food does NOT "leap frog" over other food in the digestive process, meaning that the pineapple was the LAST thing she ate, and it was not eaten at the White's. It came from THE BOWL on the dining area table. This means that the pineapple was NOT eaten earlier in the day before she went to the White's.
    All metabolic processes STOP at death. No further digestion takes place at that point. The body does not continue to digest food after death, and it does NOT continue to move through the digestive tract. That is a FACT, I don't care HOW IDI tries to spin it.
    She ate that pineapple from THAT bowl about 2 hours before she died, and the stage of rigor mortis indicates she had been dead about 12 hours when JR brought her up from the basement at 1 pm the afternoon of the 26th, placing her death at (approx) 12 midnight- 1 am. She ate the pineapple at approx 10 pm, which actually fits right in with the time the R admit to arriving home (they said around 9:30 pm) allowing for getting her ready for bed- a bedtime snack of pineapple around 10 pm (give or take 30 minutes or so) is just about right.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  42. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


Page 49 of 76 FirstFirst ... 394041424344454647484950515253545556575859 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •