Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[madeleine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SwkXfkdyWc&feature=channel_page

This is always creeping me out.
Why would such a sadistic intruder want to tuck her in,John?You keep changing the blanket story,fgs!

Liar................imo

Just watch the video,he's ridiculous!~

 

[BBB167893]

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

Go for it.

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

OH, YEAH?? It's right there in the autopsy report:

"A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1x1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of tissue extending clockwise from between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and the distal right vaginal wall."

"Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen."

LinasK is much more of an authority on this subject than I am, Holdon. You OUGHT to ask her about it.

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

Talk is cheap, Holdon. You keep saying that, yet you offer no explanation. Until you can give a plausible explanation for a worn-away hymen and layers of tissue sloughed off the inside of the vagina, you have about as much chance of convincing me as I have of bench-pressing an aircraft carrier.

 

[BBB167893]

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

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

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

Now I know how you got your name!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Chronic inflammation doesn't equate to chronic prior sexual abuse. Thats your interpretation.

I'm sorry, but I found nothing that clearly indicated JBR had any 'old,' 'preexisting,' or injuries 'normally associated with abuse'.

Nothing whatsoever.

Not only that, but after 12 years, there has been nothing to 'corroborate' prior abuse.

Nothing whatsoever.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Chronic inflammation doesn't equate to chronic prior sexual abuse. Thats your interpretation.

I'm sorry, but I found nothing that clearly indicated JBR had any 'old,' 'preexisting,' or injuries 'normally associated with abuse'.

Nothing whatsoever.

Not only that, but after 12 years, there has been nothing to 'corroborate' prior abuse.

Nothing whatsoever.

I have never heard of a parent who murders their children, commit the acts the way this crime was carried out and I dont think the Ramseys did either.

imo

 

[BBB167893]

Chronic inflammation doesn't equate to chronic prior sexual abuse. Thats your interpretation.

Granted, Holdon. And if that was all there was, you and I would have nothing to talk about. Except it WASN'T. I didn't devote an entire chapter to this subject for nothing, you know.

I'm sorry, but I found nothing that clearly indicated JBR had any 'old,' 'preexisting,' or injuries 'normally associated with abuse'.
Nothing whatsoever.

In that case, here you be, free of charge:

"According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.
"There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse. The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration.

Not only that, but after 12 years, there has been nothing to 'corroborate' prior abuse.

Nothing whatsoever.

Well, isn't that convenient, since the one person who could corroborate it beyond doubt is DEAD, possibly for that very reason.

Let's get something out of the way, here. Are you honestly saying that because an attack is never reported, it didn't occur? That's not a rhetorical, either.

 

[BBB167893]

I have never heard of a parent who murders their children, commit the acts the way this crime was carried out and I dont think the Ramseys did either.

imo

Unfortunately, oceanblueeyes, I'm sure 50 years ago, no one had ever heard of a parent decapitating their child, either. That one doesn't hold much weight with me, for numerous reasons.

 

[Tadpole12]

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

Ya ..... sure. Kinda. Not exactly.

I was wondering about the two elements within this case, the autopsy results, and the ransom note: *why they can not be considered unrelated events. Why could the evidence of abuse not be related to inappropriate sexual contact between peers: totally unrealted to the sexual assault-kidnapping-murder.
and/or **why the 'known' intruder scenario would not still be considered viable within the touch dna IDI scenario.

more ..... like a question about mindset.

The exception is always there ... the exception within medical findings, degrees of certainty.

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

I had forgotten you supported? the SFFscenario. I did read the 'theory' sticky, a while ago.

SFF!
No, I'm not laughing. S'cool.

Gee there's my moment of clarity.

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

What is the local group?

 

[DeeDee249]

I have never heard of a parent who murders their children, commit the acts the way this crime was carried out and I dont think the Ramseys did either.

imo

Do you watch the news at all? Parents do these things, and worse. It is that kind of naive thinking that caused the Grand Jury to be derelict in their responsibilities, which were to follow the evidence to wherever it leads.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What is the local group?

Nobody is looking for, studying, or discussing who abused JBR prior to the night of the murder. Not DA's office, BPD, CBI, FBI, CASKU, her pediatrician, her coroner, nobody.

Its a case myth only fostered here on this forum, and its based only on third party armchair expert 'opinion' who never actually attended JBR.

Opinion isn't fact.

There are many opinions stated as fact. That the R's bought tape and cord at the local hardware store is referred to as fact. Its another opinion that is not corroborated. If I only had a nickel for each uncorroborated RDI 'fact'.

 

[Tadpole12]

Nobody is looking for, studying, or discussing who abused JBR prior to the night of the murder. Not DA's office, BPD, CBI, FBI, CASKU, her pediatrician, her coroner, nobody. -Hotyh

OK.

 

[nobull]

Nobody is looking for, studying, or discussing who abused JBR prior to the night of the murder. Not DA's office, BPD, CBI, FBI, CASKU, her pediatrician, her coroner, nobody.

Its a case myth only fostered here on this forum, and its based only on third party armchair expert 'opinion' who never actually attended JBR.

Opinion isn't fact.

There are many opinions stated as fact. That the R's bought tape and cord at the local hardware store is referred to as fact. Its another opinion that is not corroborated. If I only had a nickel for each uncorroborated RDI 'fact'.

This one of those "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound" debates, right? Because I can discuss philosophy. At the end of the day, though, we still have a dead little girl with suspicious forensics results and the fact that somebody got away with murder.

But, if I understand this correctly, since 1) no one on the case allegedly has ever questioned whether or not she was sexually abused, that means 2) we can disqualify the visual and histological findings during autopsy of sexual abuse which are clearly medically defined, which 3) then rules out sexual abuse?

My teenagers try to use this type of logic on me from time to time, it hasn't worked yet. Maybe they'd have more luck with the Boulder DA?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This one of those "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound" debates, right? Because I can discuss philosophy. At the end of the day, though, we still have a dead little girl with suspicious forensics results and the fact that somebody got away with murder.

But, if I understand this correctly, since 1) no one on the case allegedly has ever questioned whether or not she was sexually abused, that means 2) we can disqualify the visual and histological findings during autopsy of sexual abuse which are clearly medically defined, which 3) then rules out sexual abuse?

My teenagers try to use this type of logic on me from time to time, it hasn't worked yet. Maybe they'd have more luck with the Boulder DA?

I'm not sure you have an argument.

My point, really, was that LE hasn't been considering JBR as having been abused prior to the night of the murder. But don't let that stop you, speculate away. It is somewhat crass, though, to speculate on what JBR was, well, 'maybe' a victim of. We all KNOW she was a victim of a brutal murder, but we don't KNOW she was abused prior to that night.

There are no 'suspicious forensic results' as far as the deep furrow in JBR's neck, or the fractured skull, are there. Why not go with that one first (the most obvious problem), and after we figure that one out, we can decide if the 'suspicious forensic results' are even relevant.

Or, have we concluded through the use of sophisticated forensic techniques that the deep furrow and/or fractured skull were staged?

Didn't think so.

 

[nobull]

IMO the killing blow and the autopsy findings indicating chronic and acute sexual abuse/injury are not mutually exclusive. Each play their role in how we came to find this brutally murdered 6 year old lovingly "tucked in a blanket". Was there fatal head trauma? Absolutely. Is it inconsequential that there were indications found during autopsy of chronic and acute sexual trauma? Of course not.

In other words, in this instance we can apply the maxim:

"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." ~ Henry Louis Mencken.

It seems there is a lot of evidentiary elitism going on in this case. I don't think I can recall another case where there is fatal blunt force trauma, yet evidence of concurrent sexual abuse was completely ignored. We would call this malpractice today.

Who stands to gain by this approach?

 

[RiverRat]

IMO the killing blow and the autopsy findings indicating chronic and acute sexual abuse/injury are not mutually exclusive. Each play their role in how we came to find this brutally murdered 6 year old lovingly "tucked in a blanket". Was there fatal head trauma? Absolutely. Is it inconsequential that there were indications found during autopsy of chronic and acute sexual trauma? Of course not.

In other words, in this instance we can apply the maxim:

"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." ~ Henry Louis Mencken.

It seems there is a lot of evidentiary elitism going on in this case. I don't think I can recall another case where there is fatal blunt force trauma, yet evidence of concurrent sexual abuse was completely ignored. We would call this malpractice today.

Who stands to gain by this approach?

Only John and Patsy.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Only John and Patsy.

Par for the course. To reiterate:

We KNOW JBR had a deep furrow around her neck. We KNOW JBR had a skull fracture. We KNOW somebody risked handwriting the ransom note and practice notes. We KNOW JBR had injury consistent with a sexual assault. We KNOW there was unknown male DNA found in three (3) places on two (2) articles of clothing she was wearing at the time she was murdered. This is stuff WE KNOW.

We DON'T KNOW if she was abused prior to that night, what caused the skull fracture, where the cord and tape came from, who owns the DNA, who wrote the note, who murdered JBR, whether they lived in the house, or even if they lived in the U.S. We DON'T KNOW any of this stuff. This is all opinion.

Why not work with the definites instead of the maybes?

 

[BBB167893]

Nobody is looking for, studying, or discussing who abused JBR prior to the night of the murder. Not DA's office, BPD, CBI, FBI, CASKU, her pediatrician, her coroner, nobody. -Hotyh

OK.

Just remember, Tadpole: the case is in new hands now. Let's see what THEY make of it! IOWs, it ain't over 'til it's over.

 

[BBB167893]

Par for the course. To reiterate:

We KNOW JBR had a deep furrow around her neck. We KNOW JBR had a skull fracture. We KNOW somebody risked handwriting the ransom note and practice notes.

So far I follow you.

We KNOW JBR had injury consistent with a sexual assault.

I'd have to disagree there. (So would a certain sex crimes prosecutor I know)

We KNOW there was unknown male DNA found in three (3) places on two (2) articles of clothing she was wearing at the time she was murdered. This is stuff WE KNOW.

Fine.

We DON'T KNOW if she was abused prior to that night, what caused the skull fracture, where the cord and tape came from, who owns the DNA, who wrote the note, who murdered JBR, whether they lived in the house, or even if they lived in the U.S. We DON'T KNOW any of this stuff. This is all opinion.

No, but we can draw conclusions based on what's available.

Why not work with the definites instead of the maybes?

Even THAT's never good enough.

 

[BBB167893]

Who stands to gain by this approach?

Only John and Patsy. (DUH!)

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd have to disagree there. (So would a certain sex crimes prosecutor I know)

Its pretty evident that JBR's attacker caused injury. Injuries are described in the AR. The media has described blood mixed with DNA on her underwear. What do YOU call this?