First advize then advise

[BBB167893]

What a post! *Applause*

The thing is, what HOTYH appears to be ignoring is that, while the autopsy doesn't tell us who was abusing JBR, it does tell her that she had been abused. Had she turned up in an ER with the older injuries, her case would have been referred to children's services or whatever and her family would have been investigated. Had they been eliminated, then people with close, unsupervised, contact with JBR would have been investigated - people with whom JR and PR simply had to have contact. This is yet another reason for which the Ramseys should have spoken to police from day one - they could have told police who had contact with JBR etc and removed suspicion from themselves. Oddly, though, they have always been reluctant to accept or discuss the prior abuse. Given that they seemed to favour a 'friendly' intruder theory in the early days, you'd have thought they would have been more interested or at least kept an open mind.

A couple of other things, we know Patsy had told JBR all about inappropriate touching yet she didn't appear to worry about people having the most intimate contact with JBR when wiping her. This is slightly odd. The list she gives of people who shouldn't touch JBR's swimsuit area is also odd, in that it only specifically mentions family males (and Dr Beuf unless mommy is there).

Finally, as we discussed on another thread, we are finally learning about the involvement of women in child sexual abuse. It runs to at least 25% of all cases and usually involves a family member or close family friend. People are unwilling to accept it and children tend still to be disbelieved when they report abuse by women and, the women, being the primary caregivers in most cases, are often able to pass off inappropriate touching etc by talking about washing the child etc. The women may not actually regard what they do as sexual abuse, thinking it is OK to digitally penetrate a child for cleansing purposes.

None of this can ever be proven to relate to the Ramsey case but even IDI have to admit that looking at this angle might have proved useful in identifying who killed JBR. Instead they assume that it would necessarily implicate JR.

ETA: Also, Wendy Murphy accused John of sexually abusing JBR and no action has been taken against her. If IDI can query why FW never sued Nancy Krebs, then I think we are entitled to ask why JR didn't sue Wendy Murphy.

And, for the record, I'm not personally wedded to the notion that JR was harming JB but that possibility and the possibility of others close to her harming her should have been investigated with the help of the Ramseys.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[BBB167893]

IOW there was a time for your remarks and that time has past.

Don't be too sure.

The media doesn't run RDI anymore, including the tabs.

So? I STRONGLY urge everyone to take a look at my signature:

"This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move."

 

[BBB167893]

Actually the coroner was Mayer. Not a "monday morning coroner". He was the coroner that performed the autopsy. It is also quite common for other forensic specialists to review forensic evidence in a high-profile case. This doesn't make them amateurs. They were all respected professionals.

:clap:

JB's own physician admitted he NEVER did a vaginal exam on her.

Not only that, but he hadn't seen in in months.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm not sure but I think this isn't in the context of our discussion. The suggestion was that if JBR was taken to ER, her older injuries would've alerted social services.

I replied that claims to the effect of 'older injuries due to past sexual abuse' were not documented by JBR's physician OR the coroner. That was the time for the claim to be raised, and those were the people to raise it. After-the-fact claims by RDI enthusiasts or third-party tabloid doctors are worthless.

Unfortunately, some of these older injuries could only have been seen during a vaginal exam with a speculum and light. JB's pediatrician admitted he never gave her a vaginal exam. This is not surprising, though. No pediatrician would use a speculum on a child that age unless he already suspected or knew there had been a sexual assault, and then the child would need to be sedated. JB's doctor either did not suspect sexual abuse or if he did, did not wish to report it. He was in awe of the Rs power and money, and was a member of the same country club.
And sadly, some of these injuries might only have been seen at an autopsy.
It can't be said that JB wasn't sexually abused because her doctor would have known if she was. This simply isn't so.

 

[Ravyn]

Who says a paintbrush was used? Not the coroner. Not LE.
Who believes a paintbrush was used? Only RDI.
The foreign material could be secondary transfer.

That a paintbrush was 'used to coverup something' is RDI hype, not a known fact. Its just speculation that is another part of RDI sensationalism that has surrounded the case since it began.

Then tell me where they came up with a wood shard being found...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Then tell me where they came up with a wood shard being found...

No... you tell me.

I'm not making any 'wood shard' claim.

 

[Ravyn]

No... you tell me.

I'm not making any 'wood shard' claim.

Only thing I will tell you is goggle it....Also don't forget the media reports that stated this...

 

[KARLY]

Just to keep on that last one, it helps to keep in mind the difference between a pedophile and a situational molester.

What is a situational molester? If you're not a molester there is no situation that would make you one:waitasec:

 

[Ravyn]

Vaginal injuries: Something -- possibly one end of the broken paintbrush -- was forced into JonBenet's vagina because her hymen was partly torn. It was bleeding, so it happened before death. Smit said it was the only tear in her vagina, so he doesn't think somebody was sexually assaulting her over a long period of time. Plant materials similar to the paint brush's wood shards are found in her vagina.


From Rocky Mountains News showing Lou Smit arguments...Now paintbrush and wood shards...From Lou Smit....But since I goggle alot I will find more for you....

 

[Ravyn]

Wooden Shards Found in Vagina. "Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF P 48-49; PMSF P 48-49.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).


This as Judge Carnes bringing up wood shards and paintbrush...

 

[Ravyn]

"A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material."

This is in the autopsy report and Hoyth, you said secondary transfer but actually this could mean also plant material and a wooden paintbrush was used...So then again maybe the coroner did mention it...

 

[DeeDee249]

What is a situational molester? If you're not a molester there is no situation that would make you one:waitasec:

A "situational molester" is someone who will sexually abuse a child they have easy access to. A parent, sibling, babysitter, relative or other caregiver are examples of who could be considered a situational molester. For these molesters, the motivation is sexual satisfaction, and the opportunity is right there. They do not seek out children from the community at large, nor are they always limited by physical attraction to children specifically. Violence, particularly murder, is not usually part of it. The children they abuse are usually abused in a familiar environment, such as home, school, daycare, relatives' homes. The molestation occurs because they are THERE. Alcohol and drug use often play a part as far as the molester is concerned, and abuse will occur at those times that would not at other times.
They usually also have adult sexual relationships, so are not true pedophiles in the sense that they are not limited to sexual attraction to children.
Close proximity to children will not make someone a pedophile or a situational molester. The tendency must be there. A pedophile is not always a situational molester- they will create their own opportunities and seek out children. A situational molester is not always a pedophile. They do not seek out strangers to molest.

Though it is true that a pedophile may sometimes seek out jobs or positions that put them in contact with children, a pedophile will not be limited to children they have easy access to, but will seek out other children, and usually prefers strangers. Abduction, violence and murder are sometimes a part of it. Rarely is the abuse done in a child's familiar places, most often occurring wherever the pedophile takes the child to, and nearly always places unfamiliar to the child, such as a car, woods, the pedophile's home. A true pedophile is always limited to children as far as sexual attraction and many pedophiles have "ages of attraction', such as infants (sick but true none the less), toddlers, etc. They usually do not seek out children that are outside their age of attraction. A situational molester usually has age- appropriate sexual attraction.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, no, and no.

A pedophile is simply someone who can be aroused by someone who has not fully reached puberty. Anyone who can be aroused by a child is a pedophile.

A 'situational molester' of a child is therefore a pedophile if arousal is involved.

JBR did not necessarily have to be victimized by a pedophile or a situational molester. Could be someone who was exploiting.

 

[BBB167893]

A "situational molester" is someone who will sexually abuse a child they have easy access to. A parent, sibling, babysitter, relative or other caregiver are examples of who could be considered a situational molester. For these molesters, the motivation is sexual satisfaction, and the opportunity is right there. They do not seek out children from the community at large, nor are they always limited by physical attraction to children specifically. Violence, particularly murder, is not usually part of it. The children they abuse are usually abused in a familiar environment, such as home, school, daycare, relatives' homes. The molestation occurs because they are THERE. Alcohol and drug use often play a part as far as the molester is concerned, and abuse will occur at those times that would not at other times.
They usually also have adult sexual relationships, so are not true pedophiles in the sense that they are not limited to sexual attraction to children.
Close proximity to children will not make someone a pedophile or a situational molester. The tendency must be there. A pedophile is not always a situational molester- they will create their own opportunities and seek out children. A situational molester is not always a pedophile. They do not seek out strangers to molest.

Though it is true that a pedophile may sometimes seek out jobs or positions that put them in contact with children, a pedophile will not be limited to children they have easy access to, but will seek out other children, and usually prefers strangers. Abduction, violence and murder are sometimes a part of it. Rarely is the abuse done in a child's familiar places, most often occurring wherever the pedophile takes the child to, and nearly always places unfamiliar to the child, such as a car, woods, the pedophile's home. A true pedophile is always limited to children as far as sexual attraction and many pedophiles have "ages of attraction', such as infants (sick but true none the less), toddlers, etc. They usually do not seek out children that are outside their age of attraction. A situational molester usually has age- appropriate sexual attraction.

Beautifully explained, DeeDee. That's it precisely.

JBR did not necessarily have to be victimized by a pedophile or a situational molester. Could be someone who was exploiting.

You've got my interest, HOTYH. Continue.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You've got my interest, HOTYH. Continue.

I've said it before. Sometimes the person with access to a child isn't a pedophile themselves, but exploits the child for the benefit of someone else. Parents who pimp their kids are one example.

This is not impossible with JBR although not with her parents. You know that the sexual assault was atypical. What you don't know is the type of DNA that was found in JBR's underwear.

CBI stated there was nothing to indicate semen but the UV light said otherwise, right?

If there was no evidence of any gratification on the part of the perp, and yet there was an atypical sexual assault with redressing, wiping down, etc., then that could suggest an exploitation involving photos or videos. This would then likely be for the benefit of others and not the perps themselves.

 

[DeeDee249]

I've said it before. Sometimes the person with access to a child isn't a pedophile themselves, but exploits the child for the benefit of someone else. Parents who pimp their kids are one example.

This is not impossible with JBR although not with her parents. You know that the sexual assault was atypical. What you don't know is the type of DNA that was found in JBR's underwear.

CBI stated there was nothing to indicate semen but the UV light said otherwise, right?

If there was no evidence of any gratification on the part of the perp, and yet there was an atypical sexual assault with redressing, wiping down, etc., then that could suggest an exploitation involving photos or videos. This would then likely be for the benefit of others and not the perps themselves.

I agree. There was no semen found on JB or on anything in the wineceller, but there was semen sourced to JAR found on the blanket that was in the suitcase (along with a children's book). One of the misconceptions in the case concerning the suitcase was that is was found under the window. It was not originally found there, but moved there by FW when he searched the basement alone- hours before he went with JR when JB was "found".

However, although your statement about anyone who has thoughts of sex with a child is correct- a situational molester may not be someone who has thoughts about sex with children. They have thoughts of having sex- and the child is there. I concede that after that occurs they can be considered a pedophile of sorts, a true pedophile is limited to sexual thoughts of children exclusively.

 

[BBB167893]

You know that the sexual assault was atypical. What you don't know is the type of DNA that was found in JBR's underwear.

Back at you.

CBI stated there was nothing to indicate semen but the UV light said otherwise, right?

If the UV light said there was, I sure don't know anything about it! I thought that was cleared up a long time ago.

If there was no evidence of any gratification on the part of the perp, and yet there was an atypical sexual assault with redressing, wiping down, etc., then that could suggest an exploitation involving photos or videos. This would then likely be for the benefit of others and not the perps themselves.

You had me for a minute there.

 

[DeeDee249]

The UV light showed blood and creatine. NO semen.