Sexual behavior - Merged and Closed

[LionRun]

"Also the vaginal opening being twice that of normal and other things indicate prior and acute sexual abuse."

I read the autopsy report, and I don't recall that there was anything like this mentioned. Please elaborate. Where was this info reported? Thanks much.

I read the autopsy report on www.acandyrose.com. I didn't see anyplace where the above was mentioned. Is there some other place where it is mentioned that I overlooked?

I did go to the link provided where the sexual abuse investigator went to the Ramsey home. With the exception of soiled underwear in her drawer, I did not see anything definitive concerning sexual abuse. Is there another place where it is written that I overlooked?

I am trying to find as many authentic reports so as not to get confused with with what is opinion or speculation. When it comes down to it, even the authentic reports were written, evaluated or interpreted by humans for the most part.

I found the ransom note and the autopsy report and photos. Can anyone point me in the direction to find any other reports as close to first hand as possible? I believe it is the only way that I can maintain objectivity. Thank you nice websleuthers for your help.

 

[JMO8778]

In what WAY was he trying to tell the reader there was something more going on?? What makes you state that?? Can you give me a particular sentence or snippet from that part of the book that leads you to believe that?

Have you even read the book????The whole undertone of it implies sexual abuse.WHYY on earth would ST feel the need to even mention it if it wasn't important or applied in some way??He talked about a lot of things and if you read carefully,I believe he held back some evidence as well.
WHY would he even feel the need to insert that into the beginning of the book AT ALL if it wasn't relevant????Esp. since he pointed out she saw the school nurse TWO TIMES IN THE MONTH OF DEC.,AND BOTH ON A MONDAY.
Yes,the reader is left to figure that out for himself.But it seems important in some way,since he bothered to mention it *at all*.

We may not know WHY JonBenet saw the school nurse, but if anything, I think it's safe to say that the school nurse DID NOT suspect sexual or physical abuse in any way. Why do I say that? Because the school nurse is LEGALLY BOUND to report any SUSPECTED cases of child abuse---and if she had reported anything, this most likely would've been out in the open by now.

IF that's the case...then why haven't we heard anything about WHY JB saw the nurse?? It doesn't mean said nurse didn't have anything relevant to say that would add to the case.I suspect that is something being held back,since ST even bothered to mentioned it, but failed to say WHY she saw the nurse 2x on a Monday.MONDAY IS THE FIRST DAY AFTER THE WEEKEND.IT SEEMS HE IS IMPLYING SOMETHING HAPPENED OVER THE WEEKEND IN THE RAMSEY HOME THAT CAUSED JB TO VISIT THE NURSE.The nurse may not have suspected anything at first,but **BELLS** may have went off in his/her head after the murder,when more of the facts came out.[/QUOTE]

As far as Patsy calling the doctor 3x in one day---I have done that myself when I had a sick child and my first two calls weren't returned, I called again for a third time. Doesn't have to mean anything sinister.

If it wasn't,then why don't we know why she called??? WHY is that a total secret when other medical problems were talked about???

I guess what I am saying is that I find it highly doubtful that the school nurse and her personal doctor would be willing to put their professional careers, licensure, reputation and even freedom on the line to hide a suspected sexual abuse. Therefore, I can only think that it was never suspected to begin with.

How much do you know about the case??? Dr Beuf is GOOF.Among other things,he encouraged Pasty's whining after the murder,instead of empowering her to help.

 

[JMO8778]

As far as the doctor "hiding" her records...Did he really HIDE them? And, if so, WHO did he hide them from? Are you saying that the records were subpoenaed and he refused to abide by the subpoena and refused to give the records to LE or the DA????? Or, did he simply refuse to give out her medical records to those who were interested in the case, such as writers, journalists, tabloid folks, etc? If he didn't turn them over to regular folks like that who just wanted info for themselves, then he was in the right to keep her personal medical records a private matter. Because the only way I could concur that he intentionally HID them was if he refused to turn them over if he was subpoenaed, and I don't think I've read that he was. I could be wrong, though. Do you have a reliable link?

I'm not the linky type that keeps them handy.I read books and sites(this one as well) and such for a long time b/f actually posting.By then I had made up my own mind as to what I thought was fact or fiction,on most things.Some are still speculation of course.
Yes,I remember reading he had her records locked up,I don't recall where,someone else here know?It seemed to be a reliable source and I didn't have any reason to doubt it at the time.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Dr Beuf treated JonBenet for vaginitis multiple times. He told Diane Sawyer in an interview I have posted here before that he had given JonBenet five or six vaginal exams in three years time. That's an awful lot, if you ask me. My daughter has never required that much medical attention to her genital area.

I'll need to do a bit more looking, but I don't believe a subpoena was even issued for the medical records. When it came to obtaining records like that, BPD were stalwarted by the DA's office repeatedly. I'm pretty sure Dr Beuf kept JonBenet's medical records sealed in a security box, and the school nurse JonBenet saw has never publicly said what JonBenet's cause of the two Monday visits were, just like Patsy's three frantic calls on the same day. I have to agree - if there's nothing to hide, and those were run of the mill reasons for visiting the nurse and calling Beuf 3 times in a row, why hasn't the reason for both been revealed by now?

It's standard knowledge that JonBenet had some serious toileting issues. From Steve Thomas's book, hb, page 137 (he's talking about interviewing Nedra Paugh, Patsy's mother):

She revealed a bit more about JonBenet messing her pants and bed, a subject she had minimized in our previous interview. Now, however, she said that the child did not wipe properly after a bowel movement, and quite often an adult would have to wash her bottom and change her undies. They called it "dirtying." The grandmother also mentioned two occasions when the little girl had gone to play with her best friend, Daphne White, and had come with Fleet White carrying her soiled underwear, saying that JonBenet had had an accident and was wearing a pair of Daphne's panties.

<snip>

Nedra was also obviously aware of the current evidence. When she talked about "an old booger of a dog" that JonBenet liked to wrestle, she pointed out that the dog did not scratch the girl's vagina.


*Now that's just bizarre, if you ask me. There's something really wrong going on, with JonBenet wetting herself on a regular basis (not just at night) and having a poopy bottom that needs to be washed and Hershey stripes in all her undies. No child wants to wet herself while playing with her best friend, and it happened to JB more than once. I could see it if she was only 3 or 4, but she was 6. The average 6 year old girl simply DOES NOT have the amount of vaginal trouble and toileting issues that JonBenet had. Something had to have been going on.

Not only that, but when Patsy is told about evidence of sexual abuse (her hymeneal opening measured 1 cm, which is twice the normal size for a girl her age), Patsy's response was "How did you know that?" Now honestly, does that sound like the reply of a woman who had no idea at all that her daughter was being molested? And what about Nedra saying JB had only been "a little bit" molested? I forget what book that was in, or I'd give a page number and title.

LionRun, if you would like more info on this case than you can find here, I suggest you go where I go - to FFJ, Forums for Justice. The posters on the JB board there have to be the most knowledgeable collection of people on the JB case I have ever encountered.

Other than that, please read the three major books - Death of Innocence by John and Patsy Ramsey, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller, and JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I wish SuperDave was here with his list of experts who reviewed the autopsy and slides taken at the time of autopsy and concluded there was prior sexual abuse. A search of WS looking for SD's list turned up this (thanks, SD):

The doctors who said there was abuse over time were:

John McCann

David Jones

Virginia Rau

James Monteleone

Richard Krugman

Ronald Wright

Robert Kirschner

Cyril Wecht


Dr John McCann is the expert who said JonBenet's hymeneal opening was 1 cm. Here's the link, please read post #8 (this also a post of SD's but I don't want to copy it without asking his permission first - thanks again, SD):

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t8676.html

 

[julianne]

We had to sign a form that said our kids could tie their shoes unassisted. Did not have habitual toileting issues requiring adult supervision and assistance. Now granted my kids are 36 and 34 things may have changed but I doubt it. My grandchildren required the same in preschool.

Re read the link provided earlier to the interview by Julie Hayden to the sexual abuse office Holly Smith who commented on this matter of soiled underwear in the drawers. That way you get it from the source so you don't doubt the validity

I think each of the books make reference to JonBenet frequently and openly requesting any adult to wipe her. Fleet White often sent JonBenet home in his daughter Daphne's undies due to accidents. Have you read the Books Perfect Murder Perfect Town. or the others by Sinclair or Steve Thomas etc? Its referred to factually in most. I could give you a couple names to call as well if they'd talk to you. You may not be aware that I live rather local to the Boulder area. I have friends who knew the Ramseys ... I don't give names out as that is their right to privacy and I have no right to violate that privacy. This is basic common knowledge that JonBenet had toileting issues.

Well, things have certainly changed in 36 years, because a public school cannot withhold a child from attending school because they wet their pants or can't tie their shoes, and if they DID, I suspect there would be a huge lawsuit. School districts don't even ask those questions because it could be deemed discrimination---sure, that sounds ridiculous, but that is the way it is in our todays litigious society.

Yes, FW sent JonBenet home in his daughters underwear due to accidents. I don't see where it has ever been written that there many many pairs of soiled underwear hidden in her drawer.

Yes, you have stated before that your geographical location is close to the Boulder area. And you know people who knew the Ramseys. With all due respect, backyard gossip doesn't make a fact. If you are insinuating that you know more than the average sleuther who has compiled facts and information on this case & that you have previously unknown information that others do not have, I would love for you to post that. I do not disagree that JonBenet had toileting issues---it's how certain mundance parts of that seem to get a life of their own and before you know it, rumor turns into fact----not necessarily deliberately, as I have seen it done in this case in a completely innocent fashion.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Yes, FW sent JonBenet home in his daughters underwear due to accidents. I don't see where it has ever been written that there many many pairs of soiled underwear hidden in her drawer.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20House

Panties Feces-Stained? Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, visited JBR's bedroom on the third day of the investigation. "Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material."

 

[julianne]

Have you even read the book????The whole undertone of it implies sexual abuse.WHYY on earth would ST feel the need to even mention it if it wasn't important or applied in some way??He talked about a lot of things and if you read carefully,I believe he held back some evidence as well.
WHY would he even feel the need to insert that into the beginning of the book AT ALL if it wasn't relevant????Esp. since he pointed out she saw the school nurse TWO TIMES IN THE MONTH OF DEC.,AND BOTH ON A MONDAY.
Yes,the reader is left to figure that out for himself.But it seems important in some way,since he bothered to mention it *at all*.



IF that's the case...then why haven't we heard anything about WHY JB saw the nurse?? It doesn't mean said nurse didn't have anything relevant to say that would add to the case.I suspect that is something being held back,since ST even bothered to mentioned it, but failed to say WHY she saw the nurse 2x on a Monday.MONDAY IS THE FIRST DAY AFTER THE WEEKEND.IT SEEMS HE IS IMPLYING SOMETHING HAPPENED OVER THE WEEKEND IN THE RAMSEY HOME THAT CAUSED JB TO VISIT THE NURSE.The nurse may not have suspected anything at first,but **BELLS** may have went off in his/her head after the murder,when more of the facts came out.

If it wasn't,then why don't we know why she called??? WHY is that a total secret when other medical problems were talked about???


How much do you know about the case??? Dr Beuf is GOOF.Among other things,he encouraged Pasty's whining after the murder,instead of empowering her to help.[/QUOTE]

I know an extensive amount of information about the case, albeit not all there is to know. What I DO know is that "implying" something and "undertones" of something doesn't mean squat when you are looking for factual data. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. Steve Thomas wrote his book to make money, cold hard cash in his back pocket---I'm sure that if he had any additional "juicy" or salatious information, he would not have withheld it. He wanted to sell as many books as possible--he most certainly would have supplied information he knew.

Patients medical records are confidential by law. Do you not think it's possible that the school nurse or her doctor felt didn't feel it was necessary to lay out her medical records for all to see in the interest of satisfying the public's desire for that information?? They have a professional responsibility and legal duty to keep those records private---the fact that they did just that doesn't necessarily mean wrongdoing on their part.

 

[julianne]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20House

Panties Feces-Stained? Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, visited JBR's bedroom on the third day of the investigation. "Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material."

Thank you for link, NP. Is the wiki, as in wikipedia? Isn't that written by anyone who wants to write it, or edit it, or add or delete information? Just asking.

 

[julianne]

From the link on page one of this thread:


"The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma.

Experts disagree about the significance of that."

It could indicate previous injury OR infection, a sign of abuse, OR nothing at all."

That's the thing about this case.....if you are an RDI, you can find experts that support your theory, and if you are an IDI, you can find experts that support your theory also.

 

[JMO8778]

I know an extensive amount of information about the case, albeit not all there is to know. What I DO know is that "implying" something and "undertones" of something doesn't mean squat when you are looking for factual data. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

I beleive Steve Thomas is an upstanding,hardworking,morally high class man...the type you don't find around much often now.If I had a family member killed,he's most certainly the type of person I'd want on the case.He went above and beyond the call of duty,even though he was consistently thwarted by Ramsey team members and family.He wanted nothing more than justice for Jonbenet,and he worked hard to try and get it.
I beleive Trisha and others here would back me up on that.
I don't believe he would put something like that in the book if it wasn't relevant to the case somehow.

Steve Thomas wrote his book to make money, cold hard cash in his back pocket---I'm sure that if he had any additional "juicy" or salatious information, he would not have withheld it. He wanted to sell as many books as possible--he most certainly would have supplied information he knew.

See above.
Like Fleet White,I believe he is holding back some things in case justice ever has a chance to prevail for JonBenet.
Are there any links to prove he wrote the book just to make money? Any factual evidence?I think he was just sick and tired of all the lies and wrongdoings in the case,and wanted the truth to be known and out there.If he'd just written it to make money(which I think is just an excuse from ppl who know he's telling the truth and don't like him for it),I don't think the book would have been such a bombshell dropper that it was, and still is to this day.He didn't base it on fallicy.

Patients medical records are confidential by law.

Do you not think it's possible that the school nurse or her doctor felt didn't feel it was necessary to lay out her medical records for all to see in the interest of satisfying the public's desire for that information?? They have a professional responsibility and legal duty to keep those records private---the fact that they did just that doesn't necessarily mean wrongdoing on their part.

Obviously the law wasn't followed in this case.
As per reasons posted here,I beleive Dr Beuf had full reason to hold back,as it was in his best interest.HE was working for a wealthy family...the Ramsey's...not the law.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Thank you for link, NP. Is the wiki, as in wikipedia? Isn't that written by anyone who wants to write it, or edit it, or add or delete information? Just asking.

Yes, but you would have to understand the dynamic of Miss Marple's JBR wiki. This isn't just some claptrap that has info from just any random person thrown in without any accuracy checked.

You want more definitive evidence? Here's what I found:

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1475842&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

It was the third day of the investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team and has been called into the investigation, as she says, "to consult about some of the dynamics and some of the things people suspected might be going on with this case."

She started, as always, with a visit to the child’s bedroom.

"That's a really important piece of getting a real feel for a family," Smith explains.

With portfolio pictures galore and closets full of JonBenet’s elaborate pageant outfits, Smith says she had a hard time getting a fell for who the little girl really was, even in her bedroom.

She recalls, "I just had a sense the type of decor in her bedroom was not really a child's decor."

One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that.

It could indicate previous injury or infection, a sign of abuse, or nothing at all.

Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything. "There was a lot of territoriality around the case,” she says.

Smith says she also saw things in the Ramsey investigation that she's seen in other cases, like the factor that money played in it.

"No one is exempt but people with money are able to keep themselves more cushioned,” she says.

She says she also saw a reluctance to even consider the issue of child sex abuse.

Says Smith, "It’s just not a place where you know it's so abhorrent to people that they can't even do it, they can't even wrap their heads around it but it's more common than we think. The sexual violation of children has been around for a long time."

Smith believes all of them involved with the case lost their way.

She concludes, "In all the hyper-personalization around this case, everybody wanting a piece of it, everybody wanting to be the hero understandably and wanting to find out what happened to this little girl, our purpose really got lost. We lost sight of this child."

In her writing, Smith describes seeing a picture of a smiling JonBenet, taken Christmas morning and tells how distressing it was to realize the child would die what she called a hideous death that very day.

A lawyer for the Ramsey family did not return our phone calls. But the Ramseys have always denied that JonBenet suffered any kind of prior abuse and point out her pediatrician never saw anything indicating abuse, either.

 

[coloradokares]

Well, things have certainly changed in 36 years, because a public school cannot withhold a child from attending school because they wet their pants or can't tie their shoes, and if they DID, I suspect there would be a huge lawsuit. School districts don't even ask those questions because it could be deemed discrimination---sure, that sounds ridiculous, but that is the way it is in our todays litigious society.

Yes, FW sent JonBenet home in his daughters underwear due to accidents. I don't see where it has ever been written that there many many pairs of soiled underwear hidden in her drawer.

Yes, you have stated before that your geographical location is close to the Boulder area. And you know people who knew the Ramseys. With all due respect, backyard gossip doesn't make a fact. If you are insinuating that you know more than the average sleuther who has compiled facts and information on this case & that you have previously unknown information that others do not have, I would love for you to post that. I do not disagree that JonBenet had toileting issues---it's how certain mundance parts of that seem to get a life of their own and before you know it, rumor turns into fact----not necessarily deliberately, as I have seen it done in this case in a completely innocent fashion.

With all due respect Holly Smith said in the link I sent in .....most were soiled. Did you read it. If so did you choose to discount what Holly Smith said in interview?!?!

You requested me not to get defensive. I have not done so yet however step back and see if you are maybe not taking your own advice. With all due respect two things. I DO NOT repeat back yard gossip. I have far to much integrity for one thing and secondarily care for JonBenet to do that. I want her killer(s) brought to justice. I do not insinuate that I have unknown information that others do not have that is not yet out as public knowledge. I may have a very local perspective however and personal knowledge that others do not have on the information that is out there. Such as personal takes on Boulder, its people the investigators on and on. How things were dealt with politically and the local opinion etc. If you suggest that I am out here spreading gossip again I may get defensive and justifiably so. You asked for the link that would back up my statement I provided it. My question to you would be this are you suggesting that the Interviewer Julie Hayden which has covered this investigation as an investigative reporter since almost day one reported or allowed a news report to go out that was in anyway inaccurate misleading etc? She is considered to be one of the local experts on this case . Her credentials are very respectable as she is formerly an abc local affiliate investigative reporter who exclusively covered the JonBenet investigation. She is now with channel 31 fox. She has been consulted many times since the breaking of the John Mark Karr thing. Now continues in her capacity as an investigative reporter. Or is it rather that you are disputing Holly Smiths recounting what she found in her investigation?

 

[coloradokares]

Yes, but you would have to understand the dynamic of Miss Marple's JBR wiki. This isn't just some claptrap that has info from just any random person thrown in without any accuracy checked.

You want more definitive evidence? Here's what I found:

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1475842&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

It was the third day of the investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team and has been called into the investigation, as she says, "to consult about some of the dynamics and some of the things people suspected might be going on with this case."

She started, as always, with a visit to the child’s bedroom.

"That's a really important piece of getting a real feel for a family," Smith explains.

With portfolio pictures galore and closets full of JonBenet’s elaborate pageant outfits, Smith says she had a hard time getting a fell for who the little girl really was, even in her bedroom.

She recalls, "I just had a sense the type of decor in her bedroom was not really a child's decor."

One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that.

It could indicate previous injury or infection, a sign of abuse, or nothing at all.

Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything. "There was a lot of territoriality around the case,” she says.

Smith says she also saw things in the Ramsey investigation that she's seen in other cases, like the factor that money played in it.

"No one is exempt but people with money are able to keep themselves more cushioned,” she says.

She says she also saw a reluctance to even consider the issue of child sex abuse.

Says Smith, "It’s just not a place where you know it's so abhorrent to people that they can't even do it, they can't even wrap their heads around it but it's more common than we think. The sexual violation of children has been around for a long time."

Smith believes all of them involved with the case lost their way.

She concludes, "In all the hyper-personalization around this case, everybody wanting a piece of it, everybody wanting to be the hero understandably and wanting to find out what happened to this little girl, our purpose really got lost. We lost sight of this child."

In her writing, Smith describes seeing a picture of a smiling JonBenet, taken Christmas morning and tells how distressing it was to realize the child would die what she called a hideous death that very day.

A lawyer for the Ramsey family did not return our phone calls. But the Ramseys have always denied that JonBenet suffered any kind of prior abuse and point out her pediatrician never saw anything indicating abuse, either.

Thanks nusianceposter this is the Julie Hayden link that I also sent her on the interview with Holly Smith. So you can understand when she replied back with inuendo of my only spreading local gossip I nearly fell off my chair!!

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Yes, CK, I know you've already posted this information with the link, and I can totally understand why you'd be surprised that you'd be questioned further as to the validity of it. I'm a little surpirsed at the aggressive questioning of facts - I can understand wanting know the source of information, but that's where doing the homework yourself and knowing what you're talking about instead of demanding other people prove everything to you is a benefit to the entire board.

Julianne, hopefully now you can be convinced that Holly Smith, head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, really did see for herself that many pairs of JonBenet's underwear were soiled with feces to the point of being stained, and they were in her drawer, not stashed away in a hiding spot.

No one's making this up. JonBenet had some toileting issues that were beyond normal for a child six years old. Sexual abuse could very well have been the cause of it, especially considering other experts noted her hymeneal opening was twice the size it should have been and she made repeated trips to the pediatrician for treatment of vaginal problems.

 

[Toltec]

According to LHP, Burke and JonBenet were caught a couple of times playing doctor.

There are children who do wet the bed. According to John, his older children wet the bed...as did Burke.

Wetting the bed is one thing....but soiling???? That is an indication that something is not right with the child.

The only instance of soiling in children as old as JonBenet is illness, regression, or sexual abuse.

 

[julianne]

With all due respect Holly Smith said in the link I sent in .....most were soiled. Did you read it. If so did you choose to discount what Holly Smith said in interview?!?!

You requested me not to get defensive. I have not done so yet however step back and see if you are maybe not taking your own advice. With all due respect two things. I DO NOT repeat back yard gossip. I have far to much integrity for one thing and secondarily care for JonBenet to do that. I want her killer(s) brought to justice. I do not insinuate that I have unknown information that others do not have that is not yet out as public knowledge. I may have a very local perspective however and personal knowledge that others do not have on the information that is out there. Such as personal takes on Boulder, its people the investigators on and on. How things were dealt with politically and the local opinion etc. If you suggest that I am out here spreading gossip again I may get defensive and justifiably so. You asked for the link that would back up my statement I provided it. My question to you would be this are you suggesting that the Interviewer Julie Hayden which has covered this investigation as an investigative reporter since almost day one reported or allowed a news report to go out that was in anyway inaccurate misleading etc? She is considered to be one of the local experts on this case . Her credentials are very respectable as she is formerly an abc local affiliate investigative reporter who exclusively covered the JonBenet investigation. She is now with channel 31 fox. She has been consulted many times since the breaking of the John Mark Karr thing. Now continues in her capacity as an investigative reporter. Or is it rather that you are disputing Holly Smiths recounting what she found in her investigation?

First, the reason I mentioned "backyard gossip" was not because of a personal tort towards you, and I do apologize if you felt that way or if my post inferred that in any way. That is not what I meant. I made mention of backyard gossip because you have stated more than once that you live in the Boulder area, and with those statements I inferred from you that because of your geographical location that you were in some way privy to information that others are not privy to. By stating you know people who were friends of the Ramseys, it puts in my mind and others that because of this, you have some sort of an "in" with regard to facts relevant to the case. Surely you can see how I could interpret your statements as such.

I have read your link and in answer to your question, no, I do not dispute Holly Smiths recounting of her investigation. I have no reason to. That is what I mean by me thinking that it is essential to provide links to statements---you did so, and I thank you for that. I don't question the validity of the story or statement now. I simply had not heard that before, so please do not take it as a personal attack that I requested a link that supports it. It is not personal in any way, shape or form.

 

[julianne]

I'm a little surpirsed at the aggressive questioning of facts - I can understand wanting know the source of information, but that's where doing the homework yourself and knowing what you're talking about instead of demanding other people prove everything to you is a benefit to the entire board.

NP---I am not sure why you're labeling my desire for links as aggressive questioning of facts. What's aggressive in that?

I do not demand anything. I simply feel that if a statement is made that people have never heard (I am not the only one on this particular statement) that it IS to the benefit of the entire board to provide a link. That has always been standard operating procedure here and on many other forums. It's not to the benefit of the board to make statements w/o being able to provide the source for that information. CK provided me with a reputable link, which gave me the source for her statement and answered my question. Done deal. I am not of the mindset that I can demand whatever I want and people should comply---and I think that your inferrence to that is quite aggressive towards me. I do not understand why me asking another poster for links makes you feel the need to attack me, but it is what it is, I guess.

I have already stated that I don't know everything there is to know in this case, and I'm fairly certain that there are many intracacies deeply embedded in the core of the case that NOBODY here knows. Do not attack me because I asked for links to support a statement---it's what has been done for years and years in this case and will most likely continue to be done until it's solved....IF it's ever solved.

 

[coloradokares]

First, the reason I mentioned "backyard gossip" was not because of a personal tort towards you, and I do apologize if you felt that way or if my post inferred that in any way. That is not what I meant. I made mention of backyard gossip because you have stated more than once that you live in the Boulder area, and with those statements I inferred from you that because of your geographical location that you were in some way privy to information that others are not privy to. By stating you know people who were friends of the Ramseys, it puts in my mind and others that because of this, you have some sort of an "in" with regard to facts relevant to the case. Surely you can see how I could interpret your statements as such.

I have read your link and in answer to your question, no, I do not dispute Holly Smiths recounting of her investigation. I have no reason to. That is what I mean by me thinking that it is essential to provide links to statements---you did so, and I thank you for that. I don't question the validity of the story or statement now. I simply had not heard that before, so please do not take it as a personal attack that I requested a link that supports it. It is not personal in any way, shape or form.

Many times on this forum I have said no one really has insider information unless your one of the people on the inside. Suspect or law enforcement or in the DA's office. What you may have is a knowledge of Boulder how it works . How the clock was built. Boulder is like no other place on earth. That is why it is fondly referred to as that 23 sq miles surrounded by the rest of reality. Or the Peoples Republic of Boulder. That bastion of liberality. Also knowing just af ew people who knew them gives you a bit of personalization. No changing of the facts as the people who KNOW the facts are the ones who committed the crime. But you know again a bit of how maybe the clock was built. Make sense. Let me take you on a guided tour. Your friends for years lets say the Smiths knew the Joneses....The Jonses daughter was killed in a horrendous way. ......Follow now..... you might know little things not intimate details but you follow now. If your not really big city you know how your police operate. The DA is he prone to prosecuting or plea barganing. See.....follow. Lets just go on from here Julianne. You come on minorly boasting of extensive and broad knowledge of the case..... make references to this is how sluethers do it..... in what I construed as a suggestion that I might be new to this.....well that left me really confused when basic commonly known things are being said its first time you heard this. Left at least me a bit baffled ok. That looks like a questioning of credibility information and then when you say gossiping......well it looked like a pointed finger. I'll accept it was unitentional. I'll also always strive to give you the most solid info that I can. Onward Forward and all that.....lets go forward from here. Only thing I ask is you suggest that things I say make you and other posters feel as if.....I know inside things etc. Let the other posters speak for themselves. You can say with absolute knowledge that is how you felt, ok I accept that. I hope I have corrected that misunderstanding. Unless you have discussed Coloradokares and my postings with other posters I don't know that you could speak for how they perceive their viewpoint of my living near Boulder or how that might influence them to believe I must have insider info. I state now to one and all. I know alot about Boulder and a fair amount about the JonBenet murder. But no hidden unknown unpublished insider secrets that have never seen the light of day. Hope that clears any confussion on this. It is rules of this forum I believe to be respectful of all posters. I hope I have not come across as gossipy or cranky or unreasonable with anyone at anytime. I will always strive to do my best. To provide links or state things were my opinion or personal knowledge if that is what applies. Thanks CK

 

[Ames]

Remember that we also don't know why JB saw the school nurse 2x in the month of Dec.,and both times on a Monday(per ST in 'JonBenet').It seems he was trying to tell the reader there was something more going on.
We also don't know why PR called Dr Beuf 3x in one day,that Dec. as well(I think it was the 17th?).
As well as,why did he hide her records,if there wasn't anything damaging in them????
I think I recall that PR picked up JB up from school (early?) on one of the same days she saw the nurse,and that also occured on one of the same days that she had visited the hardware store,or called Dr Beuf (I need to look that up to be sure tho).
Just a few thoughts here.

I have also wondered about those three phone calls that Patsy made, in one day, to Dr. Beuf...just days before JB's death. Thats pretty weird...IMO