Just because someone asks a question, poses alternative theories for the interpretation of data, or otherwise challenges what someone else has to say, this does not give someone else (many of the posters above included) the right to make a personal attack, e.g., "This is a dysfunctional mind trying to absolve the perp."
I was simply asking a question, that is the purpose of this forum, to discuss, examine the evidence, speculate, challenge ideas, and ultimately find justice for JonBenet in the process. There is no need to make derogatory statements toward or value judgements about someone you don't even know just because they asked a question or posed a point of view contrary to that which you believe.
And to be clear, little to none of the information presented above is fact, no matter how many web links, book citations, so called expert witnesses, etc. you include in your presentation of information as "back up." Quoting someone else does not make your opinion better than another, no matter how many people there are that may agree with you. Of course the physicians and expert witnesses cited above concluded that JonBenet was sexually abused, they were hired to do so in support of the prosecution. The opposing side could probably find just as many expert witnesses to interpret the data with an equally convincing, alternative theory.
Unless one of you guys were the perpetrator (I do not think any of you were, I am not pointing fingers, just making a point), witnessed the alleged abuse, or heard first hand from JonBenet or the perpetrator, then none of you know for certain that she was sexually abused. You are simply attaching a theory to a series of evidence, a partial list of evidence at that -- not all information has been released/leaked to the general public, and even then the crime scene was contaminated so that even the investigators do not have a complete picture of what happened.
All we have to work with in this case is the evidence we are allowed to view. No one here, no matter how long they have been a member on this or another forum, or how much they have read about this case, etc. has some sort of divine right or superior insight on this case. The evidence is neither true nor false, it simply is. We all make interpretations as to what the data means, and only these interpretative theories may later be regarded as true or false.
One final note, the insinuation that discussing a point with someone who does not necessarliy agree with you, or even someone that perhaps agrees but examines other points of view to find something that may have been previously overlooked, is like hitting your head against a brick wall (i.e., :banghead: ) seems to totally conflict the purpose of being part of a forum. Why get so upset to the point of beligerance (on this point, I am not just referring to the replies in this particular post, I have seen it occur in other posts) if someone doesn't agree with you? If you only wanted to be part of a "forum" where people agree with you and constantly pat you on the back for your like-minded opinions, then perhaps you should start up a forum called, e.g., "the only post here if you believe x theory forum." It seems to me that constantly putting forth the same theory, repeating what has already been theorized over and over, despite not solving the case or moving forward, is the behaviour more compatible with hitting one's head against a wall. If we keep trying to interpret the data and solve this case with the same old theories presented over and over in the past ten years, then we will never move forward/find justice for JonBenet: If the key doesn't fit, restart and make a new one. If people would put half the time and energy they have spent getting angry, making rude, belittling remarks, etc. toward opposing views on to the more important task of solving this case, regardless of whether or not the outcome is compatible with one's personal views and prejudices, perhaps this case would have already been solved. So, for the sake of moving forward on JonBenet's behalf, could we all put aside our egos long enough to make a scientific analysis and examination of the data, rather than slapping opposing view points down. It is going to take all of us together, each with our unique experiences and points of view, to solve this.
