This is amusing. I've been through this process. Yes, she was abused when she was murdered, but is it consistent with the abuse prior to her murder? Can you connect the prior abuse to the murder? Are they one in the same? Prove that to me as an absolute, and you've won your argument. Then this case is a simple child abuse murder. If so, you need to put sharp objects that would puncture, bleed and scar a little girl. Then you have a direct cause of JBR's Monday morning visits to the nurse as a direct cause. Put puncture scars into the picture and I'll withdraw. But without evidence, UKGuy, you're simply someone who attacks someone's outside theories as nonsense because you have the right library and the perfect experts--and everyone knows they can never be wrong.
No one has solved this murder in more than 20 years (neither have you). I challenge you to put the pieces on the board that night. Look at the timeline as reported by the Ramseys. Dismiss anything put into place by Lou Smit. Look into the details of the people the days before the murder occurred. JonBenet wasn't meant to be murdered. There was pressure building before this ever happened. Put the pieces on the board and dismiss the broken window in the train room. I don't believe that Linda Arndt was wrong. Yes, she was new at investigations. Yes, she was hired to handle sexual assault cases in a college town that needed that type of investigator for female sexual assault victims. But let's give her the far-fetched benefit of the doubt. Maybe when she was staring John in the face, it was either based on intuition, experience or a combination of both. (That sends chills up my back and it should do that to you too.)
When have you come forward here you declare everyone as wrong? I've read it all. I've looked over the timeline. I've come back here to see if there is anything new. I want something to declare that what I've discovered is wrong...and there isn't. It's between the parents.
Yes, it's John because they were protecting Burke. Yes, John was protecting Burke because the child he loved the most, Elizabeth (Beth), had died mysteriously [by his multimillionaire's hand had died on a public highway.] But John loved Burke and would protect him as a murderer. Okay fine, but before this had happened what had happened to make Burke the murderer? He hit his sister with a golf club? [Let's lock up every kid who has hurt their sibling now because there's evidence they're monsters.] Was he killing cats or rabbits? No, he was wanting to get away from his clingy sister when he was with his friends. He was also too terribly shy. That makes him a murderer.
Get back to what happened that night. Look it over from what John and Patsy said. Put the pieces on the board and play it through.
UKGuy, please stop discrediting everyone else and start looking at what you've said to discredit them.
I don't give anything you say any credibility because you take glee to discredit other people's points when you already understand all the counterpoints to discredit your own arguments.
BoldBear,
This is amusing. I've been through this process. Yes, she was abused when she was murdered, but is it consistent with the abuse prior to her murder?
Yes, it is consistent as they are both unwarranted
sexual assaults
Can you connect the prior abuse to the murder?
There might be no connection beyond the recurrence of ongoing sexual assault, i.e. periodic. JonBenet's Pediatrician, Dr. Francesco Beuf stated that he never witnessed signs of vaginal abuse being present during her visits. Dr. Beuf's medical records revealed that Patsy Ramsey had called his offices three times on the evening of December 17th. The reason for those calls was never determined. Dr. Beuf's alleged observations are at variance with those of Coroner Meyer and Dr. Sirontak, a pediatrician with Denver Children’s Hospital, both who examined JonBenet postmortem and observed signs of
chronic abuse.
Ventus Publishing Foreign Faction Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet by James Kolar, Excerpt
Dr. Meyer conducted an external examination of JonBenét’s genitalia. He had observed spots of blood in the crotch of the underwear she had been wearing when her clothing had been removed, and this alerted him to the possibility that there was a cause for this evidence to be present.
He observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00 o’clock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr. Meyer that a foreign object had been inserted into JonBenét’s genitalia at or near the time of her death.
The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of ‘cellulose material’ in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote.
...
Dr. Meyer also observed signs of chronic inflammation around the vaginal orifice and believed that these injuries had been inflicted in the days or weeks before the acute injury that was responsible for causing the bleeding at the time of her death. This irritation appeared consistent with prior sexual contact.
The consensus on the above evidence suggested that someone close to JonBenét had been responsible for
abusing her in the weeks or months preceding her murder.
I don't believe that Linda Arndt was wrong. Yes, she was new at investigations. Yes, she was hired to handle sexual assault cases in a college town that needed that type of investigator for female sexual assault victims. But let's give her the far-fetched benefit of the doubt. Maybe when she was staring John in the face, it was either based on intuition, experience or a combination of both. (That sends chills up my back and it should do that to you too.)
I reckon Linda Arndt detected something on JR's face that indicated his involvement in JonBenet's homicide. Then again Smit says he looked into JR and PR's eyes and saw innocence gazing back at him.
Ventus Publishing Foreign Faction Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet by James Kolar, Excerpt
Smit took a seat in my office and we spoke briefly about the progress of the investigation. He told me that he had recently returned from Atlanta, where he had spent time visiting the Ramsey family. Patsy had been in the hospital, battling a return of cancer, and he described her as being on her “deathbed”.
I expressed my sympathy for Patsy and the family. They had been through hell.
Smit told me that he had spent some time with Patsy in the hospital, holding her hand and looking into her eyes. He told me that this experience led to him believe that she was “innocent.”
He advised me that he had also looked into the eyes of John Ramsey and didn’t feel that he had been involved in his daughter’s death either.
Patently both Linda Arndt and Lou Smit cannot be correct?
Yes, it's John because they were protecting Burke. Yes, John was protecting Burke because the child he loved the most, Elizabeth (Beth), had died mysteriously [by his multimillionaire's hand had died on a public highway.] But John loved Burke and would protect him as a murderer. Okay fine, but before this had happened what had happened to make Burke the murderer? He hit his sister with a golf club? [Let's lock up every kid who has hurt their sibling now because there's evidence they're monsters.] Was he killing cats or rabbits? No, he was wanting to get away from his clingy sister when he was with his friends. He was also too terribly shy. That makes him a murderer.
No it does
not make Burke Ramsey a murderer. Speaking with Detective Arndt as Burke was being interviewed by Dr. Bernhard, Patsy stated that she would have
nothing left to live for if she lost Burke. A motive for PR to protect Burke too?
If you read or view by youtube Dr. Bernhard interviewing Burke you can witness the following account:
Ventus Publishing Foreign Faction Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet by James Kolar, Excerpt
When asked again what he thought had happened, Burke advised without hesitation that he knew what had happened to JonBenét and that she had been killed. He stated that he thought someone had quietly carried her downstairs to the basement and that person had then either stabbed JonBenét or struck a blow to her head with a hammer.
A chill ran down the back of my neck as I watched Burke twice physically imitate the act of striking a blow with his right arm during his casual discussion of this matter.
I stopped and replayed that section of the video several times.
It seemed absolutely incredible, but Burke was replicating exactly the type of an over-the-arm blow that would have been responsible for the head injury sustained by JonBenét.
...
As I reviewed the video time and again, I found it noteworthy that Burke never once mentioned the fact that he knew that JonBenét had been strangled during this conversation with Dr. Bernhard.
Suggesting Burke knows about the head injury but not the ligture asphyxiation? There is forensic evidence to suggest Patsy ligature asphyxiated JonBenet so explaining Burke's omission.
If you compare and contrast John Ramsey's initial postmortem statements these contradict some of his later accounts, e.g. the suitcase, broken window, the chair, partially opened gifts etc. He continually backtracks and introduces novel explanations for some forensic evidence.
I reckon the explanation for this is that all three Ramsey's were operating with
incomplete information, i.e. they were not all involved JonBenet's death from start to finish, so were compelled to offer ad hoc versions of events?
So it might be the case is definitely JDI, consistent with JR fronting up JonBenet documentaries at his advanced age, his continual postmortem updating of events and revision of evidence could be construed as a sign of guilt, or is this behavior just a consequence of JR also operating with
incomplete information, flowing from a desire to protect Burke?
.
