Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[BBB167893]

This isn't QUITE how the story broke.

I have a pretty good memory for this stuff, if nothing else. I can tolerate a lot of things (and HAVE!), but don't tell me I don't know what I know.

The DNA mixed with blood was stand-alone DNA unwittingly held by BPD, discovered by FBI, and submitted to CODIS.

Like I said, that's the LW version of the story.

End of story.

Your rendition of it.

Just remember, you said that and not me!

Sorry, HOTYH. That was a poor attempt at humor. I take it back.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
2 intrusion on JonBenet?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
4 Prior to the night she was killed?
5 TOM HANEY: Correct.


Now this was the 1998 interview if not proven, why word it the way they did...

If what not proven?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sorry, HOTYH. That was a cheap shot. I take it back.

But I LIKE it!

I agree, you're absolutely right: its a two-page book that deals only in the knowns of this case.

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[Ravyn]

If what not proven?

Come on, you know what I mean,if no signs of any kind of prior abuse was found why,did they word it the way it was worded...And say correct when she asked prior to the night JonBenet died...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Come on, you know what I mean,if no signs of any kind of prior abuse was found why,did they word it the way it was worded...And say correct when she asked prior to the night JonBenet died...

Is there a sign JBR was assaulted that night? Yes. Is there a sign she was previously abused? No. Are there opinions she was previously abused? Yes. Do we know for a fact she was previously abused? No. Sorry.

Is there a sign that JR or PR previously abused JBR? No. Does RDI rant on it continually anyway? Yes. Go figure.

If there is no evidence JR or PR previously abused JBR, then there can be no corroborating evidence either.

 

[Ravyn]

Is there a sign JBR was assaulted that night? Yes. Is there a sign she was previously abused? No. Are there opinions she was previously abused? Yes. Do we know for a fact she was previously abused? No. Sorry.

Is there a sign that JR or PR previously abused JBR? No. Does RDI rant on it continually anyway? Yes. Go figure.

If there is no evidence JR or PR previously abused JBR, then there can be no corroborating evidence either.

Thanks for the time...This case at times gets confusing...We have experts saying yes and other experts saying no on this subject...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If you could give me an example, I'd be grateful.

How 'bout everything the BPD looked for in the R's house, but CAME UP EMPTY?

 

[BBB167893]

But I LIKE it!

You wouldn't if you fully understood the implications.

I agree, you're absolutely right: its a two-page book that deals only in the knowns of this case.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Your confidence is highly misplaced, HOTYH.

 

[BBB167893]

How 'bout everything the BPD looked for in the R's house, but CAME UP EMPTY?

I realize this is a stupid question even before I ask it, but could you be a TAD more specific?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You wouldn't if you fully understood the implications.

Implications: either there's only enough actual facts to fill two pages, or SuperDave is concerned about my literary skills.

Your confidence is highly misplaced, HOTYH.

And who are you to judge? Do you believe you're holding such a high hand as to be able to pass this judgement on others?

 

[BBB167893]

Implications: either there's only enough actual facts to fill two pages, or SuperDave is concerned about my literary skills.

And who are you to judge? Do you believe you're holding such a high hand as to be able to pass this judgement on others?

Actually, I was simply trying to warn you of the hardships involved in producing a written work.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Actually, I was simply trying to warn you of the hardships involved in producing a written work.

Maybe then it is better to say: There are hardships involved in producing a written work.

Just a suggestion.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm not asking you to feel like an idiot. Its not my fault if all of those RDI opinions haven't been corroborated.

For example, prior abuse may be an opinion shared by the rags for a while, but it was never corroborated or established as fact. You need to pile that up with some other #%$, claim the whole thing smells, and get one of your prosecutors who likes smelly things...

As for me, gee I think I'll write a book. But I'm going to ignore the mass of opinion, speculation, and hype. I'll start over and deal in the knowns.

It was an opinion also shared by the coroner who did the autopsy on her. And it was repeated by that coroner to others present at the autopsy, including LE. So that is where LE got the information they told to Patsy in the interview.

 

[DeeDee249]

And about the longjohns,I wonder if PR's touch DNA not being found on the longjohns be such a surpise since Burke did tell LE that JonBenet did walk into the house that night,and we have JR's carrying JonBenet up from the basement and now ML says DNA was found from a unknown male...And first accounts with what JR said is that he read to JonBenet before he went to bed and what was found in JAR's suitcase a Dr.Sesus book...

JR was seen carrying his dead daughter by holding her upright around the waist. His touch DNA should also have been on those longjohns, as well as Patsy's, who admitted putting them on JB.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It was an opinion also shared by the coroner who did the autopsy on her. And it was repeated by that coroner to others present at the autopsy, including LE. So that is where LE got the information they told to Patsy in the interview.

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:

I. Ligature strangulation

A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow of neck

B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck

C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and skin of face

II. Craniocerebral injuries

A. Scalp contusion

B. Linear, comminuted fracture of right side of skull

C. Linear pattern of contusions of right cerebral hemisphere

D. subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage

E. Small contusions, tips of temporal lobes

III. Abrasion of right cheek

IV. Abrasion/contusion, posterior right shoulder

V. Abrasions of left lower back and posterior left lower leg

VI. Abrasion and vancular congestion of vaginal mucosa

VII. Ligature of right wrist

Toxicologic Studies

blood ethanol - none detected

blood drug screen - no drugs detected

CLINOCOPATHOLIGICAL CORRELATION:

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

John E. Meyer M.D.

Pathologist

jn/12/27/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Dr. Meyer made no such statement in his autopsy report. Are we discussing the same case?

There is no known, accepted idea that JBR was previously abused. Not in LE or in the media. Not only that, but if there were such abuse, there is no evidence to link either JR or PR to it. NOT EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE. And, yet, RDI proceeds as if it were a given.

Its closer to a hallucination, really. A fiction that RDI relies on to what, fill more pages?

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe then it is better to say: There are hardships involved in producing a written work.

Just a suggestion.

Noted, but I was attempting to demonstrate the pitfalls.

 

[cynic]

There is no known, accepted idea that JBR was previously abused. Not in LE or in the media.

Media:
Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

LE:
"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253

 

[DeeDee249]

Holdon, you know very well that Mayer TOLD Det. Arndt and others present at the autopsy that he thought JB showed evidence of vaginal penetration, probably digital. Why he did not write it in the report is up to speculation, with many RDI (myself included) thinking that he withheld it because he was "persuaded" to do so.
We've mentioned his opinion on the vaginal trauma many, many times. And all the other forensic specialists who reviewed the autopsy felt the same.
Let's stop pretending that because it wasn't written down that it wasn't present.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, you know very well that Mayer TOLD Det. Arndt and others present at the autopsy that he thought JB showed evidence of vaginal penetration, probably digital. Why he did not write it in the report is up to speculation, with many RDI (myself included) thinking that he withheld it because he was "persuaded" to do so.
We've mentioned his opinion on the vaginal trauma many, many times. And all the other forensic specialists who reviewed the autopsy felt the same.
Let's stop pretending that because it wasn't written down that it wasn't present.

Showed evidence of penetration from that night or prior to that night?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Media:
Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

LE:
"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253

Neither LE nor the media are proceeding as if prior abuse is a given. Prior abuse is not presented by LE, the media, or the DA as an established fact or foregone conclusion. Why do you suppose that is, I mean considering the 'expert panel' and all?

Since there is no direct evidence linking PR or JR to prior abuse, and since the whole idea of prior abuse isn't really an accepted part of this case anyway, the idea that either parent previously abused JBR becomes nothing more than a baseless claim.