Ned's Final Theory-Lou Smit are you still reading here?

4sure

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
184
Reaction score
4
SuperDave said:
You asked for it, buster: the autopsy measures the hymen as 1x1 cm, twice the normal size.!
I can read. See you don't get the original point at all. "twice the normal size" is your addition to the autopsy. Dr Myer did not indicate in any way or make any comment concerning this being abnormal or that JBR was sexually abused in anyway.
Live with it friend.

SuperDave said:
You should have told HER that! It's legit. She did say it.!
You know and I know this interview never took place.
Stop it!

SuperDave said:
Now you've done it:!
You can list all the "experts" you like it still won't change the fact that the only doctor to examine the flesh of JBR issued an autopsy that does not mention any conclusion of sexual abuse or even sexual contact. Unless someones going to rewrite that now too.

Is this from ST's book. I can't remember. Could you soruce this for me?
 

Chrishope

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
26
4sure said:
...

You can list all the "experts" you like it still won't change the fact that the only doctor to examine the flesh of JBR issued an autopsy that does not mention any conclusion of sexual abuse or even sexual contact. Unless someones going to rewrite that now too.
...

You can deny it all you want but that still won't change Linda Arendt's affidavit.
 

icedtea4me

Former Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
539
4sure said:
You know and I know this interview never took place.
Stop it!
From the NE book JonBenet: The Police Files pp. 395-96 -
In March 2001, the Ramseys, still pursuing avenues to proclaim their innocence, sat down with the editors of this book in the Atlanta office of Lin Wood for an interview that was published in the National Enquirer.

4sure, if this interview never occurred, then surely Lin Wood and/or the Ramseys would have spoken out about it. Why don't you locate proof of this?


-Tea
 

philamena

Former Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
7,765
Reaction score
34
SuperDave said:
You asked for it, buster: the autopsy measures the hymen as 1x1 cm, twice the normal size.



You should have told HER that! It's legit. She did say it.

Now you've done it:

I'm just gettin' warmed up!
GO Super D! ;) :clap:
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,440
4sure said:
I can read. See you don't get the original point at all. "twice the normal size" is your addition to the autopsy. Dr Myer did not indicate in any way or make any comment concerning this being abnormal or that JBR was sexually abused in anyway.
Live with it friend.

You know and I know this interview never took place.
Stop it!

You can list all the "experts" you like it still won't change the fact that the only doctor to examine the flesh of JBR issued an autopsy that does not mention any conclusion of sexual abuse or even sexual contact. Unless someones going to rewrite that now too.

Is this from ST's book. I can't remember. Could you soruce this for me?

4sure,

For some reason you remind me of a fundamentalist, although furnished with geological evidence and carbon dating you still consider Bishop Usher's age for the earth to be correct, and that the apocalypse has been predicted.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

4sure,
There are unseen details and conclusions, possibly including those redacted, in Coroner Meyer's written autopsy. In a court of law he would be called upon to expand upon his conclusions, so that the defence could contest any of his findings.

But since Detective Arndt attended the autopsy she can offer us an insight into its verbal aspect which is part of the official autopsy, and both Detective Arndt and Coroner Meyer could be expected to testify under oath upon the veracity of the above alleged statements. Their truthfulness has not been contested.

Therefore two facts for you to digest are:
1.
Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.
e.g. a human finger.

2.
Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.
e.g. sexual abuse.

So we have 1. digital penetration accompanied with a professional assessment 2. that JonBenet had been subjected to sexual contact. Added to which the written autopsy findings measures the hymen as 1x1 cm.

4sure You should consider the latter paragraph as an opportunity to demonstrate your intellectual capacity to reason in a manner that befits a member of a sleuthing club.


.
 

Nedthan Johns

New Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
10
Website
www.
UK: So JonBenet's size-6 underwear is missing replaced by the size-12's, now this cannot be because they were soiled or urine-soaked since the size-12's and longjohns left on her were also urine-soaked!

If you consider the missing size-6 underwear as forensic evidence removed from the original crime-scene e.g. not the wine-cellar, then they must have played a part in her death. So either they will have contained blood stains, pubic hairs and/or semen else why remove them?

So rather than an Intruder or Toilet Rage Theory I reckon people should consider a Sexual Rage Theory as the cause of JonBenet's death, it may ultimately not be correct, but it would be more consistent with the current forensic evidence than either of the Intruder or Toilet Rage Theories!


ABSOULTELY BRILLIANT POST. WELL DONE.
 

Nedthan Johns

New Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
10
Website
www.
Solace: So there may have been a prior staging elsewhere in the house, which minimally involved the removal of incriminating forensic evidence, and possibly included JonBenet being wiped down, and redressed in her size-12 underwear?

Otherwise we have John and Patsy at the wine-cellar separately staging elements of her crime-scene. There is the possibility that John and Patsy were both involved at the wine-cellar with Patsy breaking the paintbrush and John applying it, along with a digital sexual assault, else it appears the work of Patsy?

So why would JonBenet need wiped down, why is this important, is this a fetish intruders exhibit during sex crimes? It cannot be because she wet the bed since there was subsequent post-mortem urine release onto her longjohns that was simply ignored, and soiled clothing was left on the bathroom floor. If it was to remove any resulting blood, how then would investigators distinguish between a domestic sexual assault and an intruder led one? Was Patsy fitting John up, did John suspect this so engage separate legal representation for them each?

Although John's shirt may have been used to wipe JonBenet down, this does not mean it was him that did it. If his shirt was in his bedroom or a laundry basket then his shirt can be used on JonBenet without him doing it. But if JonBenet was in John's bedroom, why should she be wiped down ahead of being sexually assaulted in the wine-cellar, since I assume the blood would follow from the sexual assault?

Can you imagine John rising at say 5AM to be told by Patsy "Hey I just killed JonBenet, but I have it all worked out, here is the plan, last time we saw her was when we put her to bed, then we went to bed, then we wake up, and discover a ransom-note ..." yada yada. Why should he go along with all this, possibly incriminating himself in a homicide?

But he did, so did Patsy and to a lesser extent Burke, since he knows what happened the previous night. So they are all colluding to hide something, and it cannot simply be JonBenet's death since that was always going to be self evident.

So her pageant sexualisation may simply be a reflection of her domestic abuse, where her role models are those of her abusers and form part of a pedophile pathology harkening back to a previous generation, e.g. no Spice-Girls or Britney Spears style here?


But it is highly unusual for a mother to be molesting her daughter, is it not? Also, could the abrasions, etc. be from Patsy cleaning JonBenet in a very rough manner - Linda H. Paugh said she heard Patsy yelling at JonBenet in the bathroom all the time and JonBenet crying and yelling.


Ned: Wow. Look what happens when Ned starts a thread. Some real intelligent debating going on now. We are discussing the "HEART" of this crime. You now all have me convinced that John was much more involved than I originally thought. This is an excellent discussion.
 

JMO8778

..at the beach!
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
5,554
Reaction score
38
So either they will have contained blood stains, pubic hairs and/or semen else why remove them?
and or saliva maybe too?
 

JMO8778

..at the beach!
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
5,554
Reaction score
38
You now all have me convinced that John was much more involved than I originally thought.
I think so too.His shirt had to have been used to wipe off...something.And if it wasn't urine ,then whatever options are left seem to lean in the direction of sexual contact.
I was reminded of a case on unsolved mysteries,if anyone saw or remembers this case..a dead man was found with his pants off, and his watch was found hanging off the steering column,where he'd obviously placed it.His truck was found down the st,and it was a somewhat deserted (dirt) road I beleive.He'd been seen shortly b/f at a grocery store,asking about a woman there and buying flowers.
It doesn't take much to see that...he was likely parking and initiating sexual relations with this girl ,(thus his pants off and watch hanging off steering column when getting undressed),when either her boyfriend or husb. came up and found them...and he shot the man in a jealous rage.
The dead man's wife refused to beleive he was having an affair(classic denial),and said that someone had removed his pants in order to humilitate the family.
Anyway..she can believe what she wants,but both of these cases lead Occam's razor, IMO.Don't make it complicated....JR's shirt was likely used to wipe off traces of sexual contact.And under Occam's razor,JR would be the perp and was using whatever was handy at the time...the shirt he was wearing.
This leads back to .."murders are usually what they seem" theory.
I agree with Occam's razor....JB was heard screaming in the basement and was found in the basement.Signs of sexual contact were found on her body, and staging was done in an attempt to disguise it..(obv. staging since the garrotte wasn't usuable the way it was built).
So all signs lead to a sexually motivated murder,(possibly by a jealous PR,since her fibers were found in the cords and duct tape,or by JR ..in order to silence her since she screamed)and likely not by an intruder.
It's pretty simple, IMO.
 

Nedthan Johns

New Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
10
Website
www.
Rashomon: And when on that fatal night, John suggested to her that they stage it as a sex crime, she went along with it, maybe even without specifically asking him why.
Patsy needed John to cover up for her, and John needed to camouflage the signs of sexual abuse, which is why he agreed to be her accomplice in the cover-up.

Ned: This is interesting too. Let’s just say Patsy lost control and cracked JB in the skull. She then goes and gets John and he realizes the child cannot be saved. He is forced then to end JB’s life because he realizes someone will find out about the sexual molestation. The paintbrush was tied on the rope after the fact for effect. (the child’s hair was caught in the knot) Therefore in attempt to cover both, they together stage the scene. I always wondered if the penetration to her vaginal region could have been done after her death, since there was little to no blood.

Now Patsy’s statement to her friend after the murder, “WE didn’t mean for this to happen” comes into full light.

And it could be FULLY understood why both chose to keep quiet. They did the crime together.

It would also make sense why Patsy took JB to the Doctor’s office so often. Not knowing her child was being molested by John, JB could have been complaining and getting yeast infections down there.
 

BBB167893

Former Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
107
I can read. See you don't get the original point at all. "twice the normal size" is your addition to the autopsy.

Were that it were just me!

Dr Myer did not indicate in any way or make any comment concerning this being abnormal or that JBR was sexually abused in anyway.
Live with it friend.

Tell Det. Arndt that.

You know and I know this interview never took place.
Stop it!

I wish it hadn't, 4sure. Then I might still be on your side.

You can list all the "experts" you like it still won't change the fact that the only doctor to examine the flesh of JBR issued an autopsy that does not mention any conclusion of sexual abuse or even sexual contact. Unless someones going to rewrite that now too.

You will find that it's not uncommon for an autopsy report on paper and from the person's mouth to police and attorneys to differ.


Is this from ST's book. I can't remember. Could you soruce this for me?

Yup. www.jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com go to the "Sources" page and read the notes of Sauers, Bonita.

I'm just warming up, folks!
 

Nuisanceposter

Remembering Little Miss Christmas
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
1,399
Reaction score
20
4sure, if you're looking for solid proof that the Rs gave the NE an interview, it's discussed in their depositions. I'm sure you can figure out how Google works - do your homework and find out for yourself if the Rs would lower themselves to grant an interview to a tabloid magazine - they did.
 

JMO8778

..at the beach!
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
5,554
Reaction score
38
Nuisanceposter said:
4sure, if you're looking for solid proof that the Rs gave the NE an interview, it's discussed in their depositions. I'm sure you can figure out how Google works - do your homework and find out for yourself if the Rs would lower themselves to grant an interview to a tabloid magazine - they did.
I also think they received money from NE,via a source I listed earlier.
 

4sure

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
184
Reaction score
4
SuperDave said:
Tell Det. Arndt that.
!
I have no evidence from Arndt directly where she admits to saying or hearing any such thing.

Its really hard for you to admit your worng.




SuperDave said:
You will find that it's not uncommon for an autopsy report on paper and from the person's mouth to police and attorneys to differ.!
Nope sorry, this is why the DA tried so hard to keep the autopsy sealed. Hunter was trying to sweat a confession out of the R's and there was no way he wanted an autopsy realeased that showed no finding of a sexual assualt. Not only that but the R's lawyers would have field day with Dr. Myer and his change from his official finding in court.

SuperDave said:
Yup. www.jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com go to the "Sources" page and read the notes of Sauers, Bonita. !
Why do you accept these fabracated articles as the truth? You know you would make a good president.
 

icedtea4me

Former Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
539
Nuisanceposter said:
4sure, if you're looking for solid proof that the Rs gave the NE an interview, it's discussed in their depositions. I'm sure you can figure out how Google works - do your homework and find out for yourself if the Rs would lower themselves to grant an interview to a tabloid magazine - they did.
They did, indeed, discuss the March 2001 interview with the NE in their depos. At least I know Patsy did in hers (starting at the bottom of pg. 105) as I haven't gone through John's yet.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/12112001Depo-PatsyRamsey.htm


-Tea
 

BBB167893

Former Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
107
I have no evidence from Arndt directly where she admits to saying or hearing any such thing.

Will an actual quote do?

Here you go:

"What was seen was not a first-time injury--not all of her injuries appeared to be recent."

Its really hard for you to admit your worng.

Especially when I'm not! LOL!

Hunter was trying to sweat a confession out of the R's and there was no way he wanted an autopsy realeased that showed no finding of a sexual assualt.

We must be talking about different people. Hunter had multiple chances to do what you suggest, yet didn't use them.

Not only that but the R's lawyers would have field day with Dr. Myer and his change from his official finding in court.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. The paper report can only list the physical findings, not necessarily what caused them.

Why do you accept these fabracated articles as the truth?

Well, in this case, because they were typed up from the actual police reports.

You know you would make a good president.

Damn straight!
 

Eagle1

Former Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
5
Website
Visit site
Nedthan Johns said:
.....
Patsy needed John to cover up for her, and John needed to camouflage the signs of sexual abuse, which is why he agreed to be her accomplice in the cover-up.,,,,,,,,,,,
Let’s just say Patsy lost control and cracked JB in the skull. She then goes and gets John and he realizes the child cannot be saved. He is forced then to end JB’s life because he realizes someone will find out about the sexual molestation. The paintbrush was tied on the rope after the fact for effect. (the child’s hair was caught in the knot) Therefore in attempt to cover both, they together stage the scene. I always wondered if the penetration to her vaginal region could have been done after her death, since there was little to no blood.

Now Patsy’s statement to her friend after the murder, “WE didn’t mean for this to happen” comes into full light. .........QUOTE]

Could be this was how it was. Patsy also said while sedated, "THEY'VE killed my baby." Impossible to tell if that was part of an alibi/staging. Maybe she wasn't THAT sedated.

But I'm still a fence sitter because there's also evidence of hate-propagandists out of state,(Charlevoix and MAYBE Waterford, Mi.) and the walker and all that. I'm reserving judgement. Another Karr could still turn up, or, "anything could happen". There's more than one plausible theory. One more thing, I don't think the R's would have put a boot on a pole to make one footprint in that mold. We can't just throw out all these extra things. They happened and we have to pay attention. There's also been theories about most of the friends, and Barnhill's boarder who was supposedly unknown to the R's, who crashed the party on the 23rd saying dogs were barking. There was a "rave" party two doors away, either the 23rd or the 25th, I forget which. Some journalist's girlfriend accused him, I believe, and they broke up over this. Someone could go on and on about all this extra, that I guess has kept the case alive. Several people could be suspicious. McReynolds with his notched Celtic harp and deceased little boys and girls, obviously could have been there even though he'd had a heart attack, as Karr could have been. Karr could have sneaked the shabby bear into JonBenet's pageant pkg, I'll bet.

Isn't this a lot like putting a watch back together and having a lot of parts left over?
 

Nuisanceposter

Remembering Little Miss Christmas
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
1,399
Reaction score
20
I don't think Karr had any idea who JonBenet was before she became famous for being murdered, and I highly doubt he'd be able to slip in his shabby bear at a pageant where nice new bears were being given away without someone noticing. Was the package with the bear she was supposed to get already set up with her name on it? How could he be sure which bear JonBenet would get?
 

rashomon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
151
Solace said:
Super Dave is the best. That was great.
That was great indeed. SuperDave is aces.

[4Sure to SuperDave]
You know and I know this interview never took place.
Stop it!
No use getting testy, 4Sure - it did take place. Not even the IDIs here have ever denied this.

Re the sexual abuse issue: remember that Coroner Dr. Meyer was no expert on sexual child abuse, but Dr. McCann is a world-renowned expert.
Dr. McCann and several other top-notch pediatric experts consulted on the case almost unanimously agreed that JB had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
 

Solace

New Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
4,807
Reaction score
13
SuperDave said:
Will an actual quote do?

Here you go:

"What was seen was not a first-time injury--not all of her injuries appeared to be recent."



Especially when I'm not! LOL!


We must be talking about different people. Hunter had multiple chances to do what you suggest, yet didn't use them.



Perhaps you misunderstand me. The paper report can only list the physical findings, not necessarily what caused them.



Well, in this case, because they were typed up from the actual police reports.



Damn straight!
4Sure: With all due respect, you need to do more research. Hunter was not trying to sweat anything out of the Ramseys. In fact he believed they did it. Steve Thomas wanted to put them in jail in the belief that they would talk if they were separated behind that cold steel. Hunter said no.

Also, Patsy most certainly did give an interview along with John to the National Enquirer. She also did say that about Nedra sleeping in JonBenet's room and therefore John could not have abused JB because Nedra would not have allowed it. Another fact is the opening of JonBenet's vagina was "twice" the normal size for a child of her age. Steve Thomas presented photographs of JonBenet and another little girl to show the difference at his presentation.

I am more than willing to listen if you can give me a good reason for this. I don't think I really gave it too much thought before because John just didn't look like he would do this. Someone was doing something and it was bad. When I look at John's actions immediately following this murder along with his very evasive responses in both his interviews - 1997 and 2000- along with Patsy's and also the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTRUDER; No fibers, nothing - I believe the parents were involved.

And I think it is worse than I ever thought. Hell was in session that night and Jon Benet was in it. Just my opinion.
 
Top