Prior Vaginal Trauma

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't think Patsy was necessarily given a free pass, but she certainly wasn't treated like your average Jane accused of a crime either. The cops let her sister traipse freely through the crime scene and remove items from the home. Most of us can't catch a break on a simple traffic stop. I think the Ramsey money and influence spoke loudly, even in a wealthy community like Boulder.

And blaming an anonymous "small foreign faction" is akin to the "bushy-haired stranger" defense in my opinion. I also find it odd that this group has never been heard from before or since. Most groups like that thrive on the publicity their atrocities generate and will continue to commit heinous acts to extend their 15 minutes of fame a few seconds longer. Think of the Symbionese Liberation Army and Patty Hearst, and the long string of bank robberies they carried out to further their cause and fill their coffers. this faction seemed to exist and act only on one night towards one target.

And I find that really hard to believe.

Who's blaming an anonymous small foreign faction? Not me. I was simply observing that the foreign culprit has been given a free pass more than anybody, thats all. Just an observation, and a curious one since the ransom note author stated as much. Who would know better? You, me, or the ransom note author?

 

[MurriFlower]

I don't think Patsy was necessarily given a free pass, but she certainly wasn't treated like your average Jane accused of a crime either. The cops let her sister traipse freely through the crime scene and remove items from the home. Most of us can't catch a break on a simple traffic stop. I think the Ramsey money and influence spoke loudly, even in a wealthy community like Boulder.

And blaming an anonymous "small foreign faction" is akin to the "bushy-haired stranger" defense in my opinion. I also find it odd that this group has never been heard from before or since. Most groups like that thrive on the publicity their atrocities generate and will continue to commit heinous acts to extend their 15 minutes of fame a few seconds longer. Think of the Symbionese Liberation Army and Patty Hearst, and the long string of bank robberies they carried out to further their cause and fill their coffers. this faction seemed to exist and act only on one night towards one target.

And I find that really hard to believe.

I think this post kind of sums up a lot of the bias on this forum.

We won't believe the evidence, we'd rather believe in our own prejudices.

 

[akashana]

I freely admit I don't know all the ins and outs of this case. But I don't believe this was the work of any foreign group. As has been pointed out many times by others, any group from another country wouldn't call themselves "a small, foreign faction." To themselves they would not be foreign. Only to someone else.

To me, it's not a matter of RDI v. IDI. It's a matter of which RDI.

 

[akashana]

I think this post kind of sums up a lot of the bias on this forum.

We won't believe the evidence, we'd rather believe in our own prejudices.

To which specific or contradictory piece of evidence do you refer? At what point does my constitutionally protected opinion become prejudice? When it differs from yours? Is there evidence that excludes RDI of which I am unaware and which has not been discussed here or in the mainstream media? If I am missing something which would cause me to change my opinion, I am more than willing to read/review it and reconsider.

In any case, as I have clearly stated that these posts are my opinion, I prefer not having them described as prejudices.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I freely admit I don't know all the ins and outs of this case. But I don't believe this was the work of any foreign group. As has been pointed out many times by others, any group from another country wouldn't call themselves "a small, foreign faction." To themselves they would not be foreign. Only to someone else.

To me, it's not a matter of RDI v. IDI. It's a matter of which RDI.

We all have our opinions.

But I really wasn't asking you to believe it was the work of a foreign group, nor am I worried that you don't believe it. I am simply observing that the foreign culprit is given the biggest free pass of all because it is fully ignored. Now while you seem to be defending the idea of fully ignoring the foreign culprit, on the same page expressing concern that a possible murderer/molester is getting a free pass. Aren't you concerned about any possible murder/molester getting a free pass, or just PR or JR?

 

[akashana]

I think perhaps you misunderstood the direction of the "free pass" comment I made. The post was made in direct response to Murriflower's statement that "Whether she was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder . . . this had nothing to do with her death." and I took exception to that remark because a death with such obvious sexual depravity involved would necessitate a complete and comprehensive investigation into the victim's background. If prior sexual abuse was alleged or proven, it would definitely turn the direction of the investigation. While I do believe in my heart RDI, I don't know this for sure and I am open to other viewpoints, which is why I took such exception to my posts and opinions being colored as prejudices. But others indeed had access to JonBenet. The Whites, other family members on both sides of the Ramsey clan, all the mingling party guests . . . that's just the tip of the iceberg. My point with the "free pass" comment was only to point out that it would be imprudent to assume that prior sexual molestation of the victim by anyone, at any time, is pivotal to the case and should not be overlooked.

I value your opinions and in no way wish to appear argumetative, but I hope that I have explained myself clearly.

 

[MurriFlower]

To which specific or contradictory piece of evidence do you refer?

I refer to the Ransom Note, which if I'm not mistaken says "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction". This is evidence, not something we made up, but you ridicule it as if it was, as follows:

And blaming an anonymous "small foreign faction" is akin to the "bushy-haired stranger" defense in my opinion.

If the RN had said "we are a group of bushy-haired strangers" you would probably say, it must have been one of their bald headed friends.

At what point does my constitutionally protected opinion become prejudice? When it differs from yours?

Gosh, throwing the constitution at me. Here tis.

..she certainly wasn't treated like your average Jane. ..cops let her sister traipse freely through the crime scene.. Most of us can't catch a break on a simple traffic stop. I think the Ramsey money and influence spoke loudly, even in a wealthy community like Boulder.

When you refer to people not being treated like everyone else (meaning yourself), due to the fact that they had money and influence, well if that isn't prejudice, then I don't know what is. Prejudice cuts both ways, people can be prejudiced against those whom they consider inferior to themselves and also those whom they consider superior to themselves. I don't think either is any better than the other.

Is there evidence that excludes RDI of which I am unaware and which has not been discussed here or in the mainstream media? If I am missing something which would cause me to change my opinion, I am more than willing to read/review it and reconsider.

Yep, it's called DNA not belonging to the Rs, but to an unknown male, found in three places where it shouldn't have been (panties and longjohns). I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion though, cause I would expect you to just dismiss any evidence that doesn't coincide with your constitutionally protected opinion.

 

[madeleine]

Re: Madeline- I never said I thought Patsy did it, as a matter of fact, I am in the John Did It camp, with Patsy helping with the cover-up and Ransom Note. I think John pushed his sick little sexual games too far with JB and she ended up dead. Not sure which killed her, the garrote or the head bash, but the second one was for overkill/cover-up.

I know ,that's why I said I agree with you re if JDI,Patsy standing by him no matter what,even helping him out and letting him throw HER under the bus.If JDI I am not even sure she knows everything,abusers are very manipulative and their victims(entire family) usually buy their lies (denial).

 

[txsvicki]

She had to be alive when she was assaulted. Dead people don't bruise or bleed, and evidence of both were seen in her vagina.

I just went and read the autopsy report and some comments about that. It was thought that she was dying or died right before that sexual assault because there were no white blood cells at the injury site. White blood cells from the body beginning to try and heal.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

When you refer to people not being treated like everyone else (meaning yourself), due to the fact that they had money and influence, well if that isn't prejudice, then I don't know what is. Prejudice cuts both ways, people can be prejudiced against those whom they consider inferior to themselves and also those whom they consider superior to themselves. I don't think either is any better than the other.

I believe the 'umbrella of suspicion' label reserved and used only for a family member was prejudiced and promoted a lynch-mob atmosphere. It was also used quickly, and before all the facts were in.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I refer to the Ransom Note, which if I'm not mistaken says "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction". This is evidence, not something we made up, but you ridicule it as if it was, as follows:


If the RN had said "we are a group of bushy-haired strangers" you would probably say, it must have been one of their bald headed friends.



Gosh, throwing the constitution at me. Here tis.


When you refer to people not being treated like everyone else (meaning yourself), due to the fact that they had money and influence, well if that isn't prejudice, then I don't know what is. Prejudice cuts both ways, people can be prejudiced against those whom they consider inferior to themselves and also those whom they consider superior to themselves. I don't think either is any better than the other.



Yep, it's called DNA not belonging to the Rs, but to an unknown male, found in three places where it shouldn't have been (panties and longjohns). I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion though, cause I would expect you to just dismiss any evidence that doesn't coincide with your constitutionally protected opinion.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[akashana]

MY BOLD

I refer to the Ransom Note, which if I'm not mistaken says "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction". This is evidence, not something we made up, but you ridicule it as if it was, as follows:


If the RN had said "we are a group of bushy-haired strangers" you would probably say, it must have been one of their bald headed friends.

Never put your words into my mouth. You don't know me, and have no inkling of what I would "probably say." If the Ramseys colluded on the note, it makes perfect sense to think they would characterize the alleged kidnappers as differently from them as they possibly could to divert suspicion. The Ramseys are all-American, evidenced by Patsy's failed earlier bid as Miss America. Can't get more un-American than a "small foreign faction."

Gosh, throwing the constitution at me. Here tis.


When you refer to people not being treated like everyone else (meaning yourself), due to the fact that they had money and influence, well if that isn't prejudice, then I don't know what is. Prejudice cuts both ways, people can be prejudiced against those whom they consider inferior to themselves and also those whom they consider superior to themselves. I don't think either is any better than the other.

I didn't mean myself as the example at all. In fact quite the contrary. I actually was stopped by the police yesterday for an expired inspection sticker and was let go with a warning, but that is not typical. I meant that people who have money and influence are often treated differently in the halls of justice, and to believe otherwise is naive at best. If you think money can't buy justice, you only have to look as far back as the case of OJ Simpsone in the Nicole and Ron Goldman murders.
Yep, it's called DNA not belonging to the Rs, but to an unknown male, found in three places where it shouldn't have been (panties and longjohns). I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion though, cause I would expect you to just dismiss any evidence that doesn't coincide with your constitutionally protected opinion.

My opinion is subject to change whenever credible evidence is presented and does not conform to your or others' expectations.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

a death with such obvious sexual depravity involved would necessitate a complete and comprehensive investigation into the victim's background. If prior sexual abuse was alleged or proven, it would definitely turn the direction of the investigation.

I believe that any unsolved murder necessitates a complete, comprehensive, and unbiased investigation into the victim's background.

If prior sexual abuse was simply claimed or alleged, it should not unduly turn the direction of the investigation. Whoever was making the claim or allegation would be having too much influence on the course of a murder investigation.

Its easy to show that the investigation itself was not unbiased but instead strongly biased against the parents. The damage has been done.

 

[passionflower]

After reading about 'SYBIL" and Melissa Huckaby,
women do sexually abuse little girls also!
Could Patsy of abused JBR?

 

[SheBoss]

I freely admit I don't know all the ins and outs of this case. But I don't believe this was the work of any foreign group. As has been pointed out many times by others, any group from another country wouldn't call themselves "a small, foreign faction." To themselves they would not be foreign. Only to someone else.

To me, it's not a matter of RDI v. IDI. It's a matter of which RDI.

And, IMO, they would never describe themselves as "small". They would want everyone to believe they are huge, and JB is right in the middle of them. Even if there were only 2 of them, I don't think they'd say small.

 

[SheBoss]

Yep, it's called DNA not belonging to the Rs, but to an unknown male, found in three places where it shouldn't have been (panties and longjohns). I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion though, cause I would expect you to just dismiss any evidence that doesn't coincide with your constitutionally protected opinion.

Did the DNA in the panties, longjohns, and under the nails all match each other? Or was it 3 different DNA or impossible to tell?

 

[passionflower]

I just listened to the Levi show with guest our own Tricia........panties were NEW ...never washed and DNA came from manufacturer like a man sneezed.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115766"]2010.09.28 Levi P. Show: JonBenet Case Heats up! Tricia from WS weighs in - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[akashana]

I believe that any unsolved murder necessitates a complete, comprehensive, and unbiased investigation into the victim's background.

If prior sexual abuse was simply claimed or alleged, it should not unduly turn the direction of the investigation. Whoever was making the claim or allegation would be having too much influence on the course of a murder investigation.

Its easy to show that the investigation itself was not unbiased but instead strongly biased against the parents. The damage has been done.

MY BOLD

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. I believe that sexual abuse is very important regardless if RDI or IDI. If IDI and JB was molested even one time prior to her murder, it bears looking into as well. She was a high profile, coddled child from a family of wealtrh and privilege, not some latch-key kid from the 'hood. Yet if she was molested, someone who had access to her breached some serious boundaries. Investigators are trained to look at who had access to the victim, which certainly would include family members by default. Perhaps this is a case of mutual exploration between siblings, perhaps something far more sinister. It doesn't have to be someone in the family at all, but if she was molested, it has to be someone who had access. How this person or persons could have too much influence in a murder investigation eludes me.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

MY BOLD

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. I believe that sexual abuse is very important regardless if RDI or IDI.

Child murder is whats important in this case, whereas previous sexual abuse is not relevant.

JBR's physical state according to the coroner and photos that are interpreted only by some to possibly indicate prior injury that could be caused by sexual abuse possibly on a chronic scale by someone who could be a family member and who could have been involved in the murder. The case against the parents for previously abusing their child is nonexistent.

The repeated references to previous chronic sexual abuse as if it were a known fact, is nothing short of aburd. Worse is the fact that it publicly fosters and promotes a lynch-mob atmosphere because the fiction is far outrunning the available facts.

JBR was never molested by anyone previously, and prior injuries were not reported on the autopsy. Its a non-issue except by devout RDI believers desparately conjuring up motive material, whatever will stick to the wall when thrown. Don't take my word for it, post a link to a valid news outlet where previous chronic sexual abuse is discussed as if its a known like the unknown male DNA all over JBR's underwear is a known.

 

[akashana]

OK, work with me here. If you are willing to concede that it is possible, not indisputably proven, not even probable, just possible, that JB was molested prior to the night of her death, then you also must consider that her molester might be her muderer. Prior molestation does not necessarily indicate RDI, but it ups the ante of motive for whomever the killer(s) is or are. It also opens up the possibility of staging and RDI. It is most certainly not absurd to consider the possibility of previous sexual abuse. You state as fact, "JBR was never molested by anyone previously," when that is clearly unknowable. The only person who can state unequivocably whether or not she was ever abused has lain dead for 14 years. You do a disservice to her memory to negate the possibility. Sex play, sex games with children, molestation evolve over time in many cases. There is grooming and conditioning involved, groundwork laid for ensured silence. Most molesters will not murder, and of those who do, most will not murder upon first abuse. LinusK can school you on that if you doubt my word.

Most RDIs are willing to concede that it is certainly possible that IDI, although not likely. It is the closed minds in the IDI camp who steadfastly refuse to admit the possibility of RDI.