Separating FACT from fiction
- Thread starter Jayelles
- Start date
I guess we will have to disagree here. Unless you have seen the video in question, then you can not say it was just an "ad". JR admitted to being in a store that sold Stun Guns and "spy" equipment. JR also said the one he was sent later was in Spanish - since he claimed never to review the original, he (nor you) can say what language it was in. You also have to question why he kept the video catalog if he never intented to buy anything from it. And if a Stun Gun was used on JBR then the fact that her parents can be traced to a store that sold Stun Guns is evidence. But we won't ever know if it was or not, since it was JR that refused to have her exhumed so they could test the Stun Gun theroy.
IMO the things that were cleaned, were part of the actual crime (flashlight). The things that make you scratch your head, were part of the staging (everything related to the RN, the paintbrush, etc).
The erosion noted in the autopsy is evidence enough of chronic abuse. Like much of Mayer's opinions, opinions are never put in a written report- only what he sees. The opinion of what caused the finding is usually given to LE, and it was in this case- he told Det. Arndt he felt it was the result of digital penetration. Not horseback riding. Horseback riding and other physical activity does not "erode" a hymen. The hymen can be broken by some activities, but JB's was not broken. It was worn away in a particular spot, and when this was discussed by forensic specialists, it is noted that it would be the result of pressing in the same way repeatedly.
This is MY OPNION, too. The erosion, however is a FACT, and it is also a fact that he told LE present at the autopsy that he felt there was digital penetration.
This is MY OPNION, too. The erosion, however is a FACT, and it is also a fact that he told LE present at the autopsy that he felt there was digital penetration.
You simply wont consider medical findings to the contrary then?
Hyden, & Gallagher, 1992
Hymenal shape is very variable (Heger, 1985; Hyden, & Gallagher, 1992). Some have several openings, they may be crescent-shaped, slit-shaped (horizontal or vertical), or very irregular. The hymen might be thick and fleshy or a very thin membrane. Not only is measurement impossible with any degree of accuracy, but Dr. Raine Roberts, Manchester, reported in the British Medical Journal in 1989 that "the hymen ... can vary, in the same child, from a pinhole to a centimeter, depending on whether she is relaxed or apprehensive, warm or cold." A medical finding of a dilated hymenal opening must therefore be interpreted with great caution.
Medical findings supporting or proving abuse are not as clear cut as may be expected. Many of the medical indicators advocated are frequently found in non-abused children. The ubiquitous practice of describing completely normal examination findings as being "consistent with abuse" is likely to be misunderstood in a courtroom as evidence supporting an allegation. Lay people serving as jurors are particularly apt to be misled by medical experts giving such testimony.
vlpate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 7,113
- Reaction score
- 2,927
Exactly.
Of course there are variations in size, shape, etc. between not only children but grown women as well. But a PANEL of experts agreed that a vaginal opening TWICE the normal size for a child her age was evidence of more than a normal variation. The condition of the hymen ALONG WITH the vaginal bleeding and bruising are evidence IMO that there was abuse. She did not go horseback riding that day (or any day that I am aware of).
There was also bruising and BLOOD in her vagina, as well as her own blood wiped from her thighs and pubic area. This is FACT, and both the bruising and blood in the vagina are noted in the autopsy. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure which is normally covered by the hymen. SOMETHING occurred that night that caused this bleeding and bruising. And whatever it was, it wasn't something that would be part of the normal activities for a little girl. Something was inserted in the vagina that night. And most likely before that night as well. The blood and bruising cannot be overlooked for the sake of refusing to accept that someone was abusing JB. It amazes me the excuses that are made for it. Sickens me, actually.
That being said, how would you explain the blood and bruising noted in the autopsy as not being related to sexual abuse? Let's take the family out of it for a moment. Explain the blood and bruising.
There was also bruising and BLOOD in her vagina, as well as her own blood wiped from her thighs and pubic area. This is FACT, and both the bruising and blood in the vagina are noted in the autopsy. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure which is normally covered by the hymen. SOMETHING occurred that night that caused this bleeding and bruising. And whatever it was, it wasn't something that would be part of the normal activities for a little girl. Something was inserted in the vagina that night. And most likely before that night as well. The blood and bruising cannot be overlooked for the sake of refusing to accept that someone was abusing JB. It amazes me the excuses that are made for it. Sickens me, actually.
That being said, how would you explain the blood and bruising noted in the autopsy as not being related to sexual abuse? Let's take the family out of it for a moment. Explain the blood and bruising.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
Exactly.
1+1=2,no matter whether RDI or IDI
A dead child+a bleeding vagina+the killer taking time to wipe the body down and redress the victim+possible prior abuse.
And some say WE don't know what prima facie means............
I was about to tell you the same thing!
I noticed your location, tennison. Thus, I'm not surprised that you would have some misunderstandings about our American police. I've found that our police get a bad rap in the European press. Well, that's not how it works.
Number one, it's not a question of Meyer WANTING to put that in his report even if he believed it. His report can only state what he officially FOUND. But as even Meyer himself stated in PMPT, his role in this case does not end when his report is filed. He knows that it's likely he'll be called to testify. THAT's when he gives his take on HOW the injuries he found happened.
And the police CERTAINLY would not have said that!
It's not JUST that, BOESP. The thing I try to tell people about this is, we KNOW that any of the manifestations of sexual abuse JB was known to have CAN be innocently explained INDIVIDUALLY. But not when you put them all together.
I'll say this: the problem as I see it is, it's pretty difficult to establish prolonged sexual abuse from the examination of a dead body, for reasons like tennison has outlined. In a lot of cases, you need a statement from the victim, and even then, the child has to be interviewed in a specific way so that the statement is not tainted. (Some cops, like LA, are trained to do this.)
So, isn't it convenient then, that the victim in this case is dead? And I can't help but wonder if that's WHY she was killed. Dead men tell no tales, right?
I got a big kick outta that one, maddy! And THAT's a fact!
Welcome to the forum! Guess your post worked!
FACT? Maybe, maybe not. Here's why:
The DNA was what is known as "touch DNA". Is consists of DNA extracted from skin cells- in other words, skin cells that were transferred by someone who TOUCHED something. The thing with Touch DNA is it may not necessarily been left by the person whose skin cells are found. The DNA found on JB's clothes may have been left by someone who touched the same thing that the donor of the DNA also touched- like a doorknob, etc.
We know that both parents touched JB's clothing around the waistbands. Patsy said she dressed JB in the longjohns that night- and JR was SEEN to be holding the dead body of his daughter upright with his hands around her waist, so we KNOW he touched the waistbands.
Here's the thing- ALL the Rs attended the same party. They may ALL have touched the same doorknobs, toilet handles, sink faucets, etc. Had JB touched something the donor of the DNA also touched, his skin cells would have transferred to her fingers, and then onto her clothing, assuming she put the longjohns on herself or pulled them up or down. The same is true of her parents- if the donor was a party guest, they may also have picked up his skin cells.
That is why the Touch DNA is not something that positively identifies the killer, or even someone who was there at the time she was killed. That DNA may not even have anything to do with the crime. It isn't like DNA from a primary source, like semen, saliva, blood, etc.
So to answer your question, it is not CERTAIN that the same person left the touch DNA, though it is possible. And it is not CERTAIN that the donor of the skin cells was there at the time of the crime or had anything to do with the crime.
This is why is was so damaging to this case (and to justice for JB) that the former DA Mary Lacy said that this DNA exonerated the parents. It did no such thing, and the next DA said as much.
FACT- this DNA exonerates NO ONE, and NO ONE can be excluded as a suspect from this crime, especially the three people who were PROVEN to be in the house at the time JB was killed, until and unless someone has been identified by NAME and shown to have been in Boulder at the time of the crime.
DeeDee249,
So how did touch-dna from John arrive inside JonBenet's size-12's? I heard John had a shower that morning so presumably he would no longer have any deposits of touch-dna?
Also we have not been told if any Ramsey touch-dna was found on the size-12's, specifically Burkes, coincidence?
The longjohns and size-12's were clean on JonBenet that night. The only source for the touch-dna is any of the Ramsey's and the mythical intruder, who conveniently left no other forensic evidence of any kind.
What is curious is that there is no mention of the same touch-dna being found elsewhere on JonBenet, e.g. the garrote. Suggesting it did not originate from Patsy, leaving John or Burke as candidates.
I wonder if they checked all the partially wrapped gifts for the same touch-dna?
.
The touch DNA got INSIDE the panties on the fingers of whoever put them on her. Patsy or JR.
Of course, we would not have heard whether any of BR's DNA appears anywhere at all, because of his age. There is nothing to suggest that the DNA did not originate from Patsy. NONE of the Rs are identified as leaving DNA on the body, which is suspicious because both parents touched the longjohns at the very least, and one of them was known to touch the waistband of the panties. I feel sure that the garrote cord/knot DOES have Patsy's skin cells on it. Was it even tested? I bet not, but if it was, and her DNA was found, we'll never know.
I would say that the fact that JR was seen carrying JB by the waist plus his shirt fibers being inside the panties indicate that JR was the one who put the panties on her. Or at least handled them.
I am typing on an iPhone & it's not easy 
Thanks for responding to my question. I have read the response again & again & will do so until I understand it. It's just not something that I find easy to understand. I saw a you tube video and the lab scientist seemed to explain the method of testing as a conclusive fact that it meant they had been exonerated. I am just trying to reconcile what I saw there with what you are saying here.
I have read quite a lot about the case but have not been active on any forum for quite some time. I used to post on jamesons forum.
For various reasons I have not followed this case recently & thought that because they had been exonerated it meant they had also been exonerated in public opinion. From reading here I can see that is not the case. I think I need to grapple with the DNA question a little more...
I joined here wanting to start up a thread just on touch DNA & what it meant to this case but I don't have enough posts to start one yet. But who knows maybe one of these days I will punch out enough responses on my iPhone
Or go back far enough here to find a thread just about touch DNA & find it & resurrect it
Thanks for responding to my question. I have read the response again & again & will do so until I understand it. It's just not something that I find easy to understand. I saw a you tube video and the lab scientist seemed to explain the method of testing as a conclusive fact that it meant they had been exonerated. I am just trying to reconcile what I saw there with what you are saying here.
I have read quite a lot about the case but have not been active on any forum for quite some time. I used to post on jamesons forum.
For various reasons I have not followed this case recently & thought that because they had been exonerated it meant they had also been exonerated in public opinion. From reading here I can see that is not the case. I think I need to grapple with the DNA question a little more...
I joined here wanting to start up a thread just on touch DNA & what it meant to this case but I don't have enough posts to start one yet. But who knows maybe one of these days I will punch out enough responses on my iPhone
Or go back far enough here to find a thread just about touch DNA & find it & resurrect it
The other thing I was going to say was that I thought this touch DNA was shown conclusively to not match any member of the Ramsey family so I am a little confused by the statement two posts above about how the DNA from John Ramsey could get inside the panties of JBR.
I must be missing something ...
I must be missing something ...
You are missing something. I will see if I can make it any clearer.
No one has said that John Ramsey's DNA is inside her panties. BUT John Ramsey's SHIRT FIBERS from the shirt he wore that day WERE found inside her panties.
The TOUCH DNA has NOT been sourced- that means whoever it belongs to has not been identified. The DNA does not belong to any of the Ramseys. BUT because this DNA consists of SKIN CELLS, which are easily transferable to fingers and hands, this DNA could have been placed on JB's clothing by someone OTHER than the person who owns the skin cells, including one of the Ramseys. If I touch a doorknob and then you open that same door, MY skin cells transfer to YOUR hand. Then, if you touch your pants that night when undressing, MY skin cells may transfer to your pants, even though I never touched your pants. If JR shook hands at that party, skin cells from the person whose hands he shook WILL transfer to his hands. They remain until they either rub off or are washed off.
You were right in understanding that the DNA did not belong to a Ramsey. But you are wrong to assume it clears them. Until and unless SOMEONE is identified BY NAME, NO person is cleared, especially the three people who were home at the time of the crime.
I cannot stress this enough, and cannot say it often enough. Unfortunately for me (and everyone else sick of reading it) I have to keep repeating it until it is understood. The shills for the Rs have no desire to clear up this mis-information, and actually encourage the misunderstanding, so that also has a lot to do with it.
I simply cannot make it any clearer.
And I hope this doesn't confuse you further but Colorado Law prevents anyone under the age of 10 from being charged, arrested, named, or even implicated in a crime. This means that even if the DNA DID match BR, it would not be made public. The lab would not be able to announce that result. BR is not cleared. He is simply not able to be charged. BIG difference.
No family members are cleared in the legal or criminal sense, and statements by the then-DA do not make it so.
Myself,
That the owner of the touch-dna is unknown, e.g. does not belong to a Ramsey, does not prove that the owner of the touch-dna killed JonBenet. The touch-dna could have been transferred by a Ramsey as they either killed or redressed JonBenet.
And...
It is not John Ramsey's DNA that is being referred to, but the possibility that he transferred the unknown touch-dna into JonBenet's size-12 underwear.
That the touch-dna does not appear anywhere else on JonBenet's person or any crime-scene artifacts is a good argument that the touch-dna may have been transferred, by mistake, during the Autopsy Procedure?
.