Toth
Inactive
Have you been able to find any source that corroborates these dark and foreboding statements? Anyone there who says JonBenet stated she did not feel pretty and was pensive and moody?
Who do you think is guilty? I'm relatively new here and...
- Thread starter blueclouds
- Start date
Jayelles
New Member
No I don't have a primary source for that - it's hearsay. Wouldn't stand up in court unless it came from the primary source. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Edited to say: Hoever, JonBenet was sexually assaulted and murdered so every witness statement counts - little pieces of a jigsaw.
As a parent and teacher who is responsible for children on a daily basis, I don't dismiss these things. There are many adult women who were sexually abused as children who claim that the people they told didn't believe them. Are you one of these people? Do you dismiss the statements of Mrs Santa and Judith Phillips just because you don't like them much? If so, I'd be inclined to wonder whose side you were on.
Edited to say: Hoever, JonBenet was sexually assaulted and murdered so every witness statement counts - little pieces of a jigsaw.
As a parent and teacher who is responsible for children on a daily basis, I don't dismiss these things. There are many adult women who were sexually abused as children who claim that the people they told didn't believe them. Are you one of these people? Do you dismiss the statements of Mrs Santa and Judith Phillips just because you don't like them much? If so, I'd be inclined to wonder whose side you were on.
A
ajt400
Guest
True, but isn't alot of the evidence on this case circumstantial? I think that may be the problem with most of the evidence--it's just what she said, he said, she said, etc.
A
ajt400
Guest
Also, one could state that the reason she wasn't feeling good on Christmas day (i.e. she wasn't eating much) could have more to do with the fact (or idea) that maybe she ate too much candiy or treats....again an assumption, but not entirely off base...
Jayelles
New Member
Yes and Yes. Most of the evidence is weak. I would agree that kids tend to be over-excited on Xmas Day and snack on sweeties and eat very little turkey and brussel sprouts - these are simply other factors which must be built into the equation.
We can't discount any witness statement just because we don't like the witness. If the witness has proved unreliable in the past, then I would tend to give that person more or less credibility as a result.
We can't discount any witness statement just because we don't like the witness. If the witness has proved unreliable in the past, then I would tend to give that person more or less credibility as a result.
Ivy
Inactive
Aside from a perp's confession or an eyewitness's account of a crime, or maybe a video tape of a crime (the only examples of direct evidence I can think of), I believe all other evidence is considered circumstantial evidence, even DNA evidence.
The circumstantial evidence so far certainly appears to implicate the Ramseys. (I don't buy the "foreign" DNA baloney, and neither do many of the former investigators on the case.)
The circumstantial evidence so far certainly appears to implicate the Ramseys. (I don't buy the "foreign" DNA baloney, and neither do many of the former investigators on the case.)
Toth
Inactive
I'm concerned about how someone who was there claims to have heard and seen things that NONE of the other people present seem to have either seen or heard.
tipper
Former Member
My problem with the "I don't feel pretty" statement is I find it odd that that's all there is. Wouldn't Phillips ask why and try and comfort her in some way? As presented I had the feeling that there may have been more to the conversation but since it didn't present JonBenet in the light ST was trying to achieve he left it out.
Jayelles
New Member
Toth, you can't be serious. A dozen folk were in a massive house with umpteen rooms. They were partying - imbibing of the grape no doubt. The kids would have been all over the place. People go to the loo, they go to the kitchen to fetch napkins and clean cutlery or to fill up the nut dish. So someone went to the loo and found JonBenet sitting alone in the hall and asked her what was up? You dismiss it's relevance because it didn't happen in front of the entire company? Yer heid's wastit.
My guess is that Santa did his bit, the pressies were given out, then the kids all went off to play and the adults chatted, supped and ate. There would have been ample opportunity for the "not feeling pretty" incident to have occurred.
My guess is that Santa did his bit, the pressies were given out, then the kids all went off to play and the adults chatted, supped and ate. There would have been ample opportunity for the "not feeling pretty" incident to have occurred.
why_nutt
New Member
You can find any number of people in this case who see things nobody else does. On the evening of December 25th Susan Stine saw the entire Ramsey family bubbly and excited at her house, despite the fact that John was in the car and JonBenet was unconscious in the back seat. Patsy, of course, has seen many things nobody else has, including a Santa teddy bear dressed in some vague outfit other than as Santa, JonBenet dead in a coffin in the form of a doll in a box, and Geraldo conducting his mock jury on MSNBC when the show was never broadcast on that channel. Patsy's sister Polly saw a vision of JonBenet running through a field when JonBenet was still thought to have been kidnapped and alive. Polly's husband saw Polly surrounded by a bright aura of light.
shamu
Inactive
Compared to an intruder, it is likelier that it's a parent because there is no reason whatsoever for an outsider to do this.
Let me ask you this... (This isn't what happened to JonBenet, but it sheds some light on staging tendencies of families) EMTs have said they see staging, about half the time, when there is an AEA fatality.
To me, this demonstrates the likelihood of cover-ups for all kinds of events for which others may feel ashamed.
AEA is disguised (sometimes) as murder. It's disguised (more frequently) as suicide.
Do you think this is done by a family member or by an intruder?
Britt
New Member
And it sounds to me like he can't say absolutely for sure he would have seen it because he didn't look, which is the relevant point.
Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.
He says he "probably" would have seen it right before he says he didn't do the procedure necessary to have seen it! Hello? Either he looked or he didn't... HE DIDN'T. Therefore, he is not in a position to know. Period.
tipper
Former Member
He could have seen her hymen without using a speculum. He would have been checking her crotch on at least a couple occasions since she was there for vaginitis (in it's broader sense).
Britt
New Member
Also, if the abuse began just a few days before she died, Dr. Beuf may not have even seen her during that time. Perhaps the last time he saw her for vaginitis she hadn't been abused.
Nevertheless, as he said, he could have missed internal damage by not doing a speculum exam. If he was certain she wasn't abused and he could prove it with his medical records and examinations of her, he would have said so. He was not definitive in his assertion that she was not abused.
Nevertheless, as he said, he could have missed internal damage by not doing a speculum exam. If he was certain she wasn't abused and he could prove it with his medical records and examinations of her, he would have said so. He was not definitive in his assertion that she was not abused.
Sabrina
Former Member
ajt400--
Cyril Wecht has an autopsy to analyze.
John Douglas had a 2 hour conversation with John Ramsey and chit chat with Patsy. He had no forensic evidence at the time of his initial "analysis" in January 1997. At least Lou Smit gave it 72 hours before he declared the Ramseys didn't do it. LOL
Cyril Wecht has an autopsy to analyze.
John Douglas had a 2 hour conversation with John Ramsey and chit chat with Patsy. He had no forensic evidence at the time of his initial "analysis" in January 1997. At least Lou Smit gave it 72 hours before he declared the Ramseys didn't do it. LOL
Britt
New Member
JonBenét was a bed wetter. She sometimes wore Pullups at her age, for cryingoutloud... open package found the morning of the 26th.
Oh, I know I know, the reports of her bedwetting and soiling are all meaningless gossip, including former housekeepers Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's and Linda Wilcox's first-hand accounts. Uh huh.
But bedwetting aside, if the abuse had started very recently, say a few days before her death, there wouldn't have been much time to exhibit symptoms.
Britt
New Member
We're talking about majority expert opinion, not majority public opinion. Unless one is also an expert, one would need a good reason IMO to dismiss an expert opinion.
Perhaps it would be helpful if one of these Ramsey defenders with medical expertise could take us through the autopsy, line by line, and explain to us how it proves JB did not suffer prior vaginal abuse. Details, please.
A
ajt400
Guest
Do you think that that is what happened? Do you think she wasn't molested unil a few days before?
A
ajt400
Guest
You make sense to me, shamu. I like to look at the bahaviorah aspect of a crime/crime-scene. Do most of the families you mention above stage as an accident or as a murder by a elusive "bushy-hair stranger?" Which, does, tie in w/the Ramsey case, the intruder.
I have to be honest that I believed they did it for a long time. I read a few books, glanced at a few articles in magazines, yada, yada yada. Then I put it down for awhile. Recently, I read a few books that looked at the whole thing from the other angle, and I began to be a lil more open to other suggestions. In all honesty, lately I have been disenheartened by the media and I do see the way this case has been, in a way, ruined by the media. I believe in free speech--most definitely--but it all needs to stop somewhere. I thought there could be a chance that everything had been clouded by the media. I still do.
I just can't make up my mind on this one. It seems if it where so easy, as some people act s it is, they would definetely have been at least tried by now! Do you really believe in some giant cover-up? It's almost like the idea of OJ being framed. Why? Do they really have THAT much money and political pull? The way this case is blown up, you would think that would be squashed by now.:dontknow:
A
ajt400
Guest
The first two are known now to be unimportant. An eyewitness can cloud things in their memories, fit things there that were not before. A confession can be coerced, beaten and some people confess to things that they didn't do.
What could be circumstantial about your DNA?
If your DNA is found on a dead child, I think the police might be knocking on your door in the next few.
What part about the foreign DNA do you not buy? It's existance?
Why? Shouldn't the old investigators know whether or not it was there?