A quick bit of help

[BBB167893]

Hey, folks. It's not often I ask for help, but in this case I'll take what I can get.

I want to know as much as possible about the medical records that Dr. Beuf wouldn't give up. What eventually became of them? Were warrants issued? Did the police try to force them? Anything you can tell me, preferably from printed sources.

Thanks in advance.

 

[cynic]

Hey, folks. It's not often I ask for help, but in this case I'll take what I can get.

I want to know as much as possible about the medical records that Dr. Beuf wouldn't give up. What eventually became of them? Were warrants issued? Did the police try to force them? Anything you can tell me, preferably from printed sources.

Thanks in advance.

Check your PM

 

[SunnieRN]

Great question and one I would also like the answer to! Is the answer something that should not be posted in the forum? TIA.

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry to bother you again, guys. But now I need information on the cord fibers supposedly found in JB's bed. Were they ever confirmed?

 

[madeleine]

only here

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

page 14

Further,fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote where found on Jonbenets bed.

 

[BBB167893]

only here

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

page 14

Further,fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote where found on Jonbenets bed.

Thanks, maddie, but that's sort of my problem. The Carnes ruling stipulates so many things as fact that are NOT fact, I don't know what to think.

 

[BBB167893]

Let's change tack here. I've been in an argument with people trying to bring up that old dog about why the Ramseys would "unstage" the crime scene. I keep trying to tell them that they DIDN'T unstage it (at least, not in any meaningful way), but I'm not making any headway. Maybe I never will, but I won't give up. I keep thinking that it's my fault, that I'm not articulating it well enough. It happens.

Anyone want to throw around ideas?

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let's change tack here. I've been in an argument with people trying to bring up that old dog about why the Ramseys would "unstage" the crime scene. I keep trying to tell them that they DIDN'T unstage it (at least, not in any meaningful way), but I'm not making any headway. Maybe I never will, but I won't give up. I keep thinking that it's my fault, that I'm not articulating it well enough. It happens.

Anyone want to throw around ideas?

What do you mean? Do you mean that the Ramseys somehow deliberately interfered with evidence associated with the scene even though they were absolutely innocent.

Or that the Ramseys moved objects so that the police would not possibly look at them as guilty even though they were innocent?

 

[UKGuy]

Let's change tack here. I've been in an argument with people trying to bring up that old dog about why the Ramseys would "unstage" the crime scene. I keep trying to tell them that they DIDN'T unstage it (at least, not in any meaningful way), but I'm not making any headway. Maybe I never will, but I won't give up. I keep thinking that it's my fault, that I'm not articulating it well enough. It happens.

Anyone want to throw around ideas?

SuperDave,

mmm, a thorny issue this one. No unstaging might imply JonBenet was killed, wiped down, redressed, with ligature and restraints applied, and placed into the wine-cellar, all within the confines of the basement?

Unstaging might apply if one participant realized some aspects of the staging might skew suspicion towards them, so unstaged certain elements e.g. sexual assault?

Restaging might apply if a previous staging was seen as untenable e.g. a bedtime assault and death. Which is transformed into a kidnapping, which would require the prior staging to be cleaned up, essentially voided in case or whenever JonBenet was discovered?


Then there is JR with his free time whilst Burke was on his way to Fleet's house, could he have unstaged or tweaked some crime-scene features, was it him that introduced the barbie-gown, thinking a nightgown would look better than white longjohns?

Unstaging may have occurred, thats what the size-12's may represent, a detail Patsy appeared to be ignorant about since she lied around the topic?

So I guess unstaging is a function of whichever is your favorite theory.

 

[SunnieRN]

If by 'unstaging' you mean the fact that JR took the tape off JonBenets mouth, literally picked her up and carried her upstairs and Patsy lying on top of her body, I believe it was self preservation. A way to allow the transfer of the fibers found on JonBenets body. Undoing of potential damning evidence.

Also, why did they make time for John to shower and change clothes, prior to the call to BPD, but not Patsy? The more answers you find, create additional questions.

 

[BBB167893]

What do you mean? Do you mean that the Ramseys somehow deliberately interfered with evidence associated with the scene even though they were absolutely innocent.

Or that the Ramseys moved objects so that the police would not possibly look at them as guilty even though they were innocent?

Neither. The argument is that if the Ramseys went to all the trouble to stage the scene in the basement, they wouldn't have pulled off the duct tape and moved her upstairs.

 

[BBB167893]

If by 'unstaging' you mean the fact that JR took the tape off JonBenets mouth, literally picked her up and carried her upstairs and Patsy lying on top of her body, I believe it was self preservation. A way to allow the transfer of the fibers found on JonBenets body. Undoing of potential damning evidence.

Like I told them (or attempted to): I don't think it was "unstaging" so much as it was CONTINUING the staging. I think that when Officer French didn't find the body, JR started having second thoughts. And what better way to contaminate the crime scene than to do it with a witness right there?

But try to explain that to IDI, and it's no good.

Also, why did they make time for John to shower and change clothes, prior to the call to BPD, but not Patsy? The more answers you find, create additional questions.

Indeed...

 

[SunnieRN]

You know SD, I have come to the conclusion, that IDI theorists most likely can not allow any answer to suffice on this point, due to the fact, that by allowing such a logical interpretation, they would be admitting that a parent or the patents were involved or responsible.

So, what does this mean for RDI? This means we can present WHAT was done, that we KNOW occurred. We know that John contaminated a crime scene, that Patsy was sitting on top of, in her home. We also know that they called BPD, friends, their pastor, to come to the home, despite the fact thah the ransom note threatened their daughter would be beheaded.

We know that John only looked outside, to see if anything was amiss for a matter of seconds. No search to see if they were being watched prior to phone calls, having people over, etc.

We know that PR and JR were in the house all night, along with Burke and JonBenet.

We know that John searched the house, including the basement, prior to the BPD arriving, also, under JonBenets bed, in his underwear, by testimony he gave. Yet, did not find JonBenet.

We know that FW searched the basement, opening the wine cellar door. Standing in the doorway, looking for the switch, not finding it, re-locking the door. Yet old eagle eyed JR, upon opening the door, saw JonBenet prior to turning on the light or stepping into the room. Thereby seeing through walls, into a darkened room and spotting JonBenet.

We know hat there was a scream at midnight.

We know that other evidence in the home was disturbed by good meaning friends who were cleaning the kitchen.

We know that Burke was removed without being questioned and the R's admitted later that he had been awake at some point.

We know JonBenet walked into the house carrying presents, although the R's lied and said they carried her upstairs asleep.

We know JonBenet had chronic/prior erosion of her hymen, indicating abuse.

We know that at sometime Burke and JonBenet had tea and pineapple, after returning home from the Whites.

We know that neighbors saw flickering lights (most likely from a flashlight), through the R's windows that night. Also, the outside light that had been on EVERY night, was not on that night.

We know that the size 12 ubdies, that Patsy said were in JonBenets drawer, were turned in 5 years later, still in their original packaging except for the Wednesday pair, found on JonBenet.

This is but a small list of what we do KNOW, as fact. How anyone could rule out JonBenets parents in totality, is so far beyond my understanding. There is even more information than what I have listed here.

You can not convince someone who refuses to be objective. All you can do is present the truth, as documented. You can never convince people of what they do not or will not believe.

There was contamination of the crime scene, by John, Officer French and Patsy, also by FW when he picked up the tape from JonBenets mouth. IDI will interpret that one way, where as RDI will interpret it another. I just happen to be of the RDI opinion.

 

[DeeDee249]

We do know those things, but there are a few things that can't be proven as fact.
For one, while BR's prints were found on the tea glass and pineapple bowl (Patsy's were on the bowl as well), prints (like some DNA) cannot be "dated" as to when they were left. Without an eyewitness, confession or proof (such as a photo) we cannot definitely place BR at the table with JB as she ate the pineapple. A defense attorney would rip that apart. We cannot prove that BR left his prints at the same time JB ate the pineapple.

We have only JR's WORD he searched the house in his underwear. Actually, I don't believe he did. Why would he? He knew she wasn't really kidnapped or missing. He may have done it to "explain" why his underwear fibers were there, but I don't believe I have ever seen a report that stated his underwear fibers were found anywhere His SHIRT fibers were found in JB's underwear.
Ditto his looking outside. He CLAIMED to do so. Again- why would he? There was nothing to look for. A parent frantically searching outside would also be ringing neighbor's doorbells to see it she was there. Moot point unless a neighbor kidnapped her anyway.

As for the rest- spot on! They are all things we KNOW.

 

[SunnieRN]

I agree about the fingerprints on the glass DeeDee, but as for Johns statements, if and when it went to court, he would have had to of answered for them.

Would have been quite interesting testimony.

 

[Peliman]

Curious if anyone knows JR's military background if he has one?

 

[Sophie]

I love this sort of thread because it leads in the direction of what I think will one day be our eureka! moment so thanks Dave for starting it and thanks to everyone else for your contributions.

For me, reading Death of Innocence is where any real evaluation of truth and lies regarding tsgaing and unstaging begins and ends in many ways. Seriously, anyone who thinks the Ramseys are 'OBVIOUSLY' innocent should read DoI again....

With regard to the good doctor, Dave, Judith Phillips has some interesting things to say on FFJ.

Apparently, the Boulder DA's office was alone in thinking that the medical records couldn't be released - which is a funny ole thing.

 

[Sophie]

Curious if anyone knows JR's military background if he has one?

Well he was in the navy and his company was connected with US defence and he had a soft spot for 'that' sort of literature. He was, coincidentally, a champion class recreational sailor, which is why he knew nothing about 'complex' knots.....

Talking of which, was there any discussion on here of Lockheed's reaction to recent security issues? Right sloths about this stuff, aren't they? Er, not...

(This case really winds you up, even after absences).

 

[BBB167893]

You know SD, I have come to the conclusion, that IDI theorists most likely can not allow any answer to suffice on this point, due to the fact, that by allowing such a logical interpretation, they would be admitting that a parent or the patents were involved or responsible.

I've been thinking that myself lately, Sunnie. Makes me wonder why I go slumming to begin with.

So, what does this mean for RDI? This means we can present WHAT was done, that we KNOW occurred. We know that John contaminated a crime scene, that Patsy was sitting on top of, in her home. We also know that they called BPD, friends, their pastor, to come to the home, despite the fact thah the ransom note threatened their daughter would be beheaded.

We know that John only looked outside, to see if anything was amiss for a matter of seconds. No search to see if they were being watched prior to phone calls, having people over, etc.

We know that PR and JR were in the house all night, along with Burke and JonBenet.

We know that John searched the house, including the basement, prior to the BPD arriving, also, under JonBenets bed, in his underwear, by testimony he gave. Yet, did not find JonBenet.

We know that FW searched the basement, opening the wine cellar door. Standing in the doorway, looking for the switch, not finding it, re-locking the door. Yet old eagle eyed JR, upon opening the door, saw JonBenet prior to turning on the light or stepping into the room. Thereby seeing through walls, into a darkened room and spotting JonBenet.

We know hat there was a scream at midnight.

We know that other evidence in the home was disturbed by good meaning friends who were cleaning the kitchen.

We know that Burke was removed without being questioned and the R's admitted later that he had been awake at some point.

We know JonBenet walked into the house carrying presents, although the R's lied and said they carried her upstairs asleep.

We know JonBenet had chronic/prior erosion of her hymen, indicating abuse.

We know that at sometime Burke and JonBenet had tea and pineapple, after returning home from the Whites.

We know that neighbors saw flickering lights (most likely from a flashlight), through the R's windows that night. Also, the outside light that had been on EVERY night, was not on that night.

We know that the size 12 undies, that Patsy said were in JonBenets drawer, were turned in 5 years later, still in their original packaging except for the Wednesday pair, found on JonBenet.

This is but a small list of what we do KNOW, as fact. How anyone could rule out JonBenets parents in totality, is so far beyond my understanding. There is even more information than what I have listed here.

Don't I KNOW it!

You can not convince someone who refuses to be objective. All you can do is present the truth, as documented. You can never convince people of what they do not or will not believe.

Maybe not, but that's no reason not to try.

There was contamination of the crime scene, by John, Officer French and Patsy, also by FW when he picked up the tape from JonBenet's mouth. IDI will interpret that one way, where as RDI will interpret it another. I just happen to be of the RDI opinion.

Same here.

 

[SunnieRN]

Dave, I wholeheartedly agree that if anyone can give a good and valid argument against IDI, it is you, DeeDee, UKGuy and others, who have studied this case so tirelessly! Heck I used to think there was an intruder out there too. Until I saw the stupid, idiotic, climbing through the window to prove a point. demonstration, that actually, to me, disproved what they said.

That was my eureka moment. That was when I started thinking 'Just how stupid do these people think I am? They're insulting my intelligence now."

(No one else needs to feel obligated to answer that question, thank you). ;-)

The more I read and listened, the more the discrepancies built up.

I would really like to read your book Dave. Any news on that front??