Day 5 The John, Patsy and Burke's behavior/ The 12 days of JonBenet

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
It is very strange, unless BPD advised the R's not to mention the RN to anyone. Since Arndt arrived later than French, I doubt the R's were told that. So yes, very incriminating.

Again, thank you very much for posting the podcast link, Ambitioned. Real good stuff!

-Nin


No, John Fernie read the RN and told authorities at the house (before her body was found) that $118k was odd bc JR could get hands on like$6-$7 million.. I think that was in thomas' book
 
To me, and forgive me if this has been mentioned here before but I havent seen anyone bring it up, one of the most telling moments came in their first interview on CNN. When Patsy says "keep your babies close".......most footage of that is zoomed in on her face. But there is video of that where it shows both of them, and JR mouths it silently as she says it. It is clearly rehearsed and clearly indicates to me they have been in on the whole thing together. I'm a big time BDI. I was before all these specials and the recent Dr Phil show only cemented my belief.
It is so obviously rehearsed. It jumped out at me, too.
This is the only video I've been able to find of that:
https://youtu.be/6s1Dyl8QxXQ
 
Because he's technically a mandatory reporter? Yep, I am absolutely certain that every single person in this world of ours puts the wellbeing of a child above all else. Yeah. Uh huh.

Either that, or he just did the minimum, figuring that sometimes, it's better not to know.
 
Either that, or he just did the minimum, figuring that sometimes, it's better not to know.
As an RN, I don't really trust anything that Beuf said. He mixes his words and contradicts himself. Maybe he thinks only lay people would have heard him or he didn't reqlize there would have been a transcript to analyze. But what he said makes no sense to me.
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html

SAWYER: But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?
BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.
SAWYER: This is the first time Dr Beuf has gone over his records publicly.
And is that unusual to see a child that many times?
BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.
SAWYER: And by majority you mean?
BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.
SAWYER: So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.
How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?
BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three year period.
SAWYER: We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea.
April 1994 a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.
March 1995 abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.
August 1996 another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?
Would that be unusual?
BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have 4yo kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.
SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
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.
SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?
BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of.
(BBM)


So, here's why it doesn't make sense:
First he says he says he performed a vag exam 5 or 6 times in a 3 year period. This would be an incredible number of times for anyone who is not expecting a baby or with some other OB/GYN issue, let alone a child.
Then, Sawyer asks him, "If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?" and he replies, "Probably."
But then he states, "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."
Well, which is it, doctor? You can't have it both ways.
My guess is that he never actually performed a vag exam. I think that is an outright lie. Although, it can be done on a child without anesthesia using an otoscope (ear scope), and he should definitely know that.
At best, he might have done a visual exam of her vulva. But, unless he used some kind of an instrument, he never performed a vag exam.
The bottom line for me is this - this record is filled with red flags and he did not do his due diligence. He either turned a blind eye to the problems right before his face or he was negligent. Of course, there is another explanation - some kind of influence kept the dirty truth out of those medical records and his failure to report will forever keep that secret.
 
As an RN, I don't really trust anything that Beuf said. He mixes his words and contradicts himself. Maybe he thinks only lay people would have heard him or he didn't reqlize there would have been a transcript to analyze. But what he said makes no sense to me.
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html

SAWYER: But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?
BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.
SAWYER: This is the first time Dr Beuf has gone over his records publicly.
And is that unusual to see a child that many times?
BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.
SAWYER: And by majority you mean?
BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.
SAWYER: So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.
How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?
BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three year period.
SAWYER: We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea.
April 1994 a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.
March 1995 abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.
August 1996 another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?
Would that be unusual?
BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have 4yo kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.
SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
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.
SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?
BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of.
(BBM)


So, here's why it doesn't make sense:
First he says he says he performed a vag exam 5 or 6 times in a 3 year period. This would be an incredible number of times for anyone who is not expecting a baby or with some other OB/GYN issue, let alone a child.
Then, Sawyer asks him, "If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?" and he replies, "Probably."
But then he states, "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."
Well, which is it, doctor? You can't have it both ways.
My guess is that he never actually performed a vag exam. I think that is an outright lie. Although, it can be done on a child without anesthesia using an otoscope (ear scope), and he should definitely know that.
At best, he might have done a visual exam of her vulva. But, unless he used some kind of an instrument, he never performed a vag exam.
The bottom line for me is this - this record is filled with red flags and he did not do his due diligence. He either turned a blind eye to the problems right before his face or he was negligent. Of course, there is another explanation - some kind of influence kept the dirty truth out of those medical records and his failure to report will forever keep that secret.
I'm a nurse to and the same exact things jump out at me. My granddaughter has had yeast infections since she was in NICU on and off. Difficult to get rid of and probably won't until she's potty trained. BUT. Even when the doc looks at it she only peeks and knows it's returned. She doesn't do a "vaginal exam". Plus if she's having urinary tract infections or such they usually gather a urine specimen. Either by straight catheter, urinary collection bag (I hate these!) Or if the child is old enough in which JonBenet was, pee pee in a cup. No need for a vaginal exam. It's just weird!!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
In Australia the doctor I visited as a child was the same one my parents used. In the states is this the same or was Dr Beuf only JB and Burke's doctor? If that's the case why wouldn't patsy see her own doctor for pills?

This is an older post, but I read in one of JR's police interviews that they socialized with the Beufs as well, so I guess Dr. Beuf crossed his professional line and prescribed tranquilizers for Patsy out of their friendship. Of course that is unethical really but there it is.

He was a pediatrician and Patsy was never his patient, so he should not have been prescribing her medication at all.
 
As an RN, I don't really trust anything that Beuf said. He mixes his words and contradicts himself. Maybe he thinks only lay people would have heard him or he didn't reqlize there would have been a transcript to analyze. But what he said makes no sense to me.
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/bynum.html

SAWYER: But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?
BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.
SAWYER: This is the first time Dr Beuf has gone over his records publicly.
And is that unusual to see a child that many times?
BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.
SAWYER: And by majority you mean?
BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.
SAWYER: So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.
How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?
BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three year period.
SAWYER: We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.
September 1993 a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea.
April 1994 a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.
October 1994 a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.
March 1995 abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.
August 1996 another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?
Would that be unusual?
BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have 4yo kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.
SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
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.
SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?
BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of.
(BBM)


So, here's why it doesn't make sense:
First he says he says he performed a vag exam 5 or 6 times in a 3 year period. This would be an incredible number of times for anyone who is not expecting a baby or with some other OB/GYN issue, let alone a child.
Then, Sawyer asks him, "If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?" and he replies, "Probably."
But then he states, "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."
Well, which is it, doctor? You can't have it both ways.
My guess is that he never actually performed a vag exam. I think that is an outright lie. Although, it can be done on a child without anesthesia using an otoscope (ear scope), and he should definitely know that.
At best, he might have done a visual exam of her vulva. But, unless he used some kind of an instrument, he never performed a vag exam.
The bottom line for me is this - this record is filled with red flags and he did not do his due diligence. He either turned a blind eye to the problems right before his face or he was negligent. Of course, there is another explanation - some kind of influence kept the dirty truth out of those medical records and his failure to report will forever keep that secret.

Malpractice, frankly. JR said in one of his police interviews that he and Patsy socialized with the Beufs, so there was some influence there. The doctor may have protected the parents out of a social relationship with them.
 
Something I think doesn't receive enough attention in this case is the film roll on the Ramseys' camera from Christmas morning. Haney questions both parents about a photo on there of the back staircase that appears to show the notepad the ransom note was written on taken that Christmas morning (before the crime). John says he took a few photos to finish off the roll and that was one of these throwaway photos. LE clearly find something notable about what this photo shows compared with photos taken of the same area by crime scene technicians just a day later. John and Patsy's responses to Haney's questions about this photo are interesting, to say the least.

Patsy attempts to dismiss the photo showing the notepad, saying that they had lots of pads like that around the house and it might not be the same one. John, on the other hand, says it is probably the notepad he handed to investigators that morning when asked for handwriting exemplars. As we know, this pad was shown to be the one on which the ransom note and practice were written. Why do you think LE was focusing on this photo? Does it show the notepad placed in an identical and perhaps unconventional way in both photos, suggesting that an intruder didn't handle it that night? There is something here, but it gets overlooked. This case has always been about the small things, in my opinion.
 
As I reread old articles and now reading "Death of innocence"..........the Ramseys were SUPER PARENTS and a 'perfect' family house manners etc................ Oh my, they remodeled a huge house, kids had lessons in everything, the pagents, flying from north to south and when I read about Christmas eve, Christ day activities, visiting, 2 trip planned................where did PR get energy?? She was 40 and a cancer patient........I spin in circles thinking of getting up early making a large Christmas breakfast, pictures, presents,more wrapping, people in and out, packing............
PR's cancer was discovered in summer 1993 and she was treated aggressively for one year at which time the cancer went into remission. Giving her another 6 months to recuperate, that brings the story to the end of 1994. JBR was murdered fully two years later at the end of 1996. PR had all kinds of energy for her public displays and shows, had a housekeeper to do her housework, and plenty of money to spend on luxuries most mothers could only dream about, and by all appearances and accounts had recovered from her cancer - but PR had no energy to properly toilet train her 6 1/2 yo daughter, which is everything I need to know about her "mothering".
 
L. Wood

22 Now, if you want to change the

23 format, then let's consider that after we

24 finish this format. But I didn't ask Patsy

25 Ramsey or John Ramsey to go back and study

0102

1 what they had said before to try to memorize

2 it or refresh their recollections
,
period,

3 because it was represented to me that you

4 weren't going to do that.

5 So if you do it, I am not really

6 directing her not to answer it. I am

7 directing you that you are outside of the

8 scope of your request and, therefore, your

9 question is not fair and appropriate. It is

10 as simple as that. I am not trying to be

11 difficult.

-------

why do you need to go back and study and memorize if it/s the TRUTH?? pfahahah
 
MEMORIZE being the key word here.... you only need to memorize when it/s something NEW to you or when its made up. Period.
 
The thing that probably bothers me most of all, for John and Patsy, is their seemingly dismissive attitude about Burke the morning of the crime. We're supposed to believe they just left him in bed? And with all the commotion in the house, he just laid there in bed? And why did they initially lie to police about his being asleep when they called 911?

I've believed BDI for several years. The CBS special made me more sure than ever. When Burke was shown the picture of that pineapple, it was obvious that he very much wanted to get out of that room. Where Burke is concerned, his behavior in that moment bothers me more than anything.
 
The fact that the note said she will be BEHEADED if they called police.whats the first thing they did?call police without even consulting each other, come on, those were INTELLIGENT people.I dont buy it.

Thank God that John didn't go down and behead JB after Patsy called 911. I always thought it was weird that they called the police, when the note said not to.
 
Thank God that John didn't go down and behead JB after Patsy called 911. I always thought it was weird that they called the police, when the note said not to.
You know I was thinking this exact thing. I wonder if that is the reason the ligature was so dang tight? I can't imagine why they would leave that on her so tight even after she was deceased. I'm not saying they tried to behead her with the ligature. Just curious if they wanted to add to the drama of the staging by making it so tight "only an intruder could do that!"
 
You know I was thinking this exact thing. I wonder if that is the reason the ligature was so dang tight? I can't imagine why they would leave that on her so tight even after she was deceased. I'm not saying they tried to behead her with the ligature. Just curious if they wanted to add to the drama of the staging by making it so tight "only an intruder could do that!"

I think that was precisely the reason. Yassir Arafat had a philosophy: "the worse, the better." In this case, the worse it looked, the better it was for them.
 
The apathy of the 10am deadline, given in the ransom note. They're frantic because their daughter has been kidnapped and the ransom note says we'll call at 10 ..... and then they don't call?? In a genuine abduction, surely the parents would think "oh no, they've seen that we called the cops, they're not calling us, they're going to behead her"

Were there specific statements / evidence that they did not react to the deadline of 10am, or are we making assumptions?
 
Were there specific statements / evidence that they did not react to the deadline of 10am, or are we making assumptions?
Det. Arndt was the BPD officer in the house at the time. In FF, Kolar states, "...the passage of this time came and went, without any observed comment from Ramsey. It wasn't long after this that Arndt lost track of his movements. She reported that she first made note of his absence at around 1040 hours, and he didn't reappear until noon. Nearly 1 1/2 years would pass before John Ramsey explained this absence."
 
I think you could be spot on, garthmax. Or PR could not tolerate so much as a sniffle and off to the doctor she went. All those vag exams......ridiculous!!!!!!! I have been reviewing this case and so wanted to find an intruder theory plausible, but no longer do. I think PRDI and running into Burke's room yelling,"Where's my baby!?", was all part of her staging.........And I think the housekeeper had it all figured out. Someone in that house did it and I don't think it was Burke. MOO.
 
I think you could be spot on, garthmax. Or PR could not tolerate so much as a sniffle and off to the doctor she went. All those vag exams......ridiculous!!!!!!! I have been reviewing this case and so wanted to find an intruder theory plausible, but no longer do. I think PRDI and running into Burke's room yelling,"Where's my baby!?", was all part of her staging.........And I think the housekeeper had it all figured out. Someone in that house did it and I don't think it was Burke. MOO.
I don't for one minute believe that Beuf actually performed any vag exams on JB. He contradicts himself when asked about it. I also do not believe he did his due diligence based on her symptoms and that he was only trying to cover his own backside when he said he had performed those exams. He was a friend of the family and he put that first. (more about this in post #184 in this thread)
To put this into perspective, it's important to note that it's our society that has developed a terrible custom of calling the external female genitalia the vagina - which it is not. It is the vulva. However, a physician absolutely knows the difference.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
2,848
Total visitors
2,938

Forum statistics

Threads
603,300
Messages
18,154,673
Members
231,702
Latest member
Rav17en
Back
Top