Documentary (Jayelles)

[Shylock]

My husband, who does not have the same interest in it as I do and only watched it because I wanted to, thought at the end of the program that Holgarth and the unnamed suspect were responsible and nothing I said would convince him otherwise:banghead:

It's obviously time for a new husband.

 

[Jayelles]

My husband fell asleep during the first ten minutes. That's how interested he is in the case

 

[twizzler333]

I am in the medical field and there are those who are continuously coming in for every little sniffle or twinge of pain and some (like myself) who will avoid going at all costs! I don't find it unusual that she took her 27 times in that period of time. My neice has chronic bladder problems due to a refluxed kidney problem and all these years prior to diagnosis, we could not figure out why she had so many bladder/kidney problems, yeast infections, etc. It took some extensive testing and trying different treatments to finally discover what was going on.

I, too, have thought about the inflammation of the vaginal wall, etc. reported and I really don't think that necessarily means sexual abuse. I am very picky about cleaning thoroughly in that area and I have asked my daughters to always make sure they clean really good there because I guess I am weird but I cannot stand the thought of all the bacteria that grows on our bodies, and I just really want to make sure I get really good and clean. Perhaps Patsy was picky about being cleanly as well. There are so many other reasons that could have caused the inflammation.

As I am sure you can tell, I have a hard time believing a parent could do something like this (murder) to a child they love and adore. I know there are parents who do, I have seen it first hand, and one thing that I can say is that I just don't see the personality traits in either of the Ramseys to suggest they would do something so vicious. Cannot rule it out either but it really seems like a long shot to me. IMO.

Was there ever a criminal profiler involved? Surely there was. What kind of profile did they paint of this killer? I would like to see the findings from something like that.

Oh me....well, I just joined this group this week and have been trying to catch up on reading this stuff. Some pretty great theories out there. You all are pretty informed on this case. I have found out many things I didn't even know about. What brought me to investigate this at all was a dream I had a few weeks ago. I have always known about this case and had been interested but had never really "researched" it on the web, but when I had this dream it kind of freaked me out, so I decided to look into this a little. I will be continuing to read up more here and hopefully get into some discussions. (I don't argue, don't worry). Sure hope they solve the case soon.

 

[BlueCrab]

twizzler333,

That was a rather impressive first post. Welcome.

JMO

 

[vicktor]

.............I have always felt JBR's doctor
was a quack (this confirms it)and that he was very misguided and just out to "protect" the Ramseys
The amount of Doctors visits was excessive

What about the obvious, a company CEO and his wife who doesn't work choose a pediatrician. The wife has undergone major health problems and treatment out of state. The family probably enjoyed almost free health care. Are they going to choose a quack as their doctor? Then as an oversensitive mother who takes her daughter in for each sneeze or rash, is she going to continue to see this doctor after all those visits? In CO. a doctor is legally required to report any indications of child abuse, sexual or otherwise. Would Dr. Beuf risk his reputation to protect the Ramseys, who were probably already in Atlanta?

 

[Nedthan Johns]

I wonder: what about some possible visits of JB in Charlevoix or straitgh in some hospital?)

Ned: I too wonder about the Doctor visits in Mich. After all they spent AA Summer there. I find it ODD that a Doctor was never mentioned in that area. I find it hard to believe with ALL the Doctor visits in Colorado there would be NONE in Mich.

 

[tipper]

I have to disagree..........

As a young girl I suffered from chronic UTI infections (this was from the age of 4 to my late teens),they sometimes were so bad they spread to my kidneys and required hospitalization.
I never once had a vaginal exam (even in the hospital) and I was also certainly never at the doctor 20+ times a year!!!!!!!!


Also my oldest daughter (who is 5) had a "bubble bath" problem but never has she had a vaginal exam either ................I have always felt JBR's doctor
was a quack (this confirms it)and that he was very misguided and just out to "protect" the Ramseys(in addition,speaking from expirence Im not going to go into here ,Doctors can and do miss signs of abuse)


The amount of Doctors visits was excessive (either she had asthma or she didn't ...............apparently this "chronic sinus infection" didnt interfer with school or parades or pagaents did it???)

Messiecake,
Are you saying that JonBenet saw her doctor "20+ times a year!!!!!!!!" If so, what is your source for that information?

Beuf says he didn't do a speculum exam of JonBenet. I wouldn't expect him to have done one. If a child that age requires a speculum exam she would normally be anesthetized for it. When your daughter was examined about her "bubble bath problem" did your doctor examine her crotch? I'm assuming that was where the focus of the irritation was otherwise it wouldn't be relevant. That's the kind of "vaginal exam" Beuf is referring to. If you look it up you can find the various positions doctors use to get a clear view of a child's crotch area. One is called the Frog position. I can't remember the others.

Other doctors (unconnected to this case) have said they find nothing unusual about JonBenet's medical records.

 

[vicktor]

Welcome Twizzler.

Twizzler333: Was there ever a criminal profiler involved?

Vicktor: Yes various people have weighed in under various conditions. Someone hired by the Ramseys described the person as a pedophile, who had been in prison or associated with similar people. Another one, Ressler, eventually pointed to someone outside the Ramsey family who knew them or knew about them.

John observed( with or without the above) that the crime was disjointed, coming from a deranged individual. So some feel schizophrenia is involved.

 

[Barbara]

I think this development with Michael Tracey's documentary is more than just bad documentary.

As a "professor" (term used loosely) of journalism he is held to a higher standard as he is responsible somewhat for future journalists. Remember, even Patsy and John spoke with journalism students. I wonder what their comments will be if and when they choose to make them regarding this documentary.

Here we have Michael Tracey, DELIBERATELY make false statements in a "documentary" which is supposed to be truthful. He presented false information and presented theories as FACTS not yet verified. He outright LIED.

I think his teaching credentials should be revoked until he changes his ethics and if he can't become ethical, he should find another line of work.

It's one thing and perfectly legit to present a favorable point of view and opinion when making a "documentary". It's quite another to provide false and misleading information as FACT.

Shame on him and the universtity that employs him if there are no consequences or retractions.

 

[Cain]

What Ressler suggested, in my opinion, and as discussed here, was that there was not intruder. That the person who did this was in the house with the knwoledge and consent of the Ramseys.

And McCrary doen't believe in the intruder theory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[tipper]

What Ressler suggested, in my opinion, and as discussed here, was that there was not intruder. That the person who did this was in the house with the knwoledge and consent of the Ramseys.

And McCrary doen't believe in the intruder theory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't recall Ressler saying with the knowledge and consent of the Ramseys. Do you have the quote?

 

[VespaElf]

Messiecake,
Are you saying that JonBenet saw her doctor "20+ times a year!!!!!!!!" If so, what is your source for that information?

Beuf says he didn't do a speculum exam of JonBenet. I wouldn't expect him to have done one. If a child that age requires a speculum exam she would normally be anesthetized for it. When your daughter was examined about her "bubble bath problem" did your doctor examine her crotch? I'm assuming that was where the focus of the irritation was otherwise it wouldn't be relevant. That's the kind of "vaginal exam" Beuf is referring to. If you look it up you can find the various positions doctors use to get a clear view of a child's crotch area. One is called the Frog position. I can't remember the others.

Other doctors (unconnected to this case) have said they find nothing unusual about JonBenet's medical records.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?

(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.



27 times in three years????? Thats EXCESSIVE!! And thats where I got the info.(I mistakenly typed "a year" instead of "3 years"-my typo and Im sorry for the confusion)
I'm a Mom to four kids and I guess we're very fortunate because in three years I can count on both hands how many times they all had to be seen.
JBR was,for a reasonably healthy child who was heavily involved in activities and parades/pagaents at the Doctor too many times.If she was so ill how did she keep up with all of these "events"????

And no the Doctor did not do any type of vaginal exam.......I simply explained the problem my daughter was having and she asked about bubble bath and said to discontinue use and if the irritation persisted then there was a cream that could be used-thats it!
And with me,even being Hospitalised TWICE never had an exam.
I didnt have a vaginal exam until I was 16.

IMO something was up with the EXCESSIVE Doctor visits (and those are the one knows we know about!) and it was discussed in another post how only 1 Doctor out of what 5?has said no prior evidence-what about what the other doctors have concluded? Ignore them? Why?

 

[Britt]

Twizzler333: Was there ever a criminal profiler involved?

Vicktor: Yes various people have weighed in under various conditions. Someone hired by the Ramseys described the person as a pedophile, who had been in prison or associated with similar people.

The Ramseys' hired help, John Douglas, can hardly be considered an objective profiler in this case since he was working for the two prime suspects. Let's ask Helgoth's or Oliva's hired profiler who HE thinks did it... lol (not that they're real suspects).

Another one, Ressler, eventually pointed to someone outside the Ramsey family who knew them or knew about them.

Not exactly, Vicktor. Here, again, is the quote:

Former FBI profiler Robert Ressler said he doubts the case will ever be solved unless someone comes forward with new evidence or a "deathbed confession."
"This is a situation where the police botched the initial investigation, and years later, they're still trying to sort things out," said Ressler, who helped build the psychological profile of New York's "Son of Sam" killer in the 1970s.
Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.
"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

The prior thread with the discussion, quotes and links can be found here:
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7830

John observed( with or without the above) that the crime was disjointed, coming from a deranged individual. So some feel schizophrenia is involved.

Right, like John Ramsey, prime suspect, is an expert profiler... lol. Anyway, as Shylock said on the Colorado sex offender thread:

I think John is a VERY credible source, because if you really want to know what events transpired, you just listen to John and know he's lying and the opposite really happened. His story is constructed to lead the listener AWAY from the real truth.

Exactly, Shylock.

 

[tipper]

"Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.
"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family"


Not a stranger but not family... ? I guess kind of like Westerfield's relationship to the van Dams.

 

[BlueCrab]

"Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.
"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family"

Ressler is correct. IMO there had to be a fifth person, and maybe even a sixth person, in the house that night. And he was there with the full knowledge of at least one of the Ramseys. It's the only way all of the evidence that is known and all of the behaviors of the Ramseys will fit the crime.

JMO

 

[Britt]

"Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.
"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family"

Not a stranger but not family... ? I guess kind of like Westerfield's relationship to the van Dams.

Not hardly. Having met a guy down the street once or twice certainly doesn't qualify him for "not a stranger." Besides, Westerfield broke into the home.

Ressler said:

*he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet

*he also doubts a family member killed her.

[Door number three]: "There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family,"

Obviously he's talking about an invited guest ---->someone the Ramseys would cover for, someone Patsy would write a fake ransom note for. See BlueCrab's theory if you Ramsey defenders can't grasp what that means

Hey Ned, remember ol' Frankie at CNN who was just sure the killer was a photographer invited by and working for the Ramseys, taking risque photos of JonBenet that night? Maybe it was someone like that.

 

[BrotherMoon]

Sandy Stranger is the intruder, a split-off persona complex in the manner of DID. This makes Patsy the person in the house, the family member and the stranger. This explains Patsy's reaction to the bowl of pineapple; not her set up, it's Sandy's set up. (Or whatever Patsy's words were regarding the bowl and spoon.)

 

[vicktor]

The Ramseys' hired help, John Douglas, can hardly be considered an objective profiler in this case since he was working for the two prime suspects. Let's ask Helgoth's or Oliva's hired profiler who HE thinks did it... lol (not that they're real suspects).

It seemed that when Douglas did his work for the Ramseys, he did not talk to Patsy. At that point there was really no evidence of John's involvement, although there wasn't any exculpatory evidence either. After talking to the necessary people, and looking at what evidence they had, he formed a valid profile. To do otherwise would have risked his association and reputation with the FBI. While I agree about Helgoth, Oliva still is a good suspect,IMO, as detailed in other posts. Interesting, though that if Oliva or anyone else was ever on trial, their hired profiler( lawyer) would claim that Patsy did it, claiming it created reasonable doubt.


Right, like John Ramsey, prime suspect, is an expert profiler... lol.

Everybody's entitled to their gut feelings or intuition about who was responsible.

 

[Britt]

Everybody's entitled to their gut feelings or intuition about who was responsible.

Well of course they are. But the question was: Was there ever a criminal profiler involved? -- the subject being criminal profilers aka expert opinions.

Edited to add: the prime suspect's "gut feeling" about the perp is always going to be that it's someone other than said prime suspect

 

[Cain]

"Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.
"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family"


That is, tipper. You quoted it. He says he don't believe that there were an intruder and, then adds this sentence: "There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family".

When you are in a house you can be:

a) An intruder: if you broke without the owners knwoledge and consent.

b) A guest. With owner's consent and knowledge.

(You can't be both)

If he says "no intruder", the the "other people" that was in the house should be "guests". There aren't more opcions, and I think it is easy to understand.

In the end, what implies these sentences is that Ressler suggested that the Ramsey's are hiding something (al least).

And that seems to point to BC's theory that, in my view, is not bad, but that I don't fully endorse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion, based in known and published facts.