Has the case fizzled a bit?

[Linda7NJ]

The thing about the bat is the fiber on it links it to the house but not to the crime. Somewhere in the literature Patsy states that the kids were bad to leave their ball bats outside, dropping them where they finished with them.

That does sound like a true statement. I can attest my own would do the same, and not always in his own yard. I can't begging to tell you how many bats, balls, gloves, shovels, hammers etc I've had to buy over the years. Always leaving them somewhere!

 

[tezi]

The thing about the bat is the fiber on it links it to the house but not to the crime. Somewhere in the literature Patsy states that the kids were bad to leave their ball bats outside, dropping them where they finished with them.

Right. But, that literature isn't accepted by some on here. So, I don't even bothering sourcing it now. However, CNN according to some is a valid source. <modsnip>

JMO

 

[BOESP]

Yes...Unlike CNN...LOL

While I am talking about ST, let's all remember something. The Ramseys sued him over his book. It was settled, and most importantly, ST did NOT have to take one thing out of his book. Gee, what does that tell you? It tells me his book is accurate as far as FACTS are concerned. You know, lab reports which state FACTS about the fibers.

JMO

For anyone interested in hearing straight from the horse's mouth, visit http://www.forstevethomas.com

There are links to a lot of information, including his comments on the lawsuit which was settled out of court. Here's an excerpt:

"I am bound by the terms of the settlement not to discuss its conclusive points but I can tell you this: it was a thoughtful, deliberate decision. For the record, I was not the one who sought out a settlement in this case.

My absolute requirement for any resolution was the mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing whatsoever, nor would I personally pay a single dollar in settlement. And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution. In fact, the book can continue to be published, advertised, quoted, and marketed. I will continue to speak on the case whenever I wish. I continue to stand resolutely by my book and the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed."

 

[tezi]

So it wasn't a kidnapping for the $118,000? He meant to take her and kill her?

Yep, that's the ticket. LOL The ransom "book" did its job, here didn't it? It deflected attention from the "real perps."

JMO

 

[tezi]

For anyone interested in hearing straight from the horse's mouth, visit http://www.forstevethomas.com

There are links to a lot of information, including his comments on the lawsuit which was settled out of court. Here's an excerpt:

"I am bound by the terms of the settlement not to discuss its conclusive points but I can tell you this: it was a thoughtful, deliberate decision. For the record, I was not the one who sought out a settlement in this case.

My absolute requirement for any resolution was the mandate that I would admit no wrongdoing whatsoever, nor would I personally pay a single dollar in settlement. And that is exactly what was achieved with this resolution. In fact, the book can continue to be published, advertised, quoted, and marketed. I will continue to speak on the case whenever I wish. I continue to stand resolutely by my book and the opinions I expressed in it. My beliefs have not changed."

Yes! Exactly! But, don't forget the lab reports he used in his book, well, they aren't credible sources according to some! LMAO

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And there-in lies another bugaboo imo. The autopsy report clearly states there was healed, earlier damage to the internal vaginal structure.

However when I looked this up, chronic infections can cause the same kind of damage. So I am still not convinced that she was chronically abused.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Steve Thomas was on his first ever murder case. He never did another one before. <modsnip>.

He has just one opinion and not any experience to back it up. JMO

 

[tezi]

Steve Thomas was on his first ever murder case. He never did another one before. For him to be touted as the legal genius is so short sighted.

He has just one opinion and not any experience to back it up. JMO

BBM: Show me where I have touted him as a legal genius? He was the detective that worked the case, had access to the case files, ect.

Short sighted? It seems the market is cornered on that too.

JMO

 

[2 percent]

However when I looked this up, chronic infections can cause the same kind of damage. So I am still not convinced that she was chronically abused.

Source please.

If it were infection, why would it only damage one part of the hymen?
More than once?

 

[tezi]

Source please.

If it were infection, why would it only damage one part of the hymen?
More than once?

Well, this is going to be a long wait...By this I mean, you we are going to be waiting for a very long time for an "accepted" source for everyone...LOL

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

this is her autopsy and it says nothing of anything that would be chronic abuse.. Just the injury from that night...

 

[tezi]

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

this is her autopsy and it says nothing of anything that would be chronic abuse.. Just the injury from that night...

Does it cite infections? That is what you were asked about.

My best educated guess is that it does not. So, let's try again...

JMO

 

[tezi]

However when I looked this up, chronic infections can cause the same kind of damage. So I am still not convinced that she was chronically abused.

This is what you said...

Source please.


If it were infection, why would it only damage one part of the hymen?
More than once?

This is what you were asked about....


Please stop confusing the matter.

JMO

 

[madeleine]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Ev...r-Sexual-Abuse

Expert Opinion. Cyril Wecht, along with 4 other doctors concurred that the injury to hymen "dated from an old injury," including Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at University of CO Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital); Dr. John McCann (see below); and Dr. Ronald Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois (Schiller 1999:437 according to Internet poster The Punisher). Forensic pathologist Robert Kirschner also said that the injuries to JonBenet were consistent with long-term sexual abuse. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida said she believed JonBenet had been sexually abused over time (Bonita Papers).



From B.papers:

Dr. Andrew Sirotnack from Children&#8217;s Hospital in Denver was also asked to review the medical findings and autopsy photographs. He confirmed McCann's determination of acute vaginal trauma during the assault on JonBenet, but He had not yet concluded that there was chronic abuse. Sirotnack had examined over 2,500 abused children during his career at Children's Hospital and had testified in approximately 50 - 100 criminal trials regarding sexual abuse on children.

In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, &#8220;In my heart, this is chronic abuse,&#8221; but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.&#8217;s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of &#8220;toilet rage&#8221; and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. &#8220;The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Ev...r-Sexual-Abuse

Expert Opinion. Cyril Wecht, along with 4 other doctors concurred that the injury to hymen "dated from an old injury," including Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at University of CO Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital); Dr. John McCann (see below); and Dr. Ronald Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois (Schiller 1999:437 according to Internet poster The Punisher). Forensic pathologist Robert Kirschner also said that the injuries to JonBenet were consistent with long-term sexual abuse. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida said she believed JonBenet had been sexually abused over time (Bonita Papers).



From B.papers:

Dr. Andrew Sirotnack from Children’s Hospital in Denver was also asked to review the medical findings and autopsy photographs. He confirmed McCann's determination of acute vaginal trauma during the assault on JonBenet, but He had not yet concluded that there was chronic abuse. Sirotnack had examined over 2,500 abused children during his career at Children's Hospital and had testified in approximately 50 - 100 criminal trials regarding sexual abuse on children.

In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation.

However they did not do the autopsy.. They are only going off the notes of the other Pathologist..

I have so many files on this case I have to go through them little by little..

 

[Venom]

Wasn't it otg that posted an informative post about the chronic and acute vaginal injuries?

I've searched and cannot find any info on chronic infections causing damage to the hymen in girls. Maybe I just haven't searched enough. :dunno:

 

[madeleine]

anyway,this piece here always was a huge red flag for me
if this sadistic pedo killed your daughter why the DEFENSIVE attitude???
something stinks here!IMO

2000 March 27 Larry King Live
Interview with John and Patsy Ramsey

Larry King: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?

Patsy Ramsey: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.

John Ramsey: We don't know.

KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?

John Ramsey: No, no.

Patsy Ramsey: No.

John Ramsey: We've -- the police have not talked to us at all. We don't know what's been done.

Larry King: Well, they have questioned you, right?

John Ramsey: They have questioned us extensively.

Larry King: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?

John Ramsey: No.

Patsy Ramsey: No.

Larry King: You don't know how your daughter died?

Patsy Ramsey: Well, we do.

John Ramsey: We do.

Patsy Ramsey: From what we...

John Ramsey: She was strangled.

Larry King: That's the cause of death, strangulation?

John Ramsey: That's the cause of death.

Larry King: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?

John Ramsey: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.

 

[tezi]

Wasn't it otg that posted an informative post about the chronic and acute vaginal injuries?

I've searched and cannot find any info on chronic infections causing damage to the hymen in girls. Maybe I just haven't searched enough. :dunno:

I believe it was otg.

JMO

 

[Agatha_C]

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

this is her autopsy and it says nothing of anything that would be chronic abuse.. Just the injury from that night...

It says the vaginal wall/hymen shows erosion.....

ero·sion noun \i-&#712;r&#333;-zh&#601;n\
: the gradual destruction of something by natural forces (such as water, wind, or ice) : the process by which something is eroded or worn away

erode verb \i-&#712;r&#333;d\
: to gradually destroy (something) or to be gradually destroyed by natural forces (such as water, wind, or ice)

It happened over time, gradually.......

 

[otg]

The CNN article here was written in January, 1998, long before much of the information we now have was available. I don’t have a link, but I remember that the “mystery” of what happened to the Maglite was answered once Time magazine printed that it was some kind of “mystery”. The BPD explained that it had been turned over to CBI early on for further analysis, and then returned to BPD custody. It may have been forgotten about once it was returned, but a spokesperson for BPD said that it had never been “lost” as had been reported in Time.

The same CNN article mentions “dark fibers found on the body (that) did not match clothing found in the house, and two types of footprints, including one near the body, (that) did not match any footwear belonging to the parents.” At the time this outdated article was printed, it wasn’t known to the public that the Ramsey clothes worn when they left the house had still not been turned over yet so they could be tested. Nor was it known then that investigators had actually found out that BR did in fact have a pair of Hi-Tec shoes that were never turned over to BPD.

The Carnes decision came in April, 2003, from a libel suit brought by one of the people the Ramseys tried to cast suspicion on in their book (for which they received a generous advance and residual royalties). There are countless threads where this is discussed here and at FFJ, which I won’t bother researching and linking now. But needless to say, anyone here who has followed the case for any length of time could go through the points made in this article about her decision and debunk each one of them; mostly because investigators who were aware of the evidence were not called to testify about the incorrect assumptions made by Judge Carnes about evidence that was not part of the public knowledge at that time. For instance (from the article):

Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. Carnes wrote that nothing in the Ramsey home was found matching the hair.

“Nothing in the Ramsey home was found” because the source (Patsy’s boots) left with Patsy when she left her “dd” (dead daughter) lying cold on the floor of her house.

Other evidence pointing to an intruder includes a shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" boot imprinted in mold on the basement floor and a palm print in the wine cellar.

Both of which were sourced at the time of this decision to Ramsey family members, but not know to the public or Carnes.

Police also found a baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys on the north side of the house with fiber on it consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found.

The only source for the phrase “not owned by the Ramseys” is from Patsy’s denial in one of her interviews.

A forensic pathologist hired by the Ramseys concluded that the injuries to the right side of JonBenet Ramsey's face were consistent with injuries sustained from a stun gun.

Key phrase here being: “A forensic pathologist hired by the Ramseys.”

Finally, a Caucasian 'pubic or auxiliary' hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body," the judge wrote. "The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced.

Actually, it had been sourced to a Ramsey, but the results had not been disclosed to Carnes or the public at the time of her decision.


There is much more which I will leave to others to dispute if they care to, but these are just some of the glaring mistakes made by Carnes.

Oh, one other thing in this article toward the end worth mentioning is this quote:

In the summer of 1998, Hunter convened a grand jury to investigate the murder. On Oct. 13, 1999, the grand jury was discharged and no indictment was issues (sic).

We also know the truth about that now too.