Patsy Ramsey

[Theonly1]

As usual, great post, Meara!

Appreciate the many insights in this thread. And here’s another ingredient to consider: PR’s Southern upbringing. I’m far from an expert on Southern culture, in spite of reading the literature of William Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, Harper Lee and others, but I do have a sense of some possible Southern behavioral differences. (Once had a business associate from Georgia who was straight out of the school of Southern Belle charm plus seeming innocence coupled with manipulation and high drama. She actually convinced her friends that her soon-to-be “ex” was going to hire a contract killer to take her out. It was strictly her Southern gothic imagination, but she was convincing!) Also, the trait of ‘envy’ can be concealed very well by a charming ‘front’.

When friends of PR spoke about her chameleon-like transitions from friend to cold stranger, when others spoke of NP ability to be both slyly nasty, yet devoted to PR, one can envision how this behavior might play out in relationships. It’s this capacity for “mean” couched in charm which seems to evoke confusion and, on reflection, insinuates inauthenticity. Here’s a wonderful youtube performance by someone from the South who has understood this phenomenon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXy-pSdwFFA&feature=kp

Lastly, one can’t forget the concept of Southern honor and religious fervor, both very visible in PR. These provide a shield, like Harry Potter’s invisible cloak, which hides PR’s shadow self during some of her twisted performances. Who will ever forget her comportment, invoking divine intervention for raising JB from the dead, and rolling around on her, as her dead daughter lay beside the Christmas tree.
All moo.

"This capacity for 'mean' couched in charm..." Very apt and eloquently put.

From a Southern Girl

 

[Venom]

i have read some of the authors mentioned, but, being from oz i have no idea about the idiosyncrasies associated with being from the south but these post make for interesting reading

the reason why, if the RDI, i found difficult for this crime to be premeditated is that i cannot find a motive. why would PR have planned to kill her, so to speak, hen that lays the golden eggs? JB was just a little girl who could still be moulded to fit into PR's idea of the perfect child.

i could see her covering for BR, JR and herself but why would she planned to kill JB? bear in mind, i know that parents are capable of murdering their children (reading WS does change your mind frame) but what would be a motive for PR to do so?


lupus est homini *advertiser censored*, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

To understand what PR's motive might be, you have to keep an open mind. Here goes: PR (could) have had some personality disorder. In her mind she was doing the right thing: saving JB from the hurts of life. What were they? Incest, growing old, getting cancer.

 

[DeDee]

Venom kindly provided the succinct response to the question on motive with a mental disorder(s) background. The truth is, we don't know the precise motive(s). Love betrayal money power bitterness greed jealousy envy fear abuse misunderstanding rejection revenge incest are often times motives for murder.

To understand the crime as a preplanned event, take John Douglas' advice given in "Mind Hunter", and step into Patsy's shoes. Start at the beginning living with her mother being an [OCD] Narcissist. Learn details like John was an older man with children. Patsy helped establish the AG business in their home in Atlanta and gets zero recognition for its billion dollar success in 1996. His daughter dies tragically. John grieves immensely. Patsy is tragically diagnosed with Stage 4. She overcomes it with the power of God. Her beautiful and talented daughter wins trophies and coveted crowns. But she may die any day. She best make haste at creating a legend. John's business is wildly successful. The children have those bothersome bedwetting and toileting issues. JonBenét was dressed in designer clothing from Paris because she is now a French blonde beauty queen. See the transformation.

Patsy already had been served a death sentence from the Master of the Universe. And she was taking her daughter with her. She was not afraid of the death penalty. She was omniscient. Besides, her husband was a multimillionaire. And just as Patsy's religion taught, her daughter would become an angel sitting at the right hand of the Father who loved and forgave Patsy the moment she sincerely confessed and repented.

What is not abundantly clear to me are the reasons why John, the intellectual, Fat Cat, stood by her side all those ten years since the moment the ransom note was read.

 

[Venom]

Venom kindly provided the succinct response to the question on motive with a mental disorder(s) background. The truth is, we don't know the precise motive(s). Love betrayal money power bitterness greed jealousy envy fear abuse misunderstanding rejection revenge incest are often times motives for murder.

To understand the crime as a preplanned event, take John Douglas' advice given in "Mind Hunter", and step into Patsy's shoes. Start at the beginning living with her mother being an [OCD] Narcissist. Learn details like John was an older man with children. Patsy helped establish the AG business in their home in Atlanta and gets zero recognition for its billion dollar success in 1996. His daughter dies tragically. John grieves immensely. Patsy is tragically diagnosed with Stage 4. She overcomes it with the power of God. Her beautiful and talented daughter wins trophies and coveted crowns. But she may die any day. She best make haste at creating a legend. John's business is wildly successful. The children have those bothersome bedwetting and toileting issues. JonBenét was dressed in designer clothing from Paris because she is now a French blonde beauty queen. See the transformation.

Patsy already had been served a death sentence from the Master of the Universe. And she was taking her daughter with her. She was not afraid of the death penalty. She was omniscient. Besides, her husband was a multimillionaire. And just as Patsy's religion taught, her daughter would become an angel sitting at the right hand of the Father who loved and forgave Patsy the moment she sincerely confessed and repented.

What is not abundantly clear to me are the reasons why John, the intellectual, Fat Cat, stood by her side all those ten years since the moment the ransom note was read.

Perhaps if he left her, the castle would fall. All their dirty secrets might come out.

 

[2 percent]

I don’t have names. But, I did provide the quote AND the source for the quote. Here’s another quote, same source:

“Although Eller had pushed the FBI out of the day-to-day investigation on the afternoon Jonbenet’s body had been found , the Bureau’s forensics labs had been analyzing the evidence for the police since January 19, and it’s Child Abductions and Serial Killer Unit (CASKU) was evaluating and profiling the crime scene.” PMPT; p. 365
...

AK

I saw the quote and source, thank you.
Unnamed FBI sources, hiding behind an acronym, do not equal named experts in the appropriate field of study agreeing Jonbenet was, in fact, sexually assaulted prior to, and during, the murder.

 

[bettybaby00]

Venom kindly provided the succinct response to the question on motive with a mental disorder(s) background. The truth is, we don't know the precise motive(s). Love betrayal money power bitterness greed jealousy envy fear abuse misunderstanding rejection revenge incest are often times motives for murder.

To understand the crime as a preplanned event, take John Douglas' advice given in "Mind Hunter", and step into Patsy's shoes. Start at the beginning living with her mother being an [OCD] Narcissist. Learn details like John was an older man with children. Patsy helped establish the AG business in their home in Atlanta and gets zero recognition for its billion dollar success in 1996. His daughter dies tragically. John grieves immensely. Patsy is tragically diagnosed with Stage 4. She overcomes it with the power of God. Her beautiful and talented daughter wins trophies and coveted crowns. But she may die any day. She best make haste at creating a legend. John's business is wildly successful. The children have those bothersome bedwetting and toileting issues. JonBenét was dressed in designer clothing from Paris because she is now a French blonde beauty queen. See the transformation.

Patsy already had been served a death sentence from the Master of the Universe. And she was taking her daughter with her. She was not afraid of the death penalty. She was omniscient. Besides, her husband was a multimillionaire. And just as Patsy's religion taught, her daughter would become an angel sitting at the right hand of the Father who loved and forgave Patsy the moment she sincerely confessed and repented.

What is not abundantly clear to me are the reasons why John, the intellectual, Fat Cat, stood by her side all those ten years since the moment the ransom note was read.

I never understood that when asked patsy only recounted the negative things in life her daughter would never experience. I've NEVER seen a parent of a murdered child do that!!!

Typically it goes something like this: she'll never grow up, never go to college, never fall in love, never have children of her own, etc., etc.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I never understood that when asked patsy only recounted the negative things in life her daughter would never experience. I've NEVER seen a parent of a murdered child do that!!!



Typically it goes something like this: she'll never grow up, never go to college, never fall in love, never have children of her own, etc., etc.

I too found that very very strange


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Is it ok then for the IDI's to dismiss the FBI's opinion of "look at the parents?" Or does that not count?



How could the fbi be pushed out???? It wasn't a kidnapping when her body was found, so the fbi had no jurisdiction.

IMO, it would be wrong for anyone to dismiss the FBI’s opinion of “look at the parents.” And, I think that everyone did “look at the parents,” it’s just that some people stopped looking when they realized that there was nothing left to look at.

I think it is wrong to dismiss any opinion offered by the FBI. You have to listen to them – they might be wrong, but you have to take what they say into account and see where it gets you. Should we dismiss their opinion that there had been no prior sexual abuse simply because it was based on information that had been provided to them? Isn’t this the way things work? Isn’t this how judges and juries (and, grand juries) and prosecutors and lawyers and experts and – well, and people, go about it? Does it matter that the FBI didn’t knock on people’s doors or personally interview witnesses/suspects, etc? Really?
.

I don’t know how the FBI cold be pushed out. I didn’t make the claim, I simply supplied the quote.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I saw the quote and source, thank you.
Unnamed FBI sources, hiding behind an acronym, do not equal named experts in the appropriate field of study agreeing Jonbenet was, in fact, sexually assaulted prior to, and during, the murder.

Well, it’s already been shown that there was dissenting opinion on prior abuse and that the pro-prior abuse experts were not able to rule out other, less nefarious explanations. It’s also been shown that “findings often attributed to sexual abuse are found in many normal children,” and, that “nearly all the findings attributed to sexual abuse are present” in non-abused children. So, the matter is not as clear cut as some seem to believe.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

Well, it’s already been shown that there was dissenting opinion on prior abuse and that the pro-prior abuse experts were not able to rule out other, less nefarious explanations. It’s also been shown that “findings often attributed to sexual abuse are found in many normal children,” and, that “nearly all the findings attributed to sexual abuse are present” in non-abused children. So, the matter is not as clear cut as some seem to believe.
...

AK

Again with the strange combination of specifics and generalities.

To recap:
Specifically, you are right that there is no way of knowing one hundred percent that there was molestation on two or more occasions. Of course the problem with that is nothing is one hundred percent. DNA is never a one hundred percent match, cars are never one hundred percent safe and there is never a one hundred percent chance any of us will survive the day. Sure there is always a very small chance all of this stirring in JBs loins (the injuries, the murder, the timing) was a coincidence. I'm not a huge believer in coincidence and never in a murder case.

Generally, you are right that not all of the experts agree exactly that JB was molested in two separate acts. Of course it's also true there was no true dissent among those who leant their name to an opinion since consensus among the dissenters seemed to be they needed to see more evidence. But not one of them dismissed the abuse out if hand.

 

[2 percent]

IMO, it would be wrong for anyone to dismiss the FBI’s opinion of “look at the parents.” And, I think that everyone did “look at the parents,” it’s just that some people stopped looking when they realized that there was nothing left to look at.

I think it is wrong to dismiss any opinion offered by the FBI. You have to listen to them – they might be wrong, but you have to take what they say into account and see where it gets you. Should we dismiss their opinion that there had been no prior sexual abuse simply because it was based on information that had been provided to them? Isn’t this the way things work? Isn’t this how judges and juries (and, grand juries) and prosecutors and lawyers and experts and – well, and people, go about it? Does it matter that the FBI didn’t knock on people’s doors or personally interview witnesses/suspects, etc? Really?
.

I don’t know how the FBI cold be pushed out. I didn’t make the claim, I simply supplied the quote.
...

AK

There's a bit of a difference there.

Jurors are never expected to be experts in anything but they do have to follow rules, the biggest being "beyond a reasonable doubt when deciding evidence and testimony. This is a known fact. The trial system is an adversarial system set up so the two opposing stories are told fairly.
(Not saying they've succeeded :floorlaugh
But jurors aren't more or less than jurors

Judges are supposed to be legal experts and have to rule on what is presented to them but they, too, base these decisions on either their interpretation of the rule of law or on the presentation of two opposing opinions. Judges sit in a position with very specific requirements. You expect a judge with legal knowledge, that's what you get.

CASKU is a great pool of expertise....but it is a pool. There is everything from profilers to forensic experts to legal expertise on how to win a case. Not having names attached to FBI "opinions" means we have no idea where the opinion is coming from. Is it a legal point of view on viability of trying someone for the molestation? A forensic opinion on the vaginal injuries? Or a profiler who, basically, deals in percentages?

I think the FBI has their place but are overhyped. Before I took their opinion seriously I'd want to know who I'm dealing with.

 

[Theonly1]

I never understood that when asked patsy only recounted the negative things in life her daughter would never experience. I've NEVER seen a parent of a murdered child do that!!!

Typically it goes something like this: she'll never grow up, never go to college, never fall in love, never have children of her own, etc., etc.

It was a justifying answer.

 

[Mama2JML]

It was a justifying answer.

Or, a survival mechanism?...

 

[Anti-K]

There's a bit of a difference there.

Jurors are never expected to be experts in anything but they do have to follow rules, the biggest being "beyond a reasonable doubt when deciding evidence and testimony. This is a known fact. The trial system is an adversarial system set up so the two opposing stories are told fairly.
(Not saying they've succeeded :floorlaugh
But jurors aren't more or less than jurors

Judges are supposed to be legal experts and have to rule on what is presented to them but they, too, base these decisions on either their interpretation of the rule of law or on the presentation of two opposing opinions. Judges sit in a position with very specific requirements. You expect a judge with legal knowledge, that's what you get.

CASKU is a great pool of expertise....but it is a pool. There is everything from profilers to forensic experts to legal expertise on how to win a case. Not having names attached to FBI "opinions" means we have no idea where the opinion is coming from. Is it a legal point of view on viability of trying someone for the molestation? A forensic opinion on the vaginal injuries? Or a profiler who, basically, deals in percentages?

I think the FBI has their place but are overhyped. Before I took their opinion seriously I'd want to know who I'm dealing with.

I was trying to say that the FBI came to their conclusions in a responsible and informed manner, just as judges, juries, experts, etc do. Judges, juries, experts, etc don’t investigate a case. A case, or evidence is presented to them. Informed decisions are made and opinions formed.

The FBI didn’t pull their opinion that there was no prior sexual abuse out of their butts. Their opinion could be wrong but is still an informed opinion. That’s all the pediatric experts (or, whatever experts they were) did when they claimed prior abuse; except their conclusions were probably less informed.

But, I sort of agree with you on many of your other FBI objections.
There is a member of the FBI whose name I do know – google him, seriously – Kenneth Lanning. Retired now, but once a member of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit and their leading expert on crimes against children. Lanning told the FBI that the Ramseys didn’t fit as suspects and that they needed to be looking outside the family.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

There's a bit of a difference there.

Jurors are never expected to be experts in anything but they do have to follow rules, the biggest being "beyond a reasonable doubt when deciding evidence and testimony. This is a known fact. The trial system is an adversarial system set up so the two opposing stories are told fairly.
(Not saying they've succeeded :floorlaugh
But jurors aren't more or less than jurors

Judges are supposed to be legal experts and have to rule on what is presented to them but they, too, base these decisions on either their interpretation of the rule of law or on the presentation of two opposing opinions. Judges sit in a position with very specific requirements. You expect a judge with legal knowledge, that's what you get.

CASKU is a great pool of expertise....but it is a pool. There is everything from profilers to forensic experts to legal expertise on how to win a case. Not having names attached to FBI "opinions" means we have no idea where the opinion is coming from. Is it a legal point of view on viability of trying someone for the molestation? A forensic opinion on the vaginal injuries? Or a profiler who, basically, deals in percentages?

I think the FBI has their place but are overhyped. Before I took their opinion seriously I'd want to know who I'm dealing with.

I was trying to say that the FBI came to their conclusions in a responsible and informed manner, just as judges, juries, experts, etc do. Judges, juries, experts, etc don’t investigate a case. A case, or evidence is presented to them. Informed decisions are made and opinions formed.

The FBI didn’t pull their opinion that there was no prior sexual abuse out of their butts. Their opinion could be wrong but is still an informed opinion. That’s all the pediatric experts (or, whatever experts they were) did when they claimed prior abuse; except their conclusions were probably less informed.

But, I sort of agree with you on many of your other FBI objections.
There is a member of the FBI whose name I do know – google him, seriously – Kenneth Lanning. Retired now, but once a member of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit and their leading expert on crimes against children. Lanning told the FBI that the Ramseys didn’t fit as suspects and that they needed to be looking outside the family.
...

AK

 

[otg]

AK, I did as you suggested and googled Lanning. Lanning once made the following statement (in regards to JMK):

"A child molester who abducts and kills his victim is the rarest kind of molester.”
​

This is a screenshot of a section from Law and Disorder, by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker:

IMO, what is often overlooked is that when we (as well as the investigators and countless “experts” and pundits) refer to “the Ramseys”, we are only thinking about the parents. Too many people look at the total picture and say that they don’t fit "the crime". But there were three distinct crimes committed: the sexual assault, the actions that caused her death, and the succeeding (and I mean that in both senses of the word) cover-up/staging. I think it’s incorrect to assume that all this was done by one single person, and doing so confuses the issue as to motive.

What so many people did (and continue to do) is demonstrated in the following video. Watch closely and see if you can count how many times the ball is passed between the players wearing white shirts (only about half the people who view this get it right):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

 

[2 percent]

...The FBI didn’t pull their opinion that there was no prior sexual abuse out of their butts. Their opinion could be wrong but is still an informed opinion. That’s all the pediatric experts (or, whatever experts they were) did when they claimed prior abuse; except their conclusions were probably less informed.

bbm
That's a heck of an assumption to make...
At least two of the named experts on the panel were noted experts in the field of child abuse, neglect, protection, etc. Drs McCann and Monteleone have won awards and recognition for their accomplishments in that field. I think Monteleone even has the neurology/psychiatry wing of Cardinal Glennon named after him (well know private children's hospital in St Louis).
These two are probably required reading for the unnamed FBI experts.

But, I sort of agree with you on many of your other FBI objections.
There is a member of the FBI whose name I do know – google him, seriously – Kenneth Lanning. Retired now, but once a member of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit and their leading expert on crimes against children. Lanning told the FBI that the Ramseys didn’t fit as suspects and that they needed to be looking outside the family.
...

AK

I know of him. He's a profiler.
Did he interview any of the Ramseys? Other members of the family, friends, doctors, teachers, school medical staff? Most importantly...did he see all of the information?
If not, he was basing this opinion on nothing but statistics and percentages. While these facts give boundaries to investigations, they certainly don't lend any actual, individual knowledge to the case

Another profiler, Gregg McCrary, disagreed. He turned down the Ramseys when they asked him to help them because the statistics and percentages were against an intruder.

 

[bettybaby00]

AK, I did as you suggested and googled Lanning. Lanning once made the following statement (in regards to JMK):

"A child molester who abducts and kills his victim is the rarest kind of molester.”
​

This is a screenshot of a section from Law and Disorder, by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker:

IMO, what is often overlooked is that when we (as well as the investigators and countless “experts” and pundits) refer to “the Ramseys”, we are only thinking about the parents. Too many people look at the total picture and say that they don’t fit "the crime". But there were three distinct crimes committed: the sexual assault, the actions that caused her death, and the succeeding (and I mean that in both senses of the word) cover-up/staging. I think it’s incorrect to assume that all this was done by one single person, and doing so confuses the issue as to motive.

What so many people did (and continue to do) is demonstrated in the following video. Watch closely and see if you can count how many times the ball is passed between the players wearing white shirts (only about half the people who view this get it right):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

BBM

Completely agree with this, and have always felt that LE had to wade through 3 crime scenes / investigations. Although I look at them this way:

1) assault/murder
2) staging
3) cover-up

 

[otg]

Well, it’s already been shown that there was dissenting opinion on prior abuse and that the pro-prior abuse experts were not able to rule out other, less nefarious explanations. It’s also been shown that “findings often attributed to sexual abuse are found in many normal children,” and, that “nearly all the findings attributed to sexual abuse are present” in non-abused children. So, the matter is not as clear cut as some seem to believe.
...

AK

Your quote from above (bbm) is correct and can be attributed to Dr. John McCann who I wrote about in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10165938&postcount=163"]this post[/ame]. You may remember that Dr. McCann was one of the experts called in for consultation on the evidence of genital injuries to JonBenet. In my previous post, I pointed out how McCann had demonstrated his reluctance to attribute individual pieces of evidence to sexual abuse. But the above quote from him is referring to individual signs of injury that had previously been considered by doctors as evidence of abuse. Taken by itself, any one of those signs (which is what he diligently worked to document) can be misinterpreted. However when there exists in one victim numerous signs of abuse, the totality of evidence (there’s that phrase again) paints a more complete picture of whether or not there was actual sexual abuse. And Dr. McCann (who you quoted above) reached a very definite conclusion about JonBenet's injuries. Here is (in part) what he is reported to have said about what he based his opinion on:

According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen where most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

McCann also noted that there appeared to be a bruise on the inner right thigh which he though might represent a thumb imprint from forcing the legs apart.

Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.

In discussing perpetrators of sexual abuse on children, McCann stated that the majority of children this age are molested by someone with whom they have close contact most commonly family members. He explained that if the molester is a stranger or someone else with whom the child is not close, the child will usually tell someone or psychological problems appear which create behavior changes observed by their parents. Common symptoms would be eating disorders, nightmares or a variety of behaviors indicating that something is bothering them. Commencement or increased bedwetting is also commonly seen in sexually abused children. When asked about JonBenet's sexualized behavior during her pageant performances, McCann said that this was not necessarily a sign of abuse, since this was taught behavior for the pageants. Also, with children's exposure to sexually explicit television programs, sexualized behavior is no longer considered to be an indication of possible sexual abuse.
​

Let’s look at the different levels of information that some of the “experts” had to base their opinions on. (1) Drs. Meyer and Sirontak viewed first-hand the injuries on the body (during autopsy) and had access to all the microscopic evidence developed in the case. (2) Drs. Rau, Monteleone, Krugman, and McCann were asked to view the autopsy photos and slides of microscopic tissue samples that were pertinent to the injuries. They were also allowed to consult with one another on all their findings (peer review). (3) To the best of my knowledge, anyone else who has weighed in on the subject (Wecht, Spitz, Krugman, etc.) had only the same evidence we have that has been made public (essentially, the AR) to base their opinions on.

I can’t believe that after all the previous discussions on the subject of the genital injuries that were found at JonBenet’s autopsy, here we are with people still trying to dispute what has been determined by the doctors who actually either saw first-hand the injuries or saw the photos of the injuries and the microscopic slides used to analyze what happened. JonBenet was sexually assaulted on the night she died. She had also been sexually molested prior to that night. That was determined by the medical examiner (Meyer), an associate with more expertise in that area who worked at Children’s Hospital in Denver (Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, who also viewed the body), and a team of experts called in for consultation (Drs. Virginia Rau, Jim Monteleone, Richard Krugman, and John McCann) who were shown autopsy photos and the microscopic slides of tissue samples that were pertinent to that determination. The only thing that could not be determined with any certainty was exactly when the prior abuse had happened (or how many times). And there is good reason for that.

Our bodies heal at different rates. Doctors might be able to guess at the approximate age of an injury based on what they know; but because of all the different factors that might influence the rate of healing, they just can’t put an exact time period on it and are reluctant to try. Additionally, some injuries that may have completely healed by the time of death might not be evident, so their presence would not be seen (if they had occurred).

(PS: Can I get credit for number of words, instead of just number of posts? :wink: )

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I was trying to say that the FBI came to their conclusions in a responsible and informed manner, just as judges, juries, experts, etc do. Judges, juries, experts, etc don’t investigate a case. A case, or evidence is presented to them. Informed decisions are made and opinions formed.

The FBI didn’t pull their opinion that there was no prior sexual abuse out of their butts. Their opinion could be wrong but is still an informed opinion. That’s all the pediatric experts (or, whatever experts they were) did when they claimed prior abuse; except their conclusions were probably less informed.

But, I sort of agree with you on many of your other FBI objections.
There is a member of the FBI whose name I do know – google him, seriously – Kenneth Lanning. Retired now, but once a member of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit and their leading expert on crimes against children. Lanning told the FBI that the Ramseys didn’t fit as suspects and that they needed to be looking outside the family.
...

AK

I agree. I think the FBI had this right. And I think after they investigated they had the right conclusion. They have nothing to gain by the R's being innocent or guilty.