Patsy Ramsey

[2 percent]

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.

The FBI didn't investigate! :banghead:

No one but the Ramseys had anything to gain, really.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The FBI didn't investigate! :banghead:

No one but the Ramseys had anything to gain, really.

Sure they did. they looked into it. They knew there was no prior abuse.

 

[2 percent]

Sure they did. they looked into it. They knew there was no prior abuse.

By that standard, we investigate this case too since we are also "looking into into it".

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

By that standard, we investigate this case too since we are also "looking into into it".

Not at all the same thing. It is the FBI. We can suppose all we want. The FBI knows that is up.

 

[otg]

Sure they did. they looked into it. They knew there was no prior abuse.

From AK's posts:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens
​

 

[bettybaby00]

By that standard, we investigate this case too since we are also "looking into into it".

:lol:

Yea it's been pretty much accepted that they didn't investigate, but, yea well.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

We all have to choose what sources are most credible for us. The FBI has nothing to lose or gain by the R's being innocent or guilty. Nothing. So their opinion based on their experience means a lot to me.

 

[2 percent]

Not at all the same thing. It is the FBI. We can suppose all we want. The FBI knows that is up.

The only difference I see is, possibly, the expertise but even that isn't a certainty. Most of us on this site don't know each other. If I told you I'm a well known expert in ballistics you have no idea if I'm telling you the truth unless I choose to prove it to you (which I wouldn't, in any case).

I see no reason to assume the FBI knows any better "what is up" than anyone else who has seen the same evidence and has similar expertise. They are not always right.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The only difference I see is, possibly, the expertise but even that isn't a certainty. Most of us on this site don't know each other. If I told you I'm a well known expert in ballistics you have no idea if I'm telling you the truth unless I choose to prove it to you (which I wouldn't, in any case).

I see no reason to assume the FBI knows any better "what is up" than anyone else who has seen the same evidence and has similar expertise. They are not always right.

The FBI knows better than all of us. That is just a fact. They are trained better. It is not the same as one of us saying anything.

 

[Anti-K]

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

Incidentally, I’m quite familiar with this little experiment and have commented on it before (for example: http://tinyurl.com/o57xguw Also, see The Invisible Gorilla by Simons and Chabris), but fail to see how it illustrates any point you were trying to make.
.

It is correct to assume – presume, in fact – that all acts were committed by a single person. There isn’t much to show otherwise, but of course presumption is that which must be disproved, so go ahead and try.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.



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.

Did any of the pediatric experts “interview any of the Ramseys? Other members of the family, friends, doctors, teachers, school medical staff? Most importantly...did [any of them] see all of the information?”

Of course not.

Regardless, apples and oranges here – the pediatric experts were commenting on prior abuse, Lanning was commenting on the murder (events that occurred that night).

When I say that the FBI were PROBABLY more informed I am referring to their access to expert opinions in addition to specifics of the Ramseys case as provided to them; whereas the pediatric experts, as far as I know, based their opinions on photographs and the AR.

I don’t think that Lanning was a profiler. He was the FBI’s leading expert on crimes against children.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

The FBI knows better than all of us. That is just a fact. They are trained better. It is not the same as one of us saying anything.

Wow. Thats some crush you have there.
Again, the FBI has their place but they are only a part of the equation, not always the biggest or best part. They are people with prejudices and opinions and, most prominently, egos.

 

[Anti-K]

Your quote from above (bbm) is correct and can be attributed to Dr. John McCann who I wrote about in this post. 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: )

The Bonita Papers isn’t the sort of source that posters should be using if they hope to be found credible.

Note that in the passage from which you quoted it also states that,” 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.” http://tinyurl.com/

And that Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse.” In her heart; please....

Dr Richard Krugman: “told the media that on the basis of what he’d read in the report, Jonbenet was not a sexually abused child. The he added, ‘I don’t believe it’s possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone.’” PMPT; p. 557

Dr Werner Spitz said that Jonbenet’s vaginal injury dated to the tim of her death. PMPT; p. 672

Detective Harmer...reviewed the medical findings about JonBenét's vaginal injuries. Several well-known experts had concluded that the child's hymen was torn weeks or even months before her murder, Harmer said, but other experts had said the tear was recent. Broken blood vessels inside the child's vagina clearly indicated that she was penetrated that night, but there was no conclusive evidence of a sexual assault before that time. PMPT; p. 781

The results, however, were not what is known in the legal world as “conclusive” – which means that there can be no other interpretation... Thomas; p. 254

We can quote back and forth all day, but any unbiased and impartial investigation of the matter clearly shows that the question of prior abuse has not been settled; and, it won’t be. Quite frankly, I don’t care because, as I’ve always said, let’s just assume that prior abuse is a fact and see where that gets us. So far, it’s gotten us nowhere.

To me, the only real question here should be, is prior abuse connected to the crime? So far, we don’t; know what the form the abuse took, who was responsible for it, how many times did it occur, how recent was it, who else knew about it and no connection to the crime has even been established. Zip, zilch, nada, none.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

Did any of the pediatric experts “interview any of the Ramseys? Other members of the family, friends, doctors, teachers, school medical staff? Most importantly...did [any of them] see all of the information?”

Of course not.

They were asked to give a medical opinion, those sources would have been useless for that. It's quite obvious the FBI was asked for a slightly different opinion since no medical evidence was provided to them.

Regardless, apples and oranges here – the pediatric experts were commenting on prior abuse, Lanning was commenting on the murder (events that occurred that night).

When I say that the FBI were PROBABLY more informed I am referring to their access to expert opinions in addition to specifics of the Ramseys case as provided to them; whereas the pediatric experts, as far as I know, based their opinions on photographs and the AR.

I don’t think that Lanning was a profiler. He was the FBI’s leading expert on crimes against children.
...

AK

Hmmm I think you were clear. I also think otg's post addressed the resources used for each opinion set.

He was a profiler.

 

[CherCher]

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.

But you don't think the FBI had it right when they suggested to the BPD that the family probably had something to do with the crime?

I myself have never been CONVINCED that actual sexual molestation was taking place. That's just me. Doesn't mean there aren't other explanations for an eroded hymen and enlarged vaginal opening in a 6 year old. (I feel creepy even typing that) But the possibility of her being molested is still something I believe could have happened.

But even though JBR WAS "sexually molested" on the night of her death, I find it more than strange that there was no actual rape if it were an intruder.

 

[2 percent]

But you don't think the FBI had it right when they suggested to the BPD that the family probably had something to do with the crime?

I myself have never been CONVINCED that actual sexual molestation was taking place. That's just me. Doesn't mean there aren't other explanations for an eroded hymen and enlarged vaginal opening in a 6 year old. (I feel creepy even typing that) But the possibility of her being molested is still something I believe could have happened.

But even though JBR WAS "sexually molested" on the night of her death, I find it more than strange that there was no actual rape if it were an intruder.

Very good point. So basic in logic it's embarrassing to overlook :blushing:

 

[TaylurRose02]

The FBI knows better than all of us. That is just a fact. They are trained better. It is not the same as one of us saying anything.

Hmm. Okay I'll bite. If they know best, why did they say the crime looked staged?

 

[Mama2JML]

But you don't think the FBI had it right when they suggested to the BPD that the family probably had something to do with the crime?

I myself have never been CONVINCED that actual sexual molestation was taking place. That's just me. Doesn't mean there aren't other explanations for an eroded hymen and enlarged vaginal opening in a 6 year old. (I feel creepy even typing that) But the possibility of her being molested is still something I believe could have happened.

But even though JBR WAS "sexually molested" on the night of her death, I find it more than strange that there was no actual rape if it were an intruder.

Obviously, the motive doesn't appear to be "sex". If "power" was a driving force, wouldn't the act of rape have left the perp a little too vulnerable?...

 

[Theonly1]

Obviously, the motive doesn't appear to be "sex". If "power" was a driving force, wouldn't the act of rape have left the perp a little too vulnerable?...

?

Not if he wore a condom.

 

[Mama2JML]

?

Not if he wore a condom.

?
I'm speaking of immediate vulnerability, greater than that presented by a general IDI theory.