Tennison, please go read all the facts because you are absolutely WRONG.If the duct tape was added before or after she died does not explain 'innocently' why Patsy Ramsey's fibres from he top she had on the 25th December were on the tape. The tape was cut for the specific purpose of covering JonBenet's mouth. It was done within the proximity of the event. How would Patsy's fibres get on that? Got an answer that doesn't involve making stuff up? Oh, but just to correct you -- the tape was added after she died as the tape had a bloody mucous on it and a perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance. You know, no resistance as it was applied when she was dead.
Utter nonsense. Please go educate yourself on the facts because Tennison, you are wrong here. JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. Add it the FACT that the underwear JonBenet was found in were brand-new from a pack never before worn and that they weren't actually underwear meant for JonBenet I've asked a good question there. Of course you don't accept that -- because according to you, JonBenet wasn't molested at all. Her injuries were all accidental.
Nonsense. You have denied molestation -- your posts testify to this fact. And I haven't made out anything so please do not lie and misconstrue anything I say. It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested both acutely and chronically. That means she was molested at the time she died and at least 48-72 hours prior. Thus, your deceitful statement there that I claim the abuse was extensive is a complete fabrication. I claim what the experts claim. Nothing more, nothing less.But you are manifestly wrong to say that the abuse wasn't extensive in any form -- the bare facts testify to how JonBenet had to have been molested at least twice. Given that her hymen was eroded aswell as her genital opening being twice the normal size, it is indicative that the abuse was extensive as per the experts' claims. Thus, your refusal to accept these blindingly obvious facts is not rooted in reason but rather a desire on your part to defend an illogical view your hold for whatever reason.
i REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY TO SUCH IGNORANT COMMENTS AS :
1) If the duct tape was added before or after she died does not explain 'innocently' why Patsy Ramsey's fibres from he top she had on the 25th December were on the tape. ANSWER = FIBRE TRANSFER
How would Patsy's fibres get on that? Got an answer that doesn't involve making stuff up? ANSWER = FIBRE TRANSFER
2) JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. ANSWER = FIBRE TRANSFER
the tape was added after she died as the tape had a bloody mucous on it and a perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance. You know, no resistance as it was applied when she was dead.[/COLOR] WHERE IS THE LINK TO THIS EVIDENCE
3) JonBenet's genital/thigh area was wiped down. Yet, even after being cleaned, John's fibres from his shirt were on her genital area. Add it the FACT that the underwear JonBenet was found in were brand-new from a pack never before worn and that they weren't actually underwear meant for JonBenet. AGAIN FIBRE TRANSFER
4) because according to you, JonBenet wasn't molested at all. Her injuries were all accidental. [/COLOR] THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE THE AUTOPSY REPORTS ARE CLEAR ON THE GENITAL MOLESTATION I JUST DONT NECESSARILY BELIEVE IT WAS JOHN OR PATSY.
5) You have denied molestation -- your posts testify to this fact. And I haven't made out anything so please do not lie and misconstrue anything I say . POSTS PLEASE?????????????????????
6) It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested. It's an objective fact JonBenet was molested both acutely and chronically.
A FACT CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE< THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED A FACT.
7) genital opening being twice the normal size. PROOF OF THIS PLEASE
YOU are clearly ignorant of the forensic details of this case, there was just as much to suggest an intruder theory, Fibres, DNA, footprints, Foreign pubic hair, open cellar window, unidentified palm prints ect as parental guilt.
WE obviously disagree and i think it is best left at that and i hope one day one of us will be proved wrong, at least JB will get justice finally.