Size 12 Panties

[Britt]

You seem to ignore the views of the experienced and particularly alert pediatrician who actually saw her...

Nah, Toth, it is you who are ignoring what Dr. Beuf said.

I, for one, listened to Dr. Beuf when he said, as he read from his chart notes, that August 1996 was the last time he checked JonBenet's vaginal area:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm

So how could he have known about any abuse inflicted between August and her death four months later?

And, in any case, I also listened to Dr. Beuf when he said he couldn't say definitively if he would've seen an abrasion involving the hymen because he didn't do a speculum exam:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm

 

[Toth]

So you are still taking the views of those who only saw headlines and the opportunity to make more headlines over the views of the pediatrician who actually examined her.

 

[Shylock]

85KKY is the source of the photo, And as with items 86KKY and 87KKY these were items seized from the home of the Ramseys such as the note in JBR's wastebasket. They were not photos taken by the police..why would a police photo be marked as evidence and seized pursuant to a search warrant?

You're right, #85KKY is the envelope which contained the photo. And you're asking me to explain the BPD evidence logging system, who knows that. It seems to me that before anything is put into the evidence room/locker/vault/whatever... it's going to be assigned a sequential number to track it. So I think the number is irrelevant to what the actual evidence is.

When you take an item to a coat check, they give you a numbered tag, and the number is meaningless to whether you checked in a baseball hat or a full length mink coat.

There is only one deposition from Thomas available to us. It's been a while, but I don't remember Lin Wood asking him about the dictionary. The depo is on-line, so it should be easy to check.

 

[Shylock]

Polaroid and other instant camera films do not elarge by negative like 35 mm cameras do. They also cannot focus and reproduce to prints with the precision that 35mm.
whynutt, if want to endorse instant photos for forensic use, that's fine with me. I don't.

Why is this an issue? We've seen OTHER crime scene photos from the house which were obviously 35mm because of the detail. The window well is a perfect example.

So the bottom line is the BPD uses BOTH methods of photography. Why poloroid? Two reasons: Obviously so the detectives have access to a visual record RIGHT AWAY. But more importantly, because you know if that photo is going to come out 30-seconds later. With 35mm film, if you get a bad roll, you may not know about it for a couple days while the crime lab processes it. Then it's too late.

 

[Shylock]

and you seem to forget that this was a very personable and assertive young girl who was well protected in a loving family.

You said a mouthful, Toth! Yep, she was WELL protected, just like her brother was WELL protected--from of life of being known as the kid who killed his beauty queen sister while playing doctor. HE was protected so well, that they staged an entire crime to keep him from whatever future they couldn't control.

And it sure worked perfectly, didn't it Toth? You and a few thousand others bought into it--hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Britt]

So you are still taking the views of those who only saw headlines and the opportunity to make more headlines over the views of the pediatrician who actually examined her.

lol... and you are still taking the views of the Ramseyist presentation over substance approach to spin.

Yeah, Beuf believes JB wasn't abused, just like the Ramsey supporters believe the Ramseys are innocent, without being in a position to know whether it's true or not.

Yes, JB was "personable" and "assertive." She was also a trained performer who no doubt had the poise and self-control to put on whatever presentation she or her stage mother or her beloved daddy wanted Dr. Beuf to see. And that's all Beuf has, since he didn't do the necessary physical exams to know if she was being abused.

 

[Toth]

Yes, JB was "personable" and "assertive." She was also a trained performer who no doubt had the poise and self-control to put on whatever presentation she or her stage mother or her beloved daddy wanted Dr. Beuf to see.

Personable, assertive, poised, exercises self-control... and you think she kept quiet about abuse? Don't you see the contradictions in your own statement?

Stage mother?? Not one of the people who knew her has expressed similar emotions or anything even remotely close to it (save for one woman who sold some stuff to the tabloids).

 

[Toth]

And that's all Beuf has, since he didn't do the necessary physical exams to know if she was being abused.

Don't you realize that doing such an exam without even a hint of probable cause constitutes Child Sexual Abuse !! Are you really and truly saying that is what you would have wanted to have happened?

 

[Britt]

Personable, assertive, poised, exercises self-control... and you think she kept quiet about abuse? Don't you see the contradictions in your own statement?

You talk about her as if she had adult awareness.

 

[Ivy]

If JonBenet was willingly playing doctor with Burke, she'd more than likely keep quiet about it.

imo

 

[Britt]

Don't you realize that doing such an exam without even a hint of probable cause constitutes Child Sexual Abuse !! Are you really and truly saying that is what you would have wanted to have happened?

Where did I say that? lol

All I want is for Dr. Beuf to be honest. Here's an example:

I (Beuf) didn't examine JB's vaginal area since August of 1996, and I never did a speculum exam at all, so I have no physical findings on which to base an opinion about sexual abuse. I didn't notice any behavioral symptoms and/or none were reported to me by Patsy, but then, I never specifically asked JB about sexual abuse. Was JB being molested? My short answer is: I don't know. I like to think I would've known, but the truth is, I didn't. How could I?

Now, is that so hard?

 

[Britt]

If JonBenet was willingly playing doctor with Burke, she'd more than likely keep quiet about it.

Right. What Ivy says, too. Excellent point, Ivy.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

On the few occasions that JonBenét's health warranted a look by Dr Beuf at her genital area, he did no intrustive examination. He examined her as any pediatrician would be expected to examine a patient with her reported symptoms.

Those examinations did not indicate any abuse at that time.

Dr Beuf could not have known about any abuse since at least the last physical examination.

JonBenét did not exhibit any classic symptons of ongoing physical sexual abuse. (we've been that a million times, minimum)

 

[Shylock]

JonBenét did not exhibit any classic symptons of ongoing physical sexual abuse.

Except that normal girls her age don't wet a bed almost nightly, and they don't ever soil the bed with solid waste. Both are "classic symptons of ongoing physical sexual abuse" as the victim tries to make herself unattractive to the attacker.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Bedwetting alone is not symptomatic of ongoing sexual abuse. Look it up.

JonBenét was not, by anyone's testimony, wetting her bed everynight or nearly everynight by age 6.

There is no evidence that JonBenét ever defecated in her bed, if that is your inference.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I asked my friend with a 6-year-old daughter and an 11-year-old daughter about panty sizes, as well as whether the 6-year-old might wear size 12 panties instead of her own size.

The answers were as some have posted before: size 12 panties would be big on a 6-year-old, but would not fall off of her.

My friend's daughter would gladly put on her sister's size 12s, or new size 12s, because it would seem to be "acting bigger". Whether or not they bunched up under pants wouldn't be a deciding factor for the daughter to wear them.

 

[why_nutt]

Polaroid and other instant camera films do not elarge by negative like 35 mm cameras do. They also cannot focus and reproduce to prints with the precision that 35mm.

whynutt, if want to endorse instant photos for forensic use, that's fine with me. I don't.

I do not have to "endorse instant photos for forensic use." It has already been done at trial. Surely you remember a little thing called the Westerfield trial?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/20020619-9999-pm1.html

A: THE FINGERS THEMSELVES WEREN'T REHYDRATING AS QUICKLY AS I WAS HOPING. AND SO WHAT I DECIDED TO DO WAS REMOVE A SECTION OR ACTUALLY TWO SECTIONS OF THE HAND OR THE FINGERS THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN, A SECTION OF THE LEFT MIDDLE FINGER AND A SECTION OF THE LEFT RING FINGER. WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS GET THOSE THEN SEPARATELY INTO SOLUTION SO THAT -- SO THE SOLUTION CAN GO AT IT FROM BOTH SIDES AND REHYDRATE IT QUICKER.

Q: SO YOU HAD TO CUT THE SKIN OFF?

A: YES.Q: WHICH FINGERS DID YOU CUT THE SKIN OFF?

A: THE LEFT MIDDLE AND THE LEFT RING FINGERS.

Q: ONCE YOU HAD THE SKIN REMOVED, WHAT DID YOU DO TO GIVE YOURSELF SOME KNOWN PRINTS?

A: GRABBED A POLAROID CAMERA, A THREE-TIME ENLARGING POLAROID CAMERA, AND TOOK PICTURES OF THOSE SECTIONS OF SKIN THAT I HAD REMOVED, LAID THEM ON A PIECE OF PAPER, HELD IT DOWN WITH A COUPLE OF SWABS, WOODEN SWABS, AND APPLIED SILVER POWDER TO ADD CONTRAST AND PHOTOGRAPHED IT.

Q: THEN WHAT?

A: FROM THERE I DID A COMPARISON OF -- WITH THE POLAROIDS AS WELL AS THE LATENT PRINT.

Q: LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT I'VE HAD PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT 110, THIS POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH. APPEARS TO SHOW A FINGERPRINT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, MR. GRAHAM?

A: YES, I DO.

(POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 110 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)

BY MR. DUSEK:

Q: CAN YOU SHOW IT UP AND TELL US WHAT IT IS.

A: THIS IS A POLAROID OF THE SECTION OF SKIN FROM THE LEFT MIDDLE FINGER OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q: THAT'S AFTER THE SKIN HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM HER HAND?

A: SKIN'S BEEN REMOVED. IT'S BEEN SILVER POWDERED. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO WOODEN STICKS. THOSE ARE SWABS THAT I AM USING TO HOLD THAT SECTION OF SKIN FLAT.

Q: DID YOU PREPARE THIS EXHIBIT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: I'VE HAD MARKED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT 111 WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SIMILAR POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH. WHAT IS IT?

A: IT'S THE SAME ONLY THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE LEFT RING FINGER. ALSO HELD DOWN WITH SWABS, ALSO SILVER POWDERED.

(POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 111FOR IDENTIFICATION.)

BY MR. DUSEK:

Q: THAT CAME FROM THE HAND OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?

A: YES. YES.

 

[Shylock]

Bedwetting alone is not symptomatic of ongoing sexual abuse. Look it up.
JonBenét was not, by anyone's testimony, wetting her bed everynight or nearly everynight by age 6.
There is no evidence that JonBenét ever defecated in her bed, if that is your inference.

Well you missed the ball on all three of the items above, LovelyPigeon.

#1) - Yep, let's look it up:
Several clues are associated with sexual abuse:
-Genital infections, redness, or discharge
-Burning with urination
-Urinary tract infection
-New onset of either bedwetting or stool problems
-Seductive behavior
http://www.drgreene.com/21_1185.html

Well, well, well... Looks like JonBenet had ALL THE ABOVE symptoms. The first three we know about thanks to Dr. Beuf. The fourth thanks to LHP and others. And we have all seen the "seductive behavior" she was taught on pageant tapes, as well as heard the "sexy witch" and other stories.
How about another one, just for fun! - There are PAGES AND PAGES on the net about sexual abuse and bedwetting:

Sexual Abuse Behavioral Indicators & Changes
These are the more pronounced possible changes that can take place in any combination if your child is experiencing sexual abuse:
1. Bedwetting
http://www.safenetwork.org/behavior_indicators.html


#2) Does a child have to wet her bed EVERY NIGHT to show clues of sexual abuse?--Not at all. (Look it up) We know from LHP that the bedwetting was consistant. Even Burke in his interview told the BPD that the bed wetting was a big problem. The bed wetting was enough of a problem that they put Pull-Ups on her at night. The truth is that, (except for occasional far and few between accidents) 6-year old little girls do NOT have a bedwetting problems that require night-diapers. And NO girl that age defecates in her bed.

#3) There IS evidence of bedwetting--HARD EVIDENCE. The sheets off her bed that night tested positive for urine. We also have the testimony of LHP who described the wetting and defecating she found in the bed. At the time LHP told the police about it she was fully supporting the Ramseys and was unaware she had been thrown under the bus. There is no reason to doubt her accounts from that time period.

 

[Toth]

>The sheets off her bed that night tested positive for urine.
Trace amounts, no more than any other well-laundered bed sheet would have, including yours.

>We also have the testimony of LHP who described the wetting and
>defecating she found in the bed. At the time LHP told the police about it
>she was fully supporting the Ramseys.
At the time she came up with such fanciful nonsense about defecating on the bedsheets she had tabloid/bookroyalty dollar signs in her eyes.

 

[K777angel]

>The sheets off her bed that night tested positive for urine.
Trace amounts, no more than any other well-laundered bed sheet would have, including yours.

>We also have the testimony of LHP who described the wetting and
>defecating she found in the bed. At the time LHP told the police about it
>she was fully supporting the Ramseys.
At the time she came up with such fanciful nonsense about defecating on the bedsheets she had tabloid/bookroyalty dollar signs in her eyes.

Lies,lies,lies Toth. This information came out EARLY on in the investigation - not 6 years later when she was working on a book.

You would just like to THINK that it was later with some monetary motivation so that the truth can be squelched.
There was even evidence of old "brown stains" on her white blanket. Or do you think those were BLOOD? Which carries an even more sinister connotation.

You have no idea either what JonBenet Ramsey's personality traits and characteristics were. You did not KNOW her nor her family.
Everything you post of these family members is through rose colored glasses.
WHY????

By the way - it is NOT TRUE that no other mother came forward with concerns about Patsy's stage mother problem and how it was affecting JonBenet. In fact, Schiller reports in his book that a GROUP of mothers were planning on confronting Patsy after Christmas with their concerns over her pushing JonBenet into so much "pagaent" crap and how it was affecting her.
It's called "intervention" - and she needed it. Bless those kind-hearted mothers.

~Angel~