Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[InstantProof]

OTG, thank you for the youtube clip! I never had the patience to watch the whole film to find similarities - oh my, Im stunned how the RN has almost the exact same flavor of wording. If it werent for the fact that JonBenet had been murdered in an unspeakably terrible manner, I might be able to laugh a little----but seeing this just makes me feel angry! Such arrogance and disrespect! to copycat like that. Now I have a better "feel" for why some ppl speculate that both PR and JR had a hand in the writing of the RN. It stands out in my mind now, what JR said in one of his interviews, regarding the affair he once had, comparing it to the film Fatal Attraction, and how he could have written the screenplay for it (Fatal Attraction). In light of everything we know now, it was a stupid thing for him to brag about. SMH. JMO

The letter is movie dialogue mixed with feminine writing IMO.

 

[inspector rex]

Again, you’ve started off with something wrong which is completely misleading, and which leads to an incorrect conclusion.

Steve Thomas’ book was not “drawn from the Bonita Papers”. Steve Thomas’ book was based on the BPD investigation (which he was a part of until his departure) and his own personal experience. The Bonita Papers were also based on the BPD investigation and the evidence that had been collected up to the point in time of its writing. Neither the book nor the "papers" were based on the other.

No, it is YOU who misquoted. What I wrote was The quote attributed to McCann was in the book written by ST, which was drawn from the Bonita Papers You either deliberately misquoted or misread what I wrote and I'm thinking it was the former when you cropped my quote to exclude The quote attributed by McCann. I never said ST's book was based on the Bonita papers, what I said was the quote attributed to McCann was in the ST book. It was this quote that was drawn from the Bonita papers. I'm saying this to demonstrate that this quote supposedly from McCann can be found nowhere else except in the ST book, via the Bonita papers, via supposedly the information provided by the BPD. I think you would be able to find the actual quote from McCann on the subject not a third or fourth hand version. ST's information was not very reliable when held up to scrutiny. It was frequently based on a he said, he said.

Bonita Sauer never “had the intention of selling this to the tabloids”. So with these two fallacies(?) you’ve drawn the incorrect conclusion and stated that Thomas’ book was based on “an article designed to appear in a tabloid”. Nice try, but it just doesn’t ring true, and I can’t let you get away with it.

Oh, I see I made a mistake. The Bonita papers were apparently intended to go into a book. It was her relative who sold them to the tabloids. This makes so much difference.

If the following quote sounds familiar to some, it’s because it was first posted less than a year ago on another thread. But it needs to be repeated so the Bonita Papers are understood for what they actually are -- not what someone attempts to spin them as.

When the Bonita Papers were written, they were based on the police files that existed at the time, because those files had been given to the three attorneys who were working pro bono for the BPD. Those lawyers were Daniel Hoffman (not Darnay), Robert Miller, and Richard Baer. Hoffman's paralegal secretary (Bonita Sauer) copied those files with the intent (supposedly) of putting them together for a book when all the dust settled. Unfortunately for her, she shared those files with some of her relatives, and one of them (a nephew) saw an opportunity for himself and sold copies of those files to National Enquirer. Its editor, Don Gentile, then used them to release a book (JonBenet, the Police Files). No one can say that the Bonita Papers are the ultimate source for information today, because some of the things police knew (or thought they knew) at the time may have changed since their writing (1999). But much of the information contained in them has since been confirmed by other media sources, and some of it has been overshadowed by additional evidence that wasn't known at the time.

The Bonita Papers were not an official release of police files. Indeed, they contained information that the police wanted kept confidential at the time. So some people will try to say they mean nothing and are unreliable (especially if they provide information detrimental to the position that person is trying to convey). But the information in them is based on the evidence investigators had at the time of their writing. It's up to the individual to decide how much credence they wish to place on the information.
​

Wouldn’t it be better for all if we state facts as they actually are rather than trying to spin them the way we want others to view things? At least readers here might be more likely to trust something said rather than thinking they have to fact-check anything written.

This was a quote I believe you said, so would you be so kind as to include the source?
I'm in total agreement with you that readers here need to be able to trust what is written.

Dr. Krugman was brought in by the DA, Alex Hunter, three months after JonBenet’s death. He was not part of the original group asked to view the evidence of sexual abuse. I really don’t know if (being part of the DA’s group) Krugman was given access to all the evidence the BPD had that was shared with the group of experts, but I think he probably was. (In some places, it says that he was only given the AR and other "police reports".) In various interviews, quotes, and snippets he seems to have been all over the place about the possibility of sexual abuse -- but that's because he draws a distinct difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse. So we have to be careful in reading his statements to differentiate between exactly what he is referring to.

Again, I agree with what you say and in reading the quote from the Burden of Proof interview, (below) this confirms all the information I have posted previously. I'll just bold some portions to highlight what I'm referring to:


Dr. Krugman seemed to be telling investigators things that he was unwilling to commit to publicly (JMO). But the best window into what Krugman seemed to be thinking came in an interview on Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997:

COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?

KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.

COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?

KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.

COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?

KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.

COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?

KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.

COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.

KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
​

What I gather from what Krugman is saying in the above discourse that seems to get misinterpreted by many when only parts of his statements are quoted is that the genital injuries which we assume to be of a “sexual” nature because of their location, he views as possibly “physical” abuse because of the unknown intent of the perpetrator. Krugman never disputes or diminishes the injuries to JonBenet’s genitals -- only the reason for their being inflicted. IOW, because the assailant was not seeking sexual gratification (in his opinion), the injuries were intended only as physical punishment (again, in his opinion). This is simply my interpretation of what Krugman may have been thinking in his statements. As others have stated, “YMMV.”

Yes, I think you need to re-read, as your interpretation of Dr Krugman's conclusions seem to be incorrect.
So Krugman actually says was "I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case",
Furthermore he stated that "one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way."
When asked to expand on this, he says "I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened."

 

[midwest mama]

We can nit-pick the details of the injuries inflicted upon JB for another 19 years, but even an untrained eye belonging to a Regular Joe only has to look at the autopsy photos and read the report to know that she was violently murdered. IMO, the GJ had it right in saying "First Degree Murder" was commited.

After all that is now known, does anyone doubt for a second that a suspect who could be charged and found guilty of this crime would possibly deserve the death penalty?

Bottom line: we know a beautiful 6 year old girl was brutally murdered in her own home and the guilty party has, so far, escaped complete judgement by a jury of peers calling for accountability of the crime.

 

[inspector rex]

We can nit-pick the details of the injuries inflicted upon JB for another 19 years, but even an untrained eye belonging to a Regular Joe only has to look at the autopsy photos and read the report to know that she was violently murdered. IMO, the GJ had it right in saying "First Degree Murder" was commited.

After all that is now known, does anyone doubt for a second that a suspect who could be charged and found guilty of this crime would possibly deserve the death penalty?

Bottom line: we know a beautiful 6 year old girl was brutally murdered in her own home and the guilty party has, so far, escaped complete judgement by a jury of peers calling for accountability of the crime.

I think it is these small details that lead people to form their opinions on the case and develop theories.
For example, if someone misinterprets a couple of words in the AR to mean that she was previously sexually abused when in fact it simply means she had a longstanding infection.
And you add to that an incorrect interpretation of what an 'expert' has said to mean that he believes she was sexually abused, when in fact, he simply said there was no evidence of her being sexually abused.
Then you include other little details (aka 'the totally of evidence') which is simply a collection of incorrect/inapplicable information.
You may then rely on evidence and information with either doesn't exist or which has been incorrectly or selectively applied and thus form an opinion, from which stance you evaluate all the other evidence and information in the case in support of this.
Bottom line being you are completely off course.
But if enough others are persuaded to think likewise, then this tends to support a theory.
Nothing you have done wrong.
Not your fault.

But the devil as they say, is in the detail, and its critical that the details are correct.

So, this is why I have challenged the evidence that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night she died.
I believe it is unable to be supported either by the forensic evidence or by any history available to us.

And I further believe that without proof of prior sexual abuse, many who believe in RDI will now need to reassess what they think was the motivation for the murder, that they are certain was enacted by one, two or three of her family members.

 

[UKGuy]

I think it is these small details that lead people to form their opinions on the case and develop theories.
For example, if someone misinterprets a couple of words in the AR to mean that she was previously sexually abused when in fact it simply means she had a longstanding infection.
And you add to that an incorrect interpretation of what an 'expert' has said to mean that he believes she was sexually abused, when in fact, he simply said there was no evidence of her being sexually abused.
Then you include other little details (aka 'the totally of evidence') which is simply a collection of incorrect/inapplicable information.
You may then rely on evidence and information with either doesn't exist or which has been incorrectly or selectively applied and thus form an opinion, from which stance you evaluate all the other evidence and information in the case in support of this.
Bottom line being you are completely off course.
But if enough others are persuaded to think likewise, then this tends to support a theory.
Nothing you have done wrong.
Not your fault.

But the devil as they say, is in the detail, and its critical that the details are correct.

So, this is why I have challenged the evidence that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night she died.
I believe it is unable to be supported either by the forensic evidence or by any history available to us.

And I further believe that without proof of prior sexual abuse, many who believe in RDI will now need to reassess what they think was the motivation for the murder, that they are certain was enacted by one, two or three of her family members.

inspector rex,

And I further believe that without proof of prior sexual abuse, many who believe in RDI will now need to reassess what they think was the motivation for the murder, that they are certain was enacted by one, two or three of her family members.

Ok you not believe, but proof of prior abuse might exist, lying in an evidence cage in some BPD facility, just that without a trial its not going to appear?

midwest mama is 100% correct, somebody did sexually assault JonBenet, did whack her on the head, did asphyxiate her, all on or around midnight and that the Grand Jury did indict the parents. The GJ did not indict a John or Jane Doe, i.e. an intruder, it was the parents!

Patently absence of prior sexual abuse was no barrier for the GJ when they arrived at their final conclusion.

Your position on prior sexual abuse is agnostic, its simply a belief, not something demonstrated, so adopting a pedantic position and making sweeping general assertions regarding the case, is to say the least, not constructive.

.

 

[questfortrue]

Thanks, UKGuy, for your comments and reiterating the GJ’s thoughts, and thanks, otg, for the detail on Dr. Krugman’s stance.

Well, if I were part of a defense team in a court room, I wouldn’t choose to use Dr. Krugman in order to support an intruder homicide. Dr. Krugman seemed to consider it could have been (genital) abuse triggered by toileting issues. Research dealing with this topic frequently include a description of abuse ending in death as an “escalation” of the abuse, meaning abuse which occurred previously, and this time spiraled out of control. It’s written into the Colorado statutes and taken very seriously – A Class II felony carrying a possible sentence of 4 to 48 years in prison.

Here’s another Krugman comment in which he ventures out to state his thoughts on JB’s death (from the Philadelphia Inquirer in April ’97): "Obviously, this is an abuse death,'' said Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the University of Colorado's medical school and a national child-abuse expert who is part of the team assembled by Hunter to investigate JonBenet's killing. "Whether it's physical abuse alone, or physical and sexual abuse, we don't know.'' Note there's no equivocation that her death is attributed to anything but abuse.

Maybe it’s not obvious to some here, but the term “abuse” is also one which points right back to the family. Yeah, it’d be pretty risky for the defense to use Dr. Krugman and his abuse theory in court.

 

[inspector rex]

inspector rex,

Ok you not believe, but proof of prior abuse might exist, lying in an evidence cage in some BPD facility, just that without a trial its not going to appear?

midwest mama is 100% correct, somebody did sexually assault JonBenet, did whack her on the head, did asphyxiate her, all on or around midnight and that the Grand Jury did indict the parents. The GJ did not indict a John or Jane Doe, i.e. an intruder, it was the parents!

Patently absence of prior sexual abuse was no barrier for the GJ when they arrived at their final conclusion.

Your position on prior sexual abuse is agnostic, its simply a belief, not something demonstrated, so adopting a pedantic position and making sweeping general assertions regarding the case, is to say the least, not constructive.

.

UKGuy, for my part, I have no issue with people 'believing' in something they are unable to prove or for which no evidence exists.

Your position on prior sexual abuse is agnostic, its simply a belief, not something demonstrated, so adopting a pedantic position and making sweeping general assertions regarding the case, is to say the least, not constructive.

BBM
I'm guessing that when you use the word 'agnostic' to describe my drawing your attention to a lack of evidence for prior sexual abuse, you are somehow likening this to a person who doesn't believe in God?
If so, you need to re-think this accusation.
A more correct term would be skeptic.
A skeptic is a person who requires a belief to be backed by proof.

I believe this is what we were asked to do by Tricia. again BBM

All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

When I get time I will be going through the forum to make sure the JonBenet Ramsey forum is being held up to the high standards just like all our other forums on Websleuths.

The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone. Facts and logic. Very simple.

I am doing just this. Facts and logic.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, for my part, I have no issue with people 'believing' in something they are unable to prove or for which no evidence exists.



BBM
I'm guessing that when you use the word 'agnostic' to describe my drawing your attention to a lack of evidence for prior sexual abuse, you are somehow likening this to a person who doesn't believe in God?
If so, you need to re-think this accusation.
A more correct term would be skeptic.
A skeptic is a person who requires a belief to be backed by proof.

I believe this is what we were asked to do by Tricia. again BBM



I am doing just this. Facts and logic.

inspector rex,

UKGuy, for my part, I have no issue with people 'believing' in something they are unable to prove or for which no evidence exists.

This is the generally accepted definition regarding religious concepts, e.g. God, Angels, Cherubim, etc.

I'm guessing that when you use the word 'agnostic' to describe my drawing your attention to a lack of evidence for prior sexual abuse, you are somehow likening this to a person who doesn't believe in God?

No! An absence of evidence makes your claims regarding prior sexual abuse unknown, and probably unknowable, i.e. agnostic. Its a philosophical term not a religious term. Check its greek etymology and you will find its roots in an absence of gnosis. Put simply holding a belief is not the same as knowing. An atheist claims that God does not exist, whilst a theist claims he does.

If so, you need to re-think this accusation.
A more correct term would be skeptic.

No. A skeptic is someone who considers nothing can be known for certain, that reason can be influenced by your ego, and the senses deluded, e.g. seeing a coiled snake in a dark room, when its really a coil of rope. Its a philosophical method adopted when you wish to demonstrate that someones elses assumption regarding knowledge is limited.

A skeptic is a person who requires a belief to be backed by proof.

A scientific skeptic would fulfill this role, as long as the scientific method is followed and that the belief can be falsified, otherwise the belief is classed as pseudo-science, e.g. astrology, psychiatry.

Hopefully, in the spirit of Tricia's rules, some of the above might illuminate the distinction between belief and knowledge?

.

 

[Anti-K]

I am a Skeptic. This means that I provisionally accept/reject claims as warranted by a critical assessment of the evidence.

Skeptics do think that belief requires proof, but we want to assess that proof critically.

Skeptics are wary of flaws in reasoning, and bad influences (bias, communal reinforcement, media exposure, etc and onward).

Skeptics don’t say that nothing can be known for certain, because we understand that there are degrees of certainty. The sun may not “rise” tomorrow, but we are pretty certain that it will.

Skeptics accept Facts (as being provisionally true).

Although, it can be used to such end, Skepticism is not a philosophical method “adopted when you wish to demonstrate that someones elses assumption regarding knowledge is limited.”

Skepticism is the application of rationality (reason/scientific method) and science.

Skeptics don’t care who is right or wrong, we just want to get as close to understanding the truth of something as we can get. . And, Skepticism uses a methodology to get us there.
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

inspector rex,

This is the generally accepted definition regarding religious concepts, e.g. God, Angels, Cherubim, etc.


No! An absence of evidence makes your claims regarding prior sexual abuse unknown, and probably unknowable, i.e. agnostic. Its a philosophical term not a religious term. Check its greek etymology and you will find its roots in an absence of gnosis. Put simply holding a belief is not the same as knowing. An atheist claims that God does not exist, whilst a theist claims he does.


No. A skeptic is someone who considers nothing can be known for certain, that reason can be influenced by your ego, and the senses deluded, e.g. seeing a coiled snake in a dark room, when its really a coil of rope. Its a philosophical method adopted when you wish to demonstrate that someones elses assumption regarding knowledge is limited.


A scientific skeptic would fulfill this role, as long as the scientific method is followed and that the belief can be falsified, otherwise the belief is classed as pseudo-science, e.g. astrology, psychiatry.

Hopefully, in the spirit of Tricia's rules, some of the above might illuminate the distinction between belief and knowledge?

.

Agnostic
Noun
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Skeptic
noun
a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

I shall stick to the above definition thank you.

 

[otg]

Regardless of Krugman's chosen classification (physical abuse inflicted upon the victim's genitalia/sexual organs v. sexual abuse), was he able to conclude that JonBenét had been subjected to any similar type of abuse prior to the assault that took place on the 25th/26th & resulted in her death?

The answer to your question, Mama, will depend on your acceptance of the source. (Also, if you accept the account allegedly taken from the BPD investigative files, you'll see why I said above that "Dr. Krugman seemed to be telling investigators things that he was unwilling to commit to publicly (JMO).") You won't find (TMK) a public statement of his about this, but in the Bonita Papers, it says the following (emphasis mine):

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.
​

http://www.re-newsit.com/p/the-bonita-papers-are-unedited-notes-of.html

BTW, Mama, you know this, but for the newcomers who don't... I do not agree with Krugman's, or Steve Thomas', theory about it being a case of "toilet abuse rage".

 

[otg]

Bonita Papers aside, I think it should be fair to question Thomas and his sources because, as we learned from his deposition, some (much?) of his book/theory was based on thins that he heard, sometimes second hand, from other people. So-and-so said this, so-and-so was looking into that, etc.

I don't think anyone ever assumed that Thomas wrote his book based only on his own personal experience. He had to have relied on what he was told by others, what information he was given, and the reports that were taken and recorded by others involved in the investigation -- as well as his own personal experience. If anyone actually believed he personally interviewed every single witness or looked into every single facet of the investigation, then they would be mistaken. And there is nothing wrong with questioning what Thomas' wrote, said, or theorized -- as well as there not being anything wrong with questioning what anyone else wrote, said, or theorized (Smit).

Those of us who were around at the time should remember just how big a disappointment his book as – actually causing a few RDI to switch sides!

This obviously doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I don't recall anyone saying that they had "switched sides" because of their disappointment in his book.

But, if one wants to go with Thomas and what he had to say about the expert opinion on prior abuse, we should note that Thomas said this: “The results, however, were not what is known in the legal world as “conclusive” – which means that there can be no other interpretation...” p. 254

...and I too would certainly agree with what he said there.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I'm seeing a lot of users deeming The Bonita Papers "unreliable", as they were supposed to be part of a book, but why haven't they disregarded the Ramseys' books? After all, on Larry King Live they could hardly remember anything about the morning of December 26th, but in their book, TDOI, it's crystal clear. Why is that?

Thank you to whynut for this video clip from YouTube. (Things start getting foggy for the Ramseys at around 4:54.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomIOTN9UiQ

I think all books/articles should be taken into consideration.

 

[otg]

No, it is YOU who misquoted. What I wrote was The quote attributed to McCann was in the book written by ST, which was drawn from the Bonita Papers You either deliberately misquoted or misread what I wrote and I'm thinking it was the former when you cropped my quote to exclude The quote attributed by McCann. I never said ST's book was based on the Bonita papers, what I said was the quote attributed to McCann was in the ST book. It was this quote that was drawn from the Bonita papers. I'm saying this to demonstrate that this quote supposedly from McCann can be found nowhere else except in the ST book, via the Bonita papers, via supposedly the information provided by the BPD. I think you would be able to find the actual quote from McCann on the subject not a third or fourth hand version. ST's information was not very reliable when held up to scrutiny. It was frequently based on a he said, he said.

I didn’t misquote. I pressed the button at the bottom of your Post #398 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...NING-GRAPHIC-CONTENT)&p=11754354#post11754354) that says “Reply With Quote”, so your exact phrasing was included in the quote box of my post. Apparently you meant something other than what I understood from the way you constructed your sentence. (I read English, not minds.) The sentence in question is (word-for-word):

“The quote attributed to McCann was in the book written by ST, which was drawn from the Bonita Papers.”​

I know the English language can be tricky at times -- even for native speakers. You knew what you were wanting to say, but if your sentence isn’t constructed in a way that your thought isn’t clear, don’t get upset if it is misunderstood. The part about “which was drawn from the Bonita Papers” comes right after “the book written by ST”. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but it’s what you said. Perhaps a better way to say what you meant would be to say:

“ST drew the quote attributed to McCann from the Bonita Papers and included it in the book he wrote.”​

Either way (what you said, or what you meant to say), the statement in incorrect. Two sources refer to a statement from an expert, and your assumption is that one was “drawn from” the other. Here’s another thought: Maybe they were both taken from the original source (Dr. McCann’s report to the BPD). Most people would think that since two accounts had the same information, they confirm the existence of the information. Thomas’ book was based on his knowledge of the investigation; and the Bonita Papers were based on the BPD investigation files that existed at the time. Both were written independent of one another.

Oh, I see I made a mistake. The Bonita papers were apparently intended to go into a book. It was her relative who sold them to the tabloids. This makes so much difference.

It does indeed make a difference, and I don’t think it‘s such a subtle difference that you’re unable to see the difference it makes. I give you credit for enough intelligence and understanding to think you can see the difference between the actual circumstances around the Bonita Papers and your description. But just so there are no misunderstandings, I’ll repeat your exact wording to show the implication of what you said (with my comments in parentheses and red):

For anyone who is unaware, the Bonita Papers were written by a secretary at a Legal firm who had the intention of selling this to the tabloids. (untrue)
So, as the source of an article designed to appear in a tabloid (untrue), it makes it no more likely to be true than what you read in a tabloid. (opinion based on untruth)
If you'd like some examples, I'm sure I can find a ton.
Now, which is the most likely to be true, what you read in a tabloid or the source of information you read in a tabloid? (argument from false premise)
​

This was a quote I believe you said, so would you be so kind as to include the source? I'm in total agreement with you that readers here need to be able to trust what is written.

I’m the source of the quote. I wrote it based on what is known about the Bonita Papers. If you doubt anything in what I said, do a little research as I did before I posted it (originally). As I pointed out in my recent post, it might seem familiar to others who had read it because I posted it less than a year ago on this thread:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page54&p=10637401#post10637401

Again, I agree with what you say and in reading the quote from the Burden of Proof interview, (below) this confirms all the information I have posted previously. I'll just bold some portions to highlight what I'm referring to: Dr. Krugman seemed to be telling investigators things that he was unwilling to commit to publicly (JMO). But the best window into what Krugman seemed to be thinking came in an interview on Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997:

COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?
KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.
COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?
KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.
COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.
KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
​

Yes, I think you need to re-read, as your interpretation of Dr Krugman's conclusions seem to be incorrect. So Krugman actually says was "I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case", Furthermore he stated that "one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way." When asked to expand on this, he says "I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened."

We don’t disagree on what Dr. Krugman said. It’s the meaning of what he said that you seem to be missing -- and again, I begin by giving you credit for enough intelligence and understanding to see the difference. But perhaps it’s not that you don’t see it (especially when I found that it was pointed out to you several years ago by SuperDave), it’s just that you continue to argue the same thing while ignoring the point of what Dr. Krugman was saying. I’ll try once more to explain it in other terms and if you still claim to not see it, I won’t continue trying elucidate it.

Dr. Krugman is more cautious than, say, Dr. Wecht, who read only the AR and publicly announced that if JonBenet had been brought to an ER with those injuries her father would have been arrested. Wecht’s statement incorrectly made assumptions that don’t really support his inflammatory proclamation, but then he’s a public figure who benefits from controversy, and he was stating his opinion, not a fact. OTOH, Krugman (apparently) more carefully considers all possibilities before making a broad, sweeping statement based on assumptions. He was quoted in PMPT as saying (emphasis mine):

"I do not believe it is possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone. The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's medical history combined with a child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse. Dr. Kruger had also seen injuries to girls' genitals that could be related to toilet training but had nothing to do with sexual abuse."​

Well, the things he listed as required to positively determine sexual abuse (except semen if present) cannot be gotten from a dead victim of sexual abuse. Those things he lists are each things that would confirm the reason for the physical injuries to the genitalia as being sexually motivated. Without knowing the perpetrator’s reason (or intent) for inflicting those injuries, he will only say that there is physical abuse. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a quote from Krugman where he states that he doesn’t believe JonBenet was sexually abused -- only that he can’t with certainty conclude that she was. But his position is based on his not knowing the reason the injuries were inflicted or the circumstances that caused them.

Please tell me that you at least see the difference here (even if you disagree) before I start having doubts about the wisdom of my own generosity with credit.

 

[UKGuy]

otg,
Patently Dr. Krugman was being cautious with what he said, maybe he was attempting to sidestep any litigation issues.

Coroner Meyer stated to all present at the autopsy that JonBenet had undergone both digital penetration and sexual contact.

Do you think Dr. Krugman was publicly questioning any of Coroner Meyers autopsy procedures?

Beckner says:

The broken paintbrush used to simulate sex assault. All these were clues to staging.

What do you reckon is going on here, Beckner says the broken paintbrush was used, Meyer that there was digital penetration, including sexual contact, and Dr. Krugman says we cannot know without corroborating evidence, semen, STD, etc?

.

 

[CorallaroC]

I didn’t misquote. I pressed the button at the bottom of your Post #398 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...NING-GRAPHIC-CONTENT)&p=11754354#post11754354) that says “Reply With Quote”, so your exact phrasing was included in the quote box of my post. Apparently you meant something other than what I understood from the way you constructed your sentence. (I read English, not minds.) The sentence in question is (word-for-word):

“The quote attributed to McCann was in the book written by ST, which was drawn from the Bonita Papers.”​

I know the English language can be tricky at times -- even for native speakers. You knew what you were wanting to say, but if your sentence isn’t constructed in a way that your thought isn’t clear, don’t get upset if it is misunderstood. The part about “which was drawn from the Bonita Papers” comes right after “the book written by ST”. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but it’s what you said. Perhaps a better way to say what you meant would be to say:

“ST drew the quote attributed to McCann from the Bonita Papers and included it in the book he wrote.”​

Either way (what you said, or what you meant to say), the statement in incorrect. Two sources refer to a statement from an expert, and your assumption is that one was “drawn from” the other. Here’s another thought: Maybe they were both taken from the original source (Dr. McCann’s report to the BPD). Most people would think that since two accounts had the same information, they confirm the existence of the information. Thomas’ book was based on his knowledge of the investigation; and the Bonita Papers were based on the BPD investigation files that existed at the time. Both were written independent of one another.



It does indeed make a difference, and I don’t think it‘s such a subtle difference that you’re unable to see the difference it makes. I give you credit for enough intelligence and understanding to think you can see the difference between the actual circumstances around the Bonita Papers and your description. But just so there are no misunderstandings, I’ll repeat your exact wording to show the implication of what you said (with my comments in parentheses and red):

For anyone who is unaware, the Bonita Papers were written by a secretary at a Legal firm who had the intention of selling this to the tabloids. (untrue)
So, as the source of an article designed to appear in a tabloid (untrue), it makes it no more likely to be true than what you read in a tabloid. (opinion based on untruth)
If you'd like some examples, I'm sure I can find a ton.
Now, which is the most likely to be true, what you read in a tabloid or the source of information you read in a tabloid? (argument from false premise)
​

I’m the source of the quote. I wrote it based on what is known about the Bonita Papers. If you doubt anything in what I said, do a little research as I did before I posted it (originally). As I pointed out in my recent post, it might seem familiar to others who had read it because I posted it less than a year ago on this thread:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page54&p=10637401#post10637401



We don’t disagree on what Dr. Krugman said. It’s the meaning of what he said that you seem to be missing -- and again, I begin by giving you credit for enough intelligence and understanding to see the difference. But perhaps it’s not that you don’t see it (especially when I found that it was pointed out to you several years ago by SuperDave), it’s just that you continue to argue the same thing while ignoring the point of what Dr. Krugman was saying. I’ll try once more to explain it in other terms and if you still claim to not see it, I won’t continue trying elucidate it.

Dr. Krugman is more cautious than, say, Dr. Wecht, who read only the AR and publicly announced that if JonBenet had been brought to an ER with those injuries her father would have been arrested. Wecht’s statement incorrectly made assumptions that don’t really support his inflammatory proclamation, but then he’s a public figure who benefits from controversy, and he was stating his opinion, not a fact. OTOH, Krugman (apparently) more carefully considers all possibilities before making a broad, sweeping statement based on assumptions. He was quoted in PMPT as saying (emphasis mine):

"I do not believe it is possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone. The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's medical history combined with a child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse. Dr. Kruger had also seen injuries to girls' genitals that could be related to toilet training but had nothing to do with sexual abuse."​

Well, the things he listed as required to positively determine sexual abuse (except semen if present) cannot be gotten from a dead victim of sexual abuse. Those things he lists are each things that would confirm the reason for the physical injuries to the genitalia as being sexually motivated. Without knowing the perpetrator’s reason (or intent) for inflicting those injuries, he will only say that there is physical abuse. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a quote from Krugman where he states that he doesn’t believe JonBenet was sexually abused -- only that he can’t with certainty conclude that she was. But his position is based on his not knowing the reason the injuries were inflicted or the circumstances that caused them.

Please tell me that you at least see the difference here (even if you disagree) before I start having doubts about the wisdom of my own generosity with credit.

Thank you OTG - this below which you wrote is valuable I want to save it
Well, the things he listed as required to positively determine sexual abuse (except semen if present) cannot be gotten from a dead victim of sexual abuse. Those things he lists are each things that would confirm the reason for the physical injuries to the genitalia as being sexually motivated. Without knowing the perpetrator’s reason (or intent) for inflicting those injuries, he will only say that there is physical abuse.

 

[inspector rex]

I didn’t misquote. I pressed the button at the bottom of your Post #398 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...NING-GRAPHIC-CONTENT)&p=11754354#post11754354) that says “Reply With Quote”, so your exact phrasing was included in the quote box of my post. Apparently you meant something other than what I understood from the way you constructed your sentence. (I read English, not minds.) The sentence in question is (word-for-word):

“The quote attributed to McCann was in the book written by ST, which was drawn from the Bonita Papers.”​

I know the English language can be tricky at times -- even for native speakers. You knew what you were wanting to say, but if your sentence isn’t constructed in a way that your thought isn’t clear, don’t get upset if it is misunderstood. The part about “which was drawn from the Bonita Papers” comes right after “the book written by ST”. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but it’s what you said. Perhaps a better way to say what you meant would be to say:

“ST drew the quote attributed to McCann from the Bonita Papers and included it in the book he wrote.”​

Either way (what you said, or what you meant to say), the statement in incorrect. Two sources refer to a statement from an expert, and your assumption is that one was “drawn from” the other. Here’s another thought: Maybe they were both taken from the original source (Dr. McCann’s report to the BPD). Most people would think that since two accounts had the same information, they confirm the existence of the information. Thomas’ book was based on his knowledge of the investigation; and the Bonita Papers were based on the BPD investigation files that existed at the time. Both were written independent of one another.

I don't want to get bogged down in your verbose arguments.
You obviously are correct, my English was lacking. This is what I should have written:

“The quote attributed to McCann which was in the book written by ST, was drawn from the Bonita Papers.”

Your cropping of the first part of my sentence was the misquote I refer to.
It is the same thing to crop a quote (even one that you copied) as it is to misquote, where the original or intended meaning is lost.

It does indeed make a difference, and I don’t think it‘s such a subtle difference that you’re unable to see the difference it makes. I give you credit for enough intelligence and understanding to think you can see the difference between the actual circumstances around the Bonita Papers and your description. But just so there are no misunderstandings, I’ll repeat your exact wording to show the implication of what you said (with my comments in parentheses and red):

For anyone who is unaware, the Bonita Papers were written by a secretary at a Legal firm who had the intention of selling this to the tabloids. (untrue)
So, as the source of an article designed to appear in a tabloid (untrue), it makes it no more likely to be true than what you read in a tabloid. (opinion based on untruth)
If you'd like some examples, I'm sure I can find a ton.
Now, which is the most likely to be true, what you read in a tabloid or the source of information you read in a tabloid? (argument from false premise)
​

This is from the JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia

"The Bonita Papers. Acording to Internet poster Spade, "These are the unedited "notes" of Bonita Sauer, secretary/para-legal to Dan Hoffman. Bonita intended to write a book from the case documents provided to her boss. But Bonita's notes were sold to the tabs by her nephew." Spade (post deleted) claims that Bonita works in the same office as Larry Pozner. It should be strongly emphasized that much of the information in these papers has not been corroborated. Internet poster Jameson (post deleted) claims Bonita has disavowed much of what is in these papers. User beware."

So, it seems that I am not the only one who doubts that quoting from the Bonita papers is the same as, equal to, or even similar to first hand information.
If the only source of the Bonita papers is via a tabloid, and apparently it seems the person who original copied this information (Bonita) cannot vouch for it's accuracy, then they are not really any use as a reference and is no better than quoting from a tabloid story.

I’m the source of the quote. I wrote it based on what is known about the Bonita Papers. If you doubt anything in what I said, do a little research as I did before I posted it (originally). As I pointed out in my recent post, it might seem familiar to others who had read it because I posted it less than a year ago on this thread:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey/page54&p=10637401#post10637401

Yes, I thought that might be the case. I don't think it's legitimate to provide backing for your position by quoting from yourself, without stating such.

Furthermore, you added, "Wouldn’t it be better for all if we state facts as they actually are rather than trying to spin them the way we want others to view things? At least readers here might be more likely to trust something said rather than thinking they have to fact-check anything written." That is amusing to me following a quote from yourself, provided by yourself, which backs up what you said, BUT without providing any facts.

[/QUWe don’t disagree on what Dr. Krugman said. It’s the meaning of what he said that you seem to be missing -- and again, I begin by giving you credit for enough intelligence and understanding to see the difference. But perhaps it’s not that you don’t see it (especially when I found that it was pointed out to you several years ago by SuperDave), it’s just that you continue to argue the same thing while ignoring the point of what Dr. Krugman was saying. I’ll try once more to explain it in other terms and if you still claim to not see it, I won’t continue trying elucidate it.

Dr. Krugman is more cautious than, say, Dr. Wecht, who read only the AR and publicly announced that if JonBenet had been brought to an ER with those injuries her father would have been arrested. Wecht’s statement incorrectly made assumptions that don’t really support his inflammatory proclamation, but then he’s a public figure who benefits from controversy, and he was stating his opinion, not a fact. OTOH, Krugman (apparently) more carefully considers all possibilities before making a broad, sweeping statement based on assumptions. He was quoted in PMPT as saying (emphasis mine):

"I do not believe it is possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone. The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's medical history combined with a child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse. Dr. Kruger had also seen injuries to girls' genitals that could be related to toilet training but had nothing to do with sexual abuse."​

Well, the things he listed as required to positively determine sexual abuse (except semen if present) cannot be gotten from a dead victim of sexual abuse. Those things he lists are each things that would confirm the reason for the physical injuries to the genitalia as being sexually motivated. Without knowing the perpetrator’s reason (or intent) for inflicting those injuries, he will only say that there is physical abuse. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a quote from Krugman where he states that he doesn’t believe JonBenet was sexually abused -- only that he can’t with certainty conclude that she was. But his position is based on his not knowing the reason the injuries were inflicted or the circumstances that caused them.

Please tell me that you at least see the difference here (even if you disagree) before I start having doubts about the wisdom of my own generosity with credit.

I have posted previously that Dr Krugman has stated that there was no evidence of prior abuse. I can't see the point in doing so again, however, for the sake of others, here is a quote that is clear enough:

"COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. "

So, if Dr Krugman was contacted by the BPD and was asked his opinion on prior sexual abuse, would they not have provided him with the evidence if they had any? I think this says it all.

So, you say Steve Thomas did not rely solely on the Bonita papers for his opinion that JonBenet had been the subject of previous sexual abuse and that he had some other source. However, in his deposition he clearly stated:

Steve Thomas Deposition.
Q. (Mr Wood)
A. (Mr Thomas)

2 Q. A CNN chat transcript, CNN April
3 14th, 2000, Author Steve Thomas tells his
4 story.

5 A. Can you reread for me the Patsy
6 Ramsey section?

7 Q. Be glad to. I found Patsy Ramsey
8 to be a complex person on many levels but
9 there had been no reported history of any
10 abuse in the house.

11 Is that true?

12 A. Yeah, we had no reported incidents
13 of any abuse in the house.


So there was no history of any abuse.
No forensic evidence of any abuse.
Nil.
Zip.
Now, can we stop talking about it as if there was?

 

[BBB167893]

Lets just go back to what I said.

We are discussing evidence of sexual abuse PRIOR to the night she died.

If you read the articles I posted, there is information there that proves that any Detective, Coroner or "sexual abuse expert" would not be able to say with any certainty, that what they saw in her hymen and vagina, indicated sexual abuse of any kind prior to the night she died.

Firstly, the position of the examination (in a living child) is of critical importance. This was known in 1996. In a child that has been deceased for around 18hrs, there is no way to mimic the required position in order to examine the hymen correctly.

Secondly, in the study of 2384 children who were actually sexually abused, the evidence based upon medical examination alone was found to be unreliable. "History from the child remains the single most important diagnostic feature in coming to the conclusion that a child has been sexually abused"
In JonBenet's case, no history of sexual abuse exists.
And contrary to RDIs who believe the persons in the house were the most likely to have abused and murdered their own daughter, the study found:
"Biological parents are less likely to engage in severe abuse than parental substitutes, extended family members, or strangers. "

A five year study, (backed by two decades of research), of 2384 sexually abused children carries much more weight than a statement by Det Harmer IMO.

A few things:

1) Define "severe." One would think that leaves enough room to drive a truck through.

2) We can't get a history from JB, since she's dead. What, you want a seance? Oh, yeah; Smit and Tracey already TRIED that.

3) Most pressing of all, it's not just the physical findings. Take JB's behavior. She was fouling herself and her bed quite badly. Plus, sexual acting out. The trouble with that one is, and even I'll admit this, JB was trained to act sexually as part of her pageant training. Chicken or egg?

 

[BBB167893]

I certainly know how crazy it sounds when I hear RDI speak of prior sexual abuse as if it were a proven truth.

It's proven as much as it CAN be, under the circumstances.

 

[inspector rex]

A few things:

1) Define "severe." One would think that leaves enough room to drive a truck through.

I think a murdered child is evidence of severe abuse.

2) We can't get a history from JB, since she's dead. What, you want a seance? Oh, yeah; Smit and Tracey already TRIED that.

We can get history from her Doctor (whom she frequently visited for vaginal infections) and from the lack of any evidence of prior abuse as stated by Thomas
("No reported history of any abuse in the house."), and I'm sure we would have heard if BPD had any reports from anyone else they asked, including friends and family members.

3) Most pressing of all, it's not just the physical findings. Take JB's behavior. She was fouling herself and her bed quite badly. Plus, sexual acting out. The trouble with that one is, and even I'll admit this, JB was trained to act sexually as part of her pageant training. Chicken or egg?

She was 6years old.
She was a bedwetter and frequently didn't wipe herself properly.
Her behaviour was no different to any other child of 6 and there is no evidence to support your theory.
Any sexual aspect attributed to pageants would be in the eye of the beholder, but certainly not in the actions of the 6yo child.

Please don't make her sound like some filthy little ****. It's demeaning to both her memory and also to yourself.