Was BR involved? #2

[Linda7NJ]

Kolar effectively debunks the intruder theory via that window.



But more importantly, the GJ didn't buy that story AT ALL.

Yeah, but my question...why did Lou? He KNEW it was impossible. He knew the evidence. What would/could motivate him? Money? Faith? Stupidity? IMO Lou was never an idiot before meeting the Ramsey's. What processed him to fight so hard to shove that ridiculous tale down the publics throat?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gramcracker]

IMO they used charm and auras of innocence/persecution/martyrdom and he became infatuated; plus their common ground of being deeply religious, plus he would be the solver of a very famous crime in the twilight of his career. plus, they needed him. being needed is a very powerful dynamic

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO with the window completely and totally being eliminated as the entry point of an outsider. The amount of time effort and focus the Ramsey spin team spent on it pushing down everyone's throat. Johns statements, more than one..that the house was locked, French's documentation there wasn't evidence of a forced entry etc.
There is nothing left.
IMO
Everyone knew it. I don't believe Lou was fooled. I believe he did know it was Burke and colluded with the Ramsey's to protect Burke's future more than to benefit the Ramsey's.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeDee]

August 12, 2010

Smit acknowledged that he has been criticized for praying with murder suspects, but he said the prayers helped him establish a rapport with them.

"I didn't use it as a tool to be disingenuous, but at a time when they were under extreme pressure," he said.

Read more: Springs detective Lou Smit, 75, prayed with, helped Ramseys - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15749364#ixzz2yh6eDgvF

Oct. 1, 2002

"John Ramsey came through very, very sincere. When I left that I interview, there was no doubt in my mind that he had nothing to do with the death of his daughter," says Smit,

"The person who did this was very brutal and very vicious," says Smit.

What convinced Smit that someone other than the Ramseys killed their daughter? First and foremost, it was the brutality of the crime.

"There is no motive for a parent to do this," he says.

"This [garotte] is one of the best clues left behind by the killer. This shows what's going on in his mind. This is a sexual device. It's a strangulation device. He's a sexual sadist. I'm looking for a pedophile that's a sexual sadist. That's what Lou Smit's looking for," he says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-detective/


June 30, 2012

Some of the staging was way beyond what a parent would think of that is reflective of a particular sexual deviant. He said JonBenét was sexually assaulted with a paint brush.

“Why would you do that?” Smit said, if the killer was Patsy Ramsey. “You don’t have to stage that.”

He said he believes the killer originally planned to put JonBenét in the suitcase and take her out of the house. Evidence that was found on her body corresponded with the contents of the suitcase, Smit said.

The theory that the Ramseys killed their daughter is based on a belief that she wet her bed and was so infuriated that she struck her head so hard that she mistakenly killed the girl – then they staged the scene to make it seem like a sexual predator/kidnapper had done it. The Ramseys would have had to tie their daughter in a garrote and violate her with a paint brush after she died.

But the evidence on her body indicates JonBenét was tortured by a sexual sadist while she was struggling and still alive. There was a mark on her finger indicating she was struggling with the binding while she was still alive.

“It must have been terrifying. You don’t get a mark like that if it was staging after death,” Smit said. “All her injuries were while she was alive.”

“He is definitely a stone cold psychotic killer,” he said.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2012/06/29/boulder-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-lou-smit/4569/

According to Smit, John was sincere. He found no evidence of abuse in their past. He did not believe a parent could cause the injuries found on JonBenét so an intruder had to do it. Smit also makes it clear that the paintbrush was inserted into JonBenét's and damaged her vagina.

News for me was there was a mark on one of her fingers that she fought against the bindings.

OMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

August 12, 2010



Smit acknowledged that he has been criticized for praying with murder suspects, but he said the prayers helped him establish a rapport with them.



"I didn't use it as a tool to be disingenuous, but at a time when they were under extreme pressure," he said.



Read more: Springs detective Lou Smit, 75, prayed with, helped Ramseys - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15749364#ixzz2yh6eDgvF



Oct. 1, 2002



"John Ramsey came through very, very sincere. When I left that I interview, there was no doubt in my mind that he had nothing to do with the death of his daughter," says Smit,



"The person who did this was very brutal and very vicious," says Smit.



What convinced Smit that someone other than the Ramseys killed their daughter? First and foremost, it was the brutality of the crime.



"There is no motive for a parent to do this," he says.



"This [garotte] is one of the best clues left behind by the killer. This shows what's going on in his mind. This is a sexual device. It's a strangulation device. He's a sexual sadist. I'm looking for a pedophile that's a sexual sadist. That's what Lou Smit's looking for," he says.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-detective/





June 30, 2012



Some of the staging was way beyond what a parent would think of that is reflective of a particular sexual deviant. He said JonBenét was sexually assaulted with a paint brush.



“Why would you do that?” Smit said, if the killer was Patsy Ramsey. “You don’t have to stage that.”



He said he believes the killer originally planned to put JonBenét in the suitcase and take her out of the house. Evidence that was found on her body corresponded with the contents of the suitcase, Smit said.



The theory that the Ramseys killed their daughter is based on a belief that she wet her bed and was so infuriated that she struck her head so hard that she mistakenly killed the girl – then they staged the scene to make it seem like a sexual predator/kidnapper had done it. The Ramseys would have had to tie their daughter in a garrote and violate her with a paint brush after she died.



But the evidence on her body indicates JonBenét was tortured by a sexual sadist while she was struggling and still alive. There was a mark on her finger indicating she was struggling with the binding while she was still alive.



“It must have been terrifying. You don’t get a mark like that if it was staging after death,” Smit said. “All her injuries were while she was alive.”



“He is definitely a stone cold psychotic killer,” he said.



http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2012/06/29/boulder-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-lou-smit/4569/



According to Smit, John was sincere. He found no evidence of abuse in their past. He did not believe a parent could cause the injuries found on JonBenét so an intruder had to do it. Smit also makes it clear that the paintbrush was inserted into JonBenét's and damaged her vagina.



News for me was there was a mark on one of her fingers that she fought against the bindings.



OMO

It's obvious she didn't struggle at all.
The tape wouldn't have silenced an alive struggling child either. So torture is out.

Wow, sounds like he refused to consider the possibility because John seemed sincere.

Quite the knack to meet someone and know after a first meeting if they're innocent or not! Lmao!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

August 12, 2010

Smit acknowledged that he has been criticized for praying with murder suspects, but he said the prayers helped him establish a rapport with them.

"I didn't use it as a tool to be disingenuous, but at a time when they were under extreme pressure," he said.

Read more: Springs detective Lou Smit, 75, prayed with, helped Ramseys - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15749364#ixzz2yh6eDgvF

Oct. 1, 2002

"John Ramsey came through very, very sincere. When I left that I interview, there was no doubt in my mind that he had nothing to do with the death of his daughter," says Smit,

"The person who did this was very brutal and very vicious," says Smit.

What convinced Smit that someone other than the Ramseys killed their daughter? First and foremost, it was the brutality of the crime.

"There is no motive for a parent to do this," he says.

"This [garotte] is one of the best clues left behind by the killer. This shows what's going on in his mind. This is a sexual device. It's a strangulation device. He's a sexual sadist. I'm looking for a pedophile that's a sexual sadist. That's what Lou Smit's looking for," he says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-detective/


June 30, 2012

Some of the staging was way beyond what a parent would think of that is reflective of a particular sexual deviant. He said JonBenét was sexually assaulted with a paint brush.

“Why would you do that?” Smit said, if the killer was Patsy Ramsey. “You don’t have to stage that.”

He said he believes the killer originally planned to put JonBenét in the suitcase and take her out of the house. Evidence that was found on her body corresponded with the contents of the suitcase, Smit said.

The theory that the Ramseys killed their daughter is based on a belief that she wet her bed and was so infuriated that she struck her head so hard that she mistakenly killed the girl – then they staged the scene to make it seem like a sexual predator/kidnapper had done it. The Ramseys would have had to tie their daughter in a garrote and violate her with a paint brush after she died.

But the evidence on her body indicates JonBenét was tortured by a sexual sadist while she was struggling and still alive. There was a mark on her finger indicating she was struggling with the binding while she was still alive.

“It must have been terrifying. You don’t get a mark like that if it was staging after death,” Smit said. “All her injuries were while she was alive.”

“He is definitely a stone cold psychotic killer,” he said.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2012/06/29/boulder-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-lou-smit/4569/

According to Smit, John was sincere. He found no evidence of abuse in their past. He did not believe a parent could cause the injuries found on JonBenét so an intruder had to do it. Smit also makes it clear that the paintbrush was inserted into JonBenét's and damaged her vagina.

News for me was there was a mark on one of her fingers that she fought against the bindings.

OMO

DeDee

He said JonBenét was sexually assaulted with a paint brush

Where did that come from, neither JK or ST have arrived at a similar assertion.

Coroner Meyer never detailed any apparent instrumental injuries, only that there was Digital Penetration.

Lou Smit and Hunter derailed this case with their actions and repeated talk about psychotic killer and intruder etc.


.

 

[bettybaby00]

August 12, 2010

Smit acknowledged that he has been criticized for praying with murder suspects, but he said the prayers helped him establish a rapport with them.

"I didn't use it as a tool to be disingenuous, but at a time when they were under extreme pressure," he said.

Read more: Springs detective Lou Smit, 75, prayed with, helped Ramseys - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15749364#ixzz2yh6eDgvF

Is it me, or is that statement completely contradictory?????????

I can understand using as a tool to get "close" with a suspect, and possibly have them let their guard down, but as someone remarked previously, there is a difference between praying with and praying for.

Also, if used as a tool to potentially have suspects slip up or make a mistake, wouldn't that more than likely bear fruit over time? Just b/c a cop recites the Lord's Prayer with a potential suspect, doesn't mean it would have immediate results.

Kolar recounts the one and only brief convo he has with Smit

he indicated that it had taken him about a week to discover the evidence that pointed to an intruder being involved in the murder. He had formed this theory after studying the crime scene photographs, and it was my distinct impression, based upon his statements, that he spent little or no time reading any of the police reports that had been prepared by the initial responding officers, detectives, and crime scene technicians. I wasn’t quite certain how to respond to that revelation. Smit was informing me that it had only taken him a week to develop his theory of the crime. I was several months into my review of the evidence collected in the case and couldn’t commit one way or the other to an opinion about who may have been responsible for the murder of JonBenét.
3184

Oct. 1, 2002

"John Ramsey came through very, very sincere. When I left that I interview, there was no doubt in my mind that he had nothing to do with the death of his daughter," says Smit,

"The person who did this was very brutal and very vicious," says Smit.

What convinced Smit that someone other than the Ramseys killed their daughter? First and foremost, it was the brutality of the crime.

"There is no motive for a parent to do this," he says.

"This [garotte] is one of the best clues left behind by the killer. This shows what's going on in his mind. This is a sexual device. It's a strangulation device. He's a sexual sadist. I'm looking for a pedophile that's a sexual sadist. That's what Lou Smit's looking for," he says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-detective/

No motive.....how about "prior sexual contact." That's a pretty strong motive to stage in this type of manner. When was john sincere during an interview? Was it the one 4 months after the murder, when the Rs FINALLY sat down to be interviews for the first time...well after Smit had "already made up his mind?"

And I agree this was a brutal crime, but I can't help but note Meyer's remarks on the autopsy report regarding the injuries from the paintbrush...

He noted that he didn’t consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination, and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child. 824

One would believe that a "sexual sadist" would have left much more damage behind.

June 30, 2012

Some of the staging was way beyond what a parent would think of that is reflective of a particular sexual deviant. He said JonBenét was sexually assaulted with a paint brush.


The theory that the Ramseys killed their daughter is based on a belief that she wet her bed and was so infuriated that she struck her head so hard that she mistakenly killed the girl – then they staged the scene to make it seem like a sexual predator/kidnapper had done it. The Ramseys would have had to tie their daughter in a garrote and violate her with a paint brush after she died.

But the evidence on her body indicates JonBenét was tortured by a sexual sadist while she was struggling and still alive. There was a mark on her finger indicating she was struggling with the binding while she was still alive.

“It must have been terrifying. You don’t get a mark like that if it was staging after death,” Smit said. “All her injuries were while she was alive.”

“He is definitely a stone cold psychotic killer,” he said.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2012/06/29/boulder-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-lou-smit/4569/

According to Smit, John was sincere. He found no evidence of abuse in their past. He did not believe a parent could cause the injuries found on JonBenét so an intruder had to do it. Smit also makes it clear that the paintbrush was inserted into JonBenét's and damaged her vagina.

News for me was there was a mark on one of her fingers that she fought against the bindings.

OMO

Again, Smit seems intent on ignoring evidence pointing toward the Rs....

Smit would later tell reporters that photographs of JonBenét’s room showed no signs of a struggle and, more importantly, that the sheets on her bed were clean. According to him, there was no sign of urine on the sheets, and no evidence that she had wet her bed that night. It was his theory that there had been no struggle because the intruder had used the stun gun to silence / subdue JonBenét while she was asleep in her bed. Smit discounted observations made by the investigators and CSIs who had processed the scene shortly after the murder: JonBenet's sheets reeked of urine.

1505

Also, either she was rendered unconscious, or she fought her attackers....which one?

And I have also never heard anything about this injury to her finger.

 

[DeDee]

DeDee

He said JonBenét was sexually assaulted with a paint brush

Where did that come from, neither JK or ST have arrived at a similar assertion.

Coroner Meyer never detailed any apparent instrumental injuries, only that there was Digital Penetration.

Lou Smit and Hunter derailed this case with their actions and repeated talk about psychotic killer and intruder etc.


.

Hiya, UkGuy. It came directly from Lou Smit during an earlier interview. [LS died in Aug. 2010.] From my post re: LS interview, published article June 30, 2012:

Some of the staging was way beyond what a parent would think of that is reflective of a particular sexual deviant. He said JonBenét was sexually assaulted with a paint brush

The Ramseys would have had to tie their daughter in a garrote and violate her with a paint brush after she died.

Given the damage JonBenét suffered on December 26, the person who committed this heinous crime must have been in an angry psychotic state.

ST reveals there was a tiny splinter removed from the vaginal area, allegedly from the paintbrush's splintered edges.

Whether or not the paintbrush was used before it was broken, or after, as a penetration device, we do not know, for certain.

The wooden splinter was found inside of her body and the only way that happened was due to nefarious reasons [of the psychotic killer]. There was no intruder; only the psychotic killer.

 

[otg]

I think it's up to the discretion of the therapist whether they record confessions or not.

The law is pretty specific in protecting the rights of patients against disclosure except under specific conditions - threats against the therapist, another person or harm to themselves and is perceived as serious. But past acts aren't covered under this ethical code. As a matter of fact, therapists asked about this have said if they turned over information on every past confessed crime no one would ever go to a therapist again because of the lack of confidence in the patient/therapist relationship.

I find it fascinating how all of the protected relationships, privileged communications like doctor-patient, clergy-communicant, husband-wife and client-lawyer, have taken a hit except clergy and communicant. If anything the clergy and communicant has firmed up while the rest have been eroded a bit over time.

There is no spousal privilege or doctor-patient privilege in certain felonies (murder, sexual assault, etc.). In fact, if a doctor/psychiatrist/therapist becomes aware of a possible threat, or finds out about certain other crimes, he/she is obligated by law to report it. As to the clerical privilege, I hadn't really thought about it before, 2%, but I believe you are correct in saying that if anything, it has become reinforced over time.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

IMO with the window completely and totally being eliminated as the entry point of an outsider. The amount of time effort and focus the Ramsey spin team spent on it pushing down everyone's throat. Johns statements, more than one..that the house was locked, French's documentation there wasn't evidence of a forced entry etc.
There is nothing left.
IMO
Everyone knew it. I don't believe Lou was fooled. I believe he did know it was Burke and colluded with the Ramsey's to protect Burke's future more than to benefit the Ramsey's.

Bingo! I agree, Linda. I can think of no other reason that Smit was so adamant that John and Patsy were not guilty. He wasn't stupid, and I don't think he would let his religion mislead him to that extent. I think he knew what really happened and felt he was doing the right thing by pointing to some unknown, unnamed outsider who he knew would never be found.

 

[DeDee]

Originally Posted by 2 percent View Post
I think it's up to the discretion of the therapist whether they record confessions or not.

The law is pretty specific in protecting the rights of patients against disclosure except under specific conditions - threats against the therapist, another person or harm to themselves and is perceived as serious. But past acts aren't covered under this ethical code. As a matter of fact, therapists asked about this have said if they turned over information on every past confessed crime no one would ever go to a therapist again because of the lack of confidence in the patient/therapist relationship.

I find it fascinating how all of the protected relationships, privileged communications like doctor-patient, clergy-communicant, husband-wife and client-lawyer, have taken a hit except clergy and communicant. If anything the clergy and communicant has firmed up while the rest have been eroded a bit over time.

There is no spousal privilege or doctor-patient privilege in certain felonies (murder, sexual assault, etc.). In fact, if a doctor/psychiatrist/therapist becomes aware of a possible threat, or finds out about certain other crimes, he/she is obligated by law to report it. As to the clerical privilege, I hadn't really thought about it before, 2%, but I believe you are correct in saying that if anything, it has become reinforced over time.

I have an exception to the clergy-communicant role of privilege being solidly reinforced. A priest was involved in counseling a prominent political figure and his wealthy wife in a divorce. The priest surreptitiously tape recorded the counseling sessions with the rich lady. To wit, the husband produced, in court, his wife's own recorded words as evidence of infidelity.

The highly regarded clergyman was immediately sent to a church far away in the NE for his betrayal to the faithful communicant whose own father was a founding father of the church; thus, creating a great divide. The husband became an US Ambassador to a land far away before the divorce. He currently holds an office within high rankings of gov't as a Secretary.

Although it is not frequent, even well-admired, very popular priests may betray one of their own flock if the occasion of weakness presents itself unchecked.

Patsy spent some time volunteering at church. She was well-informed about the Catechesis program taught to her children on Sundays, but I do not believe PR was particularly close to Father Hoverstock, specifically, before the murder, based on what I've read. He was invited to the scene for soft spoken prayers and comfort. He also microwaved a glass of water for tea while in the home on the 26th which I found odd since a glass with a tea bag was also attributed to Burke by way of fingerprints.

It appears Fr Hoverstock reacted with distance and mild contempt when he laid eyes upon Patsy following the murder. That is a fact, according to more than one accounting, including Shapiro's.

OMO

 

[DeDee]

According to LinkedIn, DS is making quite a name for himself in GA as a Legislative Intern while in grad school with an impressive work history.

BR is listed on The Buford Highway Meetup Group as a member since 2010 with little published activity.

http://www.meetup.com/dining-buford-highway/members/12802551/

 

[lawstudent]

I think it's up to the discretion of the therapist whether they record confessions or not.

The law is pretty specific in protecting the rights of patients against disclosure except under specific conditions - threats against the therapist, another person or harm to themselves and is perceived as serious. But past acts aren't covered under this ethical code. As a matter of fact, therapists asked about this have said if they turned over information on every past confessed crime no one would ever go to a therapist again because of the lack of confidence in the patient/therapist relationship.

I find it fascinating how all of the protected relationships, privileged communications like doctor-patient, clergy-communicant, husband-wife and client-lawyer, have taken a hit except clergy and communicant. If anything the clergy and communicant has firmed up while the rest have been eroded a bit over time.

It's a good point and I think it's because historically there was no patient-doctor confidentiality or even much lawyer-client confidentiality. Doctors were considered to know best, and the legal system was used a whole lot less. The nature of spousal and priest communications is ancient and based on sacred ideas, not practical ones. I don't believe in religion, but I don't believe priests should be subject to reporting requirements. I'm not even sure if I believe therapists should be, at least not after the fact and not regarding an imminent danger. We want people to seek out help. And looking at it from a religious perspective, their salvation depends on it - Catholics have to confess so many things, which may be little but still very embarrassing things - they have to bare every secret to the priests. For that religion to function, you need confidentiality - and with priests, it's not like they fear losing their license for talking - they will if they need to, but they aren't compelled to. And I think that's right. Not because I think religions should get special preferences, but because sometimes I think mandatory reporting laws cause more harm than good.

 

[2 percent]

It's a good point and I think it's because historically there was no patient-doctor confidentiality or even much lawyer-client confidentiality. Doctors were considered to know best, and the legal system was used a whole lot less. The nature of spousal and priest communications is ancient and based on sacred ideas, not practical ones. I don't believe in religion, but I don't believe priests should be subject to reporting requirements. I'm not even sure if I believe therapists should be, at least not after the fact and not regarding an imminent danger. We want people to seek out help. And looking at it from a religious perspective, their salvation depends on it - Catholics have to confess so many things, which may be little but still very embarrassing things - they have to bare every secret to the priests. For that religion to function, you need confidentiality - and with priests, it's not like they fear losing their license for talking - they will if they need to, but they aren't compelled to. And I think that's right. Not because I think religions should get special preferences, but because sometimes I think mandatory reporting laws cause more harm than good.

We're the ones that have failed.
Lawyer-client has suffered because lawyers have become a participant in their client's business.
Husband-wife, quite honestly, has suffered because of pathetic women who choose their husband/marriage over their child(ren)
Doctor-patient....molestation pure and simple (although neither in reality). A man has no religion, he has to confess, he goes to a doc.

People either feel more guilty than ever...or they suck more

 

[lawstudent]

We're the ones that have failed.
Lawyer-client has suffered because lawyers have become a participant in their client's business.
Husband-wife, quite honestly, has suffered because of pathetic women who choose their husband/marriage over their child(ren)
Doctor-patient....molestation pure and simple (although neither in reality). A man has no religion, he has to confess, he goes to a doc.

People either feel more guilty than ever...or they suck more

I don't think any of that is new, but I do think legal arguments were rarely all that sophisticated until recently because investigatory techniques were poor and there were a lot fewer laws. It was a lot easier to cover up a death a long time ago - no need for a lawyer's help. A lot easier to disappear or come up with some story. People didn't automatically suspect the spouse until fairly recently in most cases.

Some women have always chosen husbands over their children, and in fact that used to be viewed as right. They were way more financially dependent back then. It eroded more because of divorce and less value placed on marriage.

Doctor-patient eroded because of both molestation and people harming themselves or others, or introducing mental health as a defense or cause of action. But until recently, doctors just monopolized care and kept very little private. Patients weren't considered competent to understand their medical treatment, and they'd work with families to get the committed or whatever.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think any of that is new, but I do think legal arguments were rarely all that sophisticated until recently because investigatory techniques were poor and there were a lot fewer laws. It was a lot easier to cover up a death a long time ago - no need for a lawyer's help. A lot easier to disappear or come up with some story. People didn't automatically suspect the spouse until fairly recently in most cases.

Some women have always chosen husbands over their children, and in fact that used to be viewed as right. They were way more financially dependent back then. It eroded more because of divorce and less value placed on marriage.

Doctor-patient eroded because of both molestation and people harming themselves or others, or introducing mental health as a defense or cause of action. But until recently, doctors just monopolized care and kept very little private. Patients weren't considered competent to understand their medical treatment, and they'd work with families to get the committed or whatever.

lawstudent,
When considering clerical requirements on disclosure it might help to review the historical papal laws.

Historically priests were allowed to marry and all was fine until the vatican realized sequestration of papal estates to fulfill child maintenance judgements were laid down in the courts in Italy.

Thereafter we have the fiction of Clerical Celibacy as a norm, of course it is only vatican policy masquerading as religous practise, so to deny female litigants and their children any access to vatican assets.

The result can be seen today in the avalanche of clerical abuse cases, where clerics abuse their office and are then moved on to a new parish to continue.

The clerical role in confession has a long history and predates the current concerns that citizens have with their media being monitored, but its function is similar, i.e. that of control.

Of course the Vatican policy on confession relates to the health of the soul, and that I am certain you can take with a pinch of salt?

On the Doctor-Patient relationship it is the opposite of your assertion, until recently nearly all doctor patient events were both verbally and textually private.

In the UK all General Practitioners, i.e. doctors, are prisoners of the state, all patient events and details are recorded on state owned databases and stored in perpetuity, to be sold currently as insurance data, and in the future as family records!

In the USofA it is no different, there is exists no such thing as patient confidentiality, it is simply a fiction spoken of as, i.e. anonymised records etc.

If you peruse Canon Law, which is greek for rule, you might find it still commands precedence over some civil statutes, a practise still remaining to this day, i.e and why some priests evade prosecution, including financial felonies.

Doctor-patient eroded because of both molestation

I must direct you to Sigmund Freud, his case histories are testimony to his theory that childhood sexual trauma leads to adult neurosis.

Yet of course the learned know Professor Freud was actually recounting cases of female childhood abuse, which his spoken method allowed patients to reveal. Later he wrote it all up as symbolic magic inhabiting the minds of his patients with females exhibiting penis envy and males demonstrating castration anxiety, etc.

The bottom line was in Freuds day, the majority of middle class daughters were being abused by the fathers, and he was the recipient of the daughters angst and total confusion in this process, as I say, he wrote it all up in his grand theory, won awards and plaudits, but its all complete nonsense.

So in Dr Freuds case I would assert molestation strengthened the patient doctor relationship in the direction of keeping it private?

.

 

[DeDee]

A child with SPB is almost always proven to have been an abuse victim.

A child with SPB may also have a strong fascination with fire. Fire setters are usually impulse disordered and conduct the fire starting in secret, without parental controls, just as the sexual assaults are done in secret.

A child with SPB usually lives with a step parent.

A child with SPB usually is from a lower socio-economic background.

AVOID...

* Avoid printed material with sexual content, or internet access that allows websites with sexual materials to be viewed.

* Avoid television, movies or video games that have sexual content or aggression and violence.

* Avoid jokes about sex, sexual innuendos, or sexual language.


Amazon.com: Sexually Aggressive Children: Coming To Understand Them (9780803951761): Sharon Araji: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4184Y3A90HL.@@AMEPARAM@@4184Y3A90HL


When compared to adult sex offenders, children with sexual behavior problems are more likely to engage in impulsive sexual activity rather than well-planned or rationalized acts.

Behavior problems, including sexual behavior problems, are the primary reasons why foster parents request that children be removed.

http://www.atsa.com/children-sexual-behavior-problems

 

[gramcracker]

Patsy Answers Questions About Burke - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[THE BUNK]

One thing that has always bothered me about Burke's interviews is that it doesn't seem like he was experiencing fear.

This is odd to me since there was someone that just broke in and killed his sisterand could kill him at any point.

Also even odder, if his parents killed John and molested his sister..why would he not feel fear toward them. They could molest and hurt him as well.

Unless of course, Burke knew fully well that his parents never intentionally killed Jonbenet. Or Burke is the killer himself.

 

[questfortrue]

Patsy Answers Questions About Burke - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

From the thread you linked Patsy Answers Questions About Burke:

PATSY RAMSEY: "No. It wouldn't have been Burke."
TOM HANEY: "Why couldn't it?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "How do you believe you saw (inaudible) a ten year old, nine year old boy (inaudible). Plus the fact that he loved his sister."
TOM HANEY: "It's not unheard of for a nine or ten year old child?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "My child is unheard of."
TOM HANEY: "And why is that? What would make him different from some other nine or ten year old?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Because he was not raised in a family of violence. We are a very loving family."

TOM HANEY: "Could it have been an accident?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "I -- don't know."

TOM HANEY: "Well, you and I don't know because we weren't there?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Right."

On another thread, otg dissected this interview Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Patsy Ramsey In which PR uses basically the same argument of “My child unheard of.” (Not my child) But what caught my eye in the thread on PR and BR was the BBM part of “Could it have been an accident?” And PR then replying with hesitation: “I—don’t know.” If PR wrote the RN, which I’m comfortable concluding, then is she trying to decide how to answer this, like, are they suspecting BR or are they suspecting me? (She would have known exactly on whose behalf she wrote the RN.) And, of course, how could she not have known whether it was an accident? And then Haney gives her an out.

Maybe the question is too much like the entrapment question of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and PR is being very careful. Her response is just a perplexing one. moo