Was JonBenet sexually abused in the strictest sense of this term?

[tumble]

I agree with your statement that a parent would notice a pair of soiled pants if their child didn't normally soil their pants i.e., it would be unusual, and would jump out at them. however, I wouldn't use the fact that Patsy states she didn't notice them as some sort of telling evidence that it must have been a usual occurrence, and that it was a frequent happening and that is the reason she didn't notice them. I would say that by her saying she didn't notice them, it could very well mean that she really didn't.

Soiled pants from my child would be noticed by me--only if I looked in the place where the soiled pants were placed.

In the first line, where Detective Haney is asking "Do you recall seeing those...", you edited out what he said next. Did you edit for space?

I didn't edit out anything, thats the way the transcript reads at acandyrose.
I suspect he got interrupted by PR here.
I agree that this it is not telling evidence, just a clue

Soiled pants from my child would be noticed by me--only if I looked in the place where the soiled pants were placed.

PR states that she was in JB's bathroom where the soiled pants were found looking for longjohns in the evening of the 25th.

21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that

22 bathroom at all?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say

24 for sure.

25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day,

0458

1 would you have done something with them?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that

3 night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out

4 of that bathroom.

 

[celia]

The only reason you soak little girls panties in the sink is if they have poop or blood in them.

Sorry, but this is not neccessarily so...
I work caring for intellectually handicapped adults....whilst most of them are able to toilet themselves, the intricacies of "wiping" are often beyond them.....
In the residential house, I work in, there is always a bucket with panties/underpants soaking......with the days accumulated urine/faeces stains on them...

If a six year old child has not been taught proper wiping procedures, this could also be the case....which might also explain the grandmothers "dirtying" comments....

 

[celia]

I query all the dancing this child did, in connection with the broken hymen....
I dont have enough medical knowledge to know about this, but would it be possible to break the hymen , by doing the "splits" ?
One would assume that JBR did some fairly vigorous moves, over & over, whilst practising her dancing....

 

[celia]

First of all, I never personally attacked you, that's against TOS, and had I, my post or myself would no longer be here. I attacked your idea- which I find ridiculous. It is a very personal topic for me as well as concernedperson. I have also been a molestation victim, and I know enough to recognize the signs of a girl who's been molested. A six-year-old who still has urinary and defecation accidents while awake is a classic sign of abuse. Even if you don't believe she was chronically abused, the broken paintbrush found in her vagina qualifies as sexual abuse in the "strictest terms". You are just trying to absolve the perp/spin things by saying that JB's hymen was broken by horseback riding, bike riding, vaginal applicators,etc.... You have no proof that the physicians- 6 of them-were hired by the prosecution. There has been no trial, why would the D.A.'s office be hiring expert witnesses??? Your thread, opening post was highly provocative. If you don't like our emotions (smilies), well, it's your choice to read here.

I am sorry that you have been the victim of such a terrible thing.....
However...that still does not give you the right to attack someone elses ideas, with snide insult....it is NOT helpful!

If, because of your experiences, you are unable to view all the evidence with dispassion, then perhaps you would be better to not take part in the discussions........
This case, if ever solved, will be solved by people who are able to approach it with an open mind....consider every point, no matter how bizarre, with objectivity, before discarding it....
Intellect is required here, not raw emotion....people pushing their own barrow, because of emotional involvement, stand the danger of the wheel falling off!

 

[julianne]

Sorry, but this is not neccessarily so...
I work caring for intellectually handicapped adults....whilst most of them are able to toilet themselves, the intricacies of "wiping" are often beyond them.....
In the residential house, I work in, there is always a bucket with panties/underpants soaking......with the days accumulated urine/faeces stains on them...

If a six year old child has not been taught proper wiping procedures, this could also be the case....which might also explain the grandmothers "dirtying" comments....

Very good point, Celia. That makes sense---I have never seen anyone state that JonBenet soiled her pants regularly other than on posts from RDI's.

You're right about the wiping procedures---young children aren't not as diligent as they should be when it comes to wiping and ensuring the "job is done." It is extremely plausible that panties were soaking due to inadequate wiping....i.e., "skid marks."

Great post, Celia, and welcome to Websleuths!!

 

[PagingDrDetect]

I query all the dancing this child did, in connection with the broken hymen....
I dont have enough medical knowledge to know about this, but would it be possible to break the hymen , by doing the "splits" ?
One would assume that JBR did some fairly vigorous moves, over & over, whilst practising her dancing....

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with regard to admitting you don't have the necessary medical knowledge to interpret whether or not JBR was sexually abused. I find it outrageous that laypersons with admitted lack of any medical knowledge who have not seen the evidence and have no way of determining what it means due to their lack of knowledge STILL question the findings of EXPERTS who have earned the right through their training and years of experience to be referred to as EXPERTS. I absolutely cannot fathom someone with no knowledge and experience in the field and who has never seen the evidence or would know what it meant if they did finds it the least bit appropriate to question the findings of those experts. I've never heard of anything so bizarre. If it weren't so tragic it would be laughable.

This is exactly what abused children (and abused adults for that matter) do NOT need... laypersons with no knowledge, no experience and who have never seen the evidence and have the absolute gall to try to brush off sexual abuse that EXPERTS have found exists. That's exactly what hurts abuse victims the most... ignorant laypersons unwilling to believe them. And it is exactly for this reason that so many abuse victims suffer in silence sometimes for their entire lives. I can't even imagine how horrid it must make the abuse victims here feel to see this and be forced to relive their own tragedy of not being believed or ever having to have ever felt one moment of fear in coming forward wondering whether or not they would be believed. I'm almost relieved that JBR is dead so she will never have to see this outrageous tragedy of not being believed when so many experts carefully examined the evidence and declared she was abused. And for WHAT? Only to support a particular personal agenda.
:furious:

Absolutely none of us here can possibly imagine it is intelligent in any way to question the findings of so many experts when none of us can hold a candle to their credentials and experience and have no freakin' idea in the world what the evidence was that those experts examined in order to conclude their findings. ALL abuse victims DESERVE the benefit of doubt even when there ISN'T a line around of the block of experts attesting to it. JonBenet is dead and is therefore not able to stand up for herself, but DAMMIT, she DESERVES others to stand for her on her behalf, and you better believe that when there is LEGITIMATE proof I will ALWAYS stand up for her dead or not, agenda or no agenda. That poor murdered child was abused and I don't care WHO did it or WHY they did it, but I will ALWAYS stand up for her as an abuse victim.

LinasK and concernedperson, please accept my sincere admiration for being able to look at this wretched brushing aside and denial of proof without puking yourselves inside out. Due to your own personal tragedies you have unique insight in this regard the rest of us can't even imagine and that deserves recognition. My heart goes out to you for not only having suffered the abuse yourselves and having to live with the aftermath but to have to be faced with such a disgusting display of callousness and incensitivity. For the life of me I can't even imagine how it must make you and any other abuse victims who might read this feel. Please know that I, for one, will ALWAYS stand behind ANY abuse victim regardless of whether there are reams of proof or not.

 

[PagingDrDetect]

Originally Posted by julianne
Please direct me to something that supports the idea that JonBenet had repeated incidents of soiling (defacating) in her pants during the day.

I have read this on here numerous times by RDI's stating that this supports the claims of her being sexually abused. I have never read this anywhere else, so I'm just wondering if ya'll could provide a link to documentation that supports this. Not a quote from a book written to make money, not a message on a forum. Something substantial, please.

What would you consider substantial? We know there is little documentation in this regard that we are able to look at. Most of this issue has been exposed by the housekeeper, Patsy's mother and Fleet White who relayed an incident of having to use a pair of his daughter's underpants for JonBenet when she soiled herself having to bring the soiled panties back when he delivered JBR back home. Yet we also know there are no transcripts from the housekeeper or Patsy's mother or Fleet White or anyone else who may have attested to JBR's soiling issue. We only know of their QUOTED statements because they have been revealed in the very books you don't find legitimate.

However, you have also expressed legitimacy to statements from Smit or Patsy or John, etc. that have no more legitimacy than the very books you seem to find insubstantial in this regard. I find that curious. Should those QUOTED statements that appeared in those supposedly insubstantial books be untrue would it not their legitimacy been argued by the very people that were quoted? They were not. Therefore, we must assume that those QUOTED statements are actual statements from those people regardless of what publication they may have appeared in.

It is quite apparant that Patsy dislikes discussing the soiling issue and repeatedly tries to brush it off as insufficient wiping when questioned in interviews, yet we know that she is being asked these questions because it is already known there WAS a soiling issue.

However, since you insist we are limited to transcripts or other media there is still this...

Interview with Patsy Ramsey - 4/30/97 ~

TT: Do you remember back in ’94, typical doctor’s visit, you fill out all those forms, making some sort of a notation, on one of Dr. Beuf’s forms about bed-wetting and soiling. That was kind of a concern, you remember anything?
PR: No, before was when I was having chemotherapy. I don't remember. Susanne took them to the doctor a lot then. My housekeeper, a nanny sort of. I don’t remember. I mean if…
TT: Do you recall filling out these so-called, yes/no question type forms back then?
PR: If I saw it I might remember it.
19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular
20 pants, when she would have worn those last?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably
22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the
23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.
24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
0457
1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It
2 appears they are stained.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet
5 had a problem with?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at
7 age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you
8 know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.
9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you
10 will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed
11 to just bed wetting?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That
13 would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

Bonita Papers ~


Bonita is the first name of the legal secretary who wrote up the Boulder Police reports, mailed them to her nephew in Oregon who in turn double-dealt them to two tabloids for $70,000. Bonita had access to all the BPD reports.

Although in good health, JonBenet had one problem that caused concern to her parents. In one of her visits to the family's pediatrician in 1994, one of 33 visits in the last three years of JonBenet's life, Patsy noted on the office records that she was concerned with the wetting and soiling of underwear.
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.

Enquirer - March 9, 1999 ~


Patsy had entered her 6-year-old beauty queen daughter in the Denver trials of the Hawaiian Tropic pageant, the biggest pageant ever for JonBenet, and the girl was showing signs of stress. A bed-wetting and bed-soiling problem was worsening.
"Many Boulder investigators are convinced JonBenet's bed-wetting triggered the murder," said an inside source.

"Ramsey housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh told the investigators about the problem."

 

[concernedperson]

One more thing about dysfunction. As a young child I was told to "hold"it as it wasn't nice for young girls to defecate. I guess that would be OK if everything put in didn't have to come out. The point is..it is about dysfunction. Even to this day my parents consider defecating in their toilets unreasonable.

I truly want everyone to understand that some methods of upbringing are not reasonable and this is in itself, a truly big problem. Take a child, who has no guidance but the parents and apply any and all scenarios and see what you get.

I will just sight examples as I know it. The rest is up for individual interpretation.

 

[narlacat]

One more thing about dysfunction. As a young child I was told to "hold"it as it wasn't nice for young girls to defecate. I guess that would be OK if everything put in didn't have to come out. The point is..it is about dysfunction. Even to this day my parents consider defecating in their toilets unreasonable.

I truly want everyone to understand that some methods of upbringing are not reasonable and this is in itself, a truly big problem. Take a child, who has no guidance but the parents and apply any and all scenarios and see what you get.

I will just sight examples as I know it. The rest is up for individual interpretation.

Hi CP

Just curious, how do you mean 'unreasonable' ?
Where do they go the toilet then?
Sorry, just had to ask.

 

[concernedperson]

Hi CP

Just curious, how do you mean 'unreasonable' ?
Where do they go the toilet then?
Sorry, just had to ask.

It is for them only not anyone else. Weird, I know but it is what it is.

 

[narlacat]

Oh! ok, I get you now.
Well, I don't think that's so weird actually....I NEVER use other people's toilets for that either!

 

[southcitymom]

It is quite apparant that Patsy dislikes discussing the soiling issue and repeatedly tries to brush it off as insufficient wiping when questioned in interviews, yet we know that she is being asked these questions because it is already known there WAS a soiling issue.

However, since you insist we are limited to transcripts or other media there is still this...

Interview with Patsy Ramsey - 4/30/97 ~

TT: Do you remember back in ’94, typical doctor’s visit, you fill out all those forms, making some sort of a notation, on one of Dr. Beuf’s forms about bed-wetting and soiling. That was kind of a concern, you remember anything?
PR: No, before was when I was having chemotherapy. I don't remember. Susanne took them to the doctor a lot then. My housekeeper, a nanny sort of. I don’t remember. I mean if…
TT: Do you recall filling out these so-called, yes/no question type forms back then?
PR: If I saw it I might remember it.
19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular
20 pants, when she would have worn those last?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably
22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the
23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.
24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
0457
1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It
2 appears they are stained.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet
5 had a problem with?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at
7 age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you
8 know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.
9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you
10 will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed
11 to just bed wetting?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That
13 would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

Bonita Papers ~


Bonita is the first name of the legal secretary who wrote up the Boulder Police reports, mailed them to her nephew in Oregon who in turn double-dealt them to two tabloids for $70,000. Bonita had access to all the BPD reports.

Although in good health, JonBenet had one problem that caused concern to her parents. In one of her visits to the family's pediatrician in 1994, one of 33 visits in the last three years of JonBenet's life, Patsy noted on the office records that she was concerned with the wetting and soiling of underwear.
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.

Enquirer - March 9, 1999 ~


Patsy had entered her 6-year-old beauty queen daughter in the Denver trials of the Hawaiian Tropic pageant, the biggest pageant ever for JonBenet, and the girl was showing signs of stress. A bed-wetting and bed-soiling problem was worsening.
"Many Boulder investigators are convinced JonBenet's bed-wetting triggered the murder," said an inside source.

"Ramsey housekeeper Linda Hoffmann-Pugh told the investigators about the problem."

Thanks so much, PDD.

 

[julianne]

This is exactly what abused children (and abused adults for that matter) do NOT need... laypersons with no knowledge, no experience and who have never seen the evidence and have the absolute gall to try to brush off sexual abuse that EXPERTS have found exists. That's exactly what hurts abuse victims the most... ignorant laypersons unwilling to believe them. And it is exactly for this reason that so many abuse victims suffer in silence sometimes for their entire lives. I can't even imagine how horrid it must make the abuse victims here feel to see this and be forced to relive their own tragedy of not being believed or ever having to have ever felt one moment of fear in coming forward wondering whether or not they would be believed. I'm almost relieved that JBR is dead so she will never have to see this outrageous tragedy of not being believed when so many experts carefully examined the evidence and declared she was abused. And for WHAT? Only to support a particular personal agenda.
:furious:

Absolutely none of us here can possibly imagine it is intelligent in any way to question the findings of so many experts when none of us can hold a candle to their credentials and experience and have no freakin' idea in the world what the evidence was that those experts examined in order to conclude their findings. ALL abuse victims DESERVE the benefit of doubt even when there ISN'T a line around of the block of experts attesting to it. JonBenet is dead and is therefore not able to stand up for herself, but DAMMIT, she DESERVES others to stand for her on her behalf, and you better believe that when there is LEGITIMATE proof I will ALWAYS stand up for her dead or not, agenda or no agenda. That poor murdered child was abused and I don't care WHO did it or WHY they did it, but I will ALWAYS stand up for her as an abuse victim.

Please know that I, for one, will ALWAYS stand behind ANY abuse victim regardless of whether there are reams of proof or not.

That was well worded, PagingDrDetect, although I'm sure your point could made much clearer without so much hostility. This is a message board, and as I have said before, it shouldn't distress or frustrate anyone. People have a right to post their thoughts and beliefs without someone else coming on here and blasting that to pieces.

I do agree that you say All abuse victims deserve the benefit of the doubt--although, in this situation, the subject of sexual abuse is core to this case, and it has been debated, and will continue to be debated.

I'm so glad you said you will stand up for JonBenet, dead or alive, agenda or no agenda. I'm just wondering why you didn't do that when you said you knew people who had seen pornographic photos of JonBenet and you didn't report it to LE. You did post that a couple of weeks back----I could refresh your memory if you'd like. A pornographic picture of a child IS abuse, and a crime----yet you stated that you didn't bother to notify LE of these people because, what was it....oh yeah, because you said you're boss told you not to talk about, and because your boss told you "he'd take care of it."

To belittle a poster for questioning whether or not JonBenet was sexually abused is hypocritical, IMO, when you yourself brought up the fact that YOU KNEW people who saw pornographic photos of her, yet-by your own admission- you did nothing.

Turning a blind eye when dealing with people who convince you that they saw firsthand, child *advertiser censored* of JonBenet, certainly isn't exactly standing up for her, is it? Why didn't you stand up on her behalf then????

The following is the Repost from the Ramsey/Karr connection thread
#22

08-21-2006, 12:42 AM
julianne

vbmenu_register("postmenu_1148993", true);
If you're not OUTRAGED, you're not paying attention!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Southwest
Posts: 356


Originall posted by PagingDrDetect:

"The Ramsey's had no problem tarting her up like a mini Vegas showgirl publically and were even proud of it... how far of a stretch to farm her out for nudie photos or soft *advertiser censored*?"

Although I agree that she was definately "tarted up" with the makeup, hairdo's and costumes, I think it is a BIG stretch to go from that to farming her out for nudie photos or soft *advertiser censored*. I don't agree with the whole beauty pageant thing & making these little girls look like mini-adults, but to some, it is an acceptable part of childhood if you are a girl. Especially with people who live in, or originated from the southern states. There are MANY little girls who are dolled up by their parents for beauty pageants, just like JonBenet was. Just look at some of the videos from the pageants---JonBenet doesn't look any more "tarted up" than the rest of the girls/contestants. As vulgar and offensive it is (to me), it is a very common practice in the beauty pageant circuit. I even seen a mother force her little 4 year old to wear fake teeth!! Sick? Absolutely. But I don't think it makes these parents more apt to be involved in kiddie *advertiser censored*.

Originally posted by PagingDrDetect:

"I've been hearing for years that there are kiddie *advertiser censored* photos of JBR on the internet, but no possible way am I going to test that theory out by looking for any. Some of the sources I've heard this from are from people who I'm convinced have actually seen some."

If you have spoken or had dealings with people that convinced you that they have seen firsthand kiddie pornographic photos of JonBenet, I trust you have notified LE in those people's cities, as well as the Boulder DA??? After all, child *advertiser censored* is not only disgusting, it is ILLEGAL, and with this being such a high profile case, I am sure they were extremely interested in any information you could provide regarding these people. Have you informed them of this? If so, what was their response? If you haven't informed them, WHY NOT??????

Edited to Add: I don't mean to sound confrontational AT ALL. It's just that I have never heard somebody say they were convinced that people they have spoken to have SEEN *advertiser censored* pics of JonBenet. To me, that is STUNNING, and since these people gave you information that led you to believe that they have viewed these photos, you are obligated to report this, morally & legally.
__________________
~~ julianne ~~

... we are the ones we've been waiting for ...

 

[julianne]

This is exactly what abused children (and abused adults for that matter) do NOT need... laypersons with no knowledge, no experience and who have never seen the evidence and have the absolute gall to try to brush off sexual abuse that EXPERTS have found exists. That's exactly what hurts abuse victims the most... ignorant laypersons unwilling to believe them. And it is exactly for this reason that so many abuse victims suffer in silence sometimes for their entire lives. I can't even imagine how horrid it must make the abuse victims here feel to see this and be forced to relive their own tragedy of not being believed or ever having to have ever felt one moment of fear in coming forward wondering whether or not they would be believed. I'm almost relieved that JBR is dead so she will never have to see this outrageous tragedy of not being believed when so many experts carefully examined the evidence and declared she was abused. And for WHAT? Only to support a particular personal agenda.
:furious:

Absolutely none of us here can possibly imagine it is intelligent in any way to question the findings of so many experts when none of us can hold a candle to their credentials and experience and have no freakin' idea in the world what the evidence was that those experts examined in order to conclude their findings. ALL abuse victims DESERVE the benefit of doubt even when there ISN'T a line around of the block of experts attesting to it. JonBenet is dead and is therefore not able to stand up for herself, but DAMMIT, she DESERVES others to stand for her on her behalf, and you better believe that when there is LEGITIMATE proof I will ALWAYS stand up for her dead or not, agenda or no agenda. That poor murdered child was abused and I don't care WHO did it or WHY they did it, but I will ALWAYS stand up for her as an abuse victim.

LinasK and concernedperson, please accept my sincere admiration for being able to look at this wretched brushing aside and denial of proof without puking yourselves inside out. Due to your own personal tragedies you have unique insight in this regard the rest of us can't even imagine and that deserves recognition. My heart goes out to you for not only having suffered the abuse yourselves and having to live with the aftermath but to have to be faced with such a disgusting display of callousness and incensitivity. For the life of me I can't even imagine how it must make you and any other abuse victims who might read this feel. Please know that I, for one, will ALWAYS stand behind ANY abuse victim regardless of whether there are reams of proof or not.

What hurts abuse victims the most, IMO, is the abuse itself. That is horrid. Yes, it is horrible to not be believed, but I can assure you that first and foremost, the abuse itself is the most damaging. Trust me. People posting here are not "making abuse victims relive" their tragedy. To debate about this case, people have to have "thick skins"---that is just the nature of this case. I'm sure everyone on here feels badly for the abuse LK & CP suffered, without a doubt. But to equate a poster for questioning sexual abuse of JonBenet being akin to making victims relive their horror is way off base.

There are more than a few IDI's here who question the sexual abuse of JonBenet, and these same IDI's were victims of sexual abuse themselves. I know that for a fact. Also, don't assume that there aren't posters here who do not have the credentials and experience in order to logically question this. There are--I know this for a fact as well.

I was going to address your statement of how you are glad JonBenet is dead so she wouldn't be reading this.....but I have rethought that and will just let your statement stand as is.

 

[celia]

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with regard to admitting you don't have the necessary medical knowledge to interpret whether or not JBR was sexually abused. I find it outrageous that laypersons with admitted lack of any medical knowledge who have not seen the evidence and have no way of determining what it means due to their lack of knowledge STILL question the findings of EXPERTS who have earned the right through their training and years of experience to be referred to as EXPERTS. I absolutely cannot fathom someone with no knowledge and experience in the field and who has never seen the evidence or would know what it meant if they did finds it the least bit appropriate to question the findings of those experts. I've never heard of anything so bizarre. If it weren't so tragic it would be laughable.

Which is exactly why I asked a QUESTION....rather than stated it as bald fact!...
One would assume that there are medical people in here, with knowledge of these matters......we shouldnt ask for clarification on thoughts we may have?

Your assumptions that I know nothing of the evidence is unfortunate...you have NO idea what I know & what I dont know.....the fact I am new to THIS board, is meaningless...
you also have absolutely NO idea if I am a molestation survivor or not......if I am, your frothing at the mouth, is highly insensitive...hmmmmmmmmm?
Please keep to the facts, not your over the top emotional , kneejerk reactions!

What I find tragic is that some people are so emotionally bound up in proving they are right, that they resent anyone else even commenting on the matter.....that is seriously bizarre.....

I am interested in bringing the killer of JonBenet to justice....not just trying to pin it on anyone that I may SUSPECT.....the law states "without reasonable doubt"...it does not state "I think they might have"!
If it takes examining EVERY little facet, EVERY possibility, EVERY little thing that doesnt ring true, to achieve that end, then that is what I will do.....

There are subjects we will look at that will be uncomfortable/distressing to some...that cannot be helped.....they may be very important areas to revisit...
If you dont like that, for whatever reason....then I,m sorry...that is YOUR problem....

As to the experts....if they were ALL in agreement, the way would be very clear...cut & dried...unfortunately this isnt so.....some say one way, some the other....
Which particular experts would you like us to believe?

 

[celia]

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with regard to admitting you don't have the necessary medical knowledge to interpret whether or not JBR was sexually abused.

By the way...I just reread this, & I do believe you have twisted my words...was that deliberate?

My question WAS " is it possible to break the hymen, by executing dance moves, such as the splits?"

The question had nothing whatsoever to do with interpreting whether she had been abused or not....

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Leigh :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

You make very excellent logical points. I totally agree with everything you have said. It all boils down to if there was positive proof of these sexual allegations by one of the Ramseys, then they or he would have already been indicted, tried and convicted. The only undisputed fact is that JonBenet was murdered and her body discovered in the family home. EVERYTHING else is speculation and can be supported or disputed by the so-called "experts" on either side.

You absolutely correct. If there was PROOF positive that sexual abuse happened before the murder as some opine the Ramseys would have gone to prison.

Even the experts don't agree. Some even have agendas...making their findings more salacious so those books they write make the big bucks.

IMO

Ocean

 

[sandraladeda]

The fact that she didn't have a bath would keep any existing fibers on her.Didn't Patsy help JBR on with her longjohns at bed or something like that? PR touched JR then PR touched JBR.PR could have actually had the fibers on her fingers from touching JR very easily.

ETA: for that matter, JBR could have touched JR's shirt and then touched herself. That is certainly a nonsexual explanation and no bath would preserve the fibers on her.

I wonder, though, why PR's sweater fibers, which had managed to migrate all over other aspects of the crime (paint box, entwined in the garrote, on the tape on JB's mouth) did not find their way onto JB's genitals as easily as JR's shirt?

 

[magnolia]

You absolutely correct. If there was PROOF positive that sexual abuse happened before the murder as some opine the Ramseys would have gone to prison.

Even the experts don't agree. Some even have agendas...making their findings more salacious so those books they write make the big bucks.

IMO

Ocean

This is a question I asked. If sexual abuse can be proven by all these top experts, why haven't the Ramsey's been charged? The very first step with even a hint of child abuse is to remove the other children that remain in the household for their own protection. Why then was Burke allowed to remain with John & Patsy? Can anyone provide a reasonable explanation?



I also ask myself why John & Patsy would set up the stage for a crime scene, only to have John find the body and unstage the crime scene.
If you set up a very elaborate crime scene, wouldn't you want LE to find the body in the very same way it was set up?
If you killed someone in your basement, would you be the first one to find the body or would you be silent and allow someone else to find the body?
Would you write a ransom note in your own handwriting and leave the pen and note-pad out in plain view?
If you had sexually abused your child prior to the crime, would you set the crime scene up to make it appear that the crime was sexually motivated?

 

[BBB167893]

"Although I agree that she was definately "tarted up" with the makeup, hairdo's and costumes, I think it is a BIG stretch to go from that to farming her out for nudie photos or soft *advertiser censored*."

Oh, no, it isn't! My brother got on that train way back in 1997 and has NEVER backed off!

"Even the experts don't agree. Some even have agendas...making their findings more salacious so those books they write make the big bucks."

I could believe that if there had been a lot of books about this case angle written. But to my knowledge, McCann, Monteleone, Rau, Krugman, Wright and Kirschner never wrote anything about it.

"If sexual abuse can be proven by all these top experts, why haven't the Ramsey's been charged?"

magnolia, I doubt that was anything other than a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway:

Three reasons:

1) Dr. Rau herself said that the defense would say it was just masturbation.

2) Legally, the person who abused her is not necessarily the person who killed her.

3) The DA's office. 'Nuff said!

"Why then was Burke allowed to remain with John & Patsy? Can anyone provide a reasonable explanation?"

I think Social Services did recommend that he be removed. Nothing ever came of it.

"I also ask myself why John & Patsy would set up the stage for a crime scene, only to have John find the body and unstage the crime scene."

How do you figure the scene was "unstaged?" All the important stuff was still there.

"If you killed someone in your basement, would you be the first one to find the body or would you be silent and allow someone else to find the body?"

he gave them every chance.

"Would you write a ransom note in your own handwriting and leave the pen and note-pad out in plain view?"

If that was all that was available, yes!

"If you had sexually abused your child prior to the crime, would you set the crime scene up to make it appear that the crime was sexually motivated?"

Damn straight!