Mission Statement

[madeleine]

This case means so much to me because it's unsolved. Someone is in fact getting away with murder. I want justice for this poor little girl, even though it may be a long time before she gets it!

At some point it doesn't even matter to me anymore who it is ,but, as you say,the fact that he/she/them is/are getting away with it and nobody knows WHY she was killed .

 

[madeleine]

not just the experts (and by the way, they were REAL experts, not armchair experts, they were doctors of forensic medicine and medical examiners, some nationally known.

IIRC correctly from ST's depo they were recommended by the FBI.

 

[madeleine]

Okay,now I don't believe many things that ST put in his book or what was said in the media about his so-called evidence but I really don't think he would lie under oath,especially when talking about someone elses work/opinion.

Q. Did you know a Dr. Monteleone, M-o-n-t-e-l-e-o-n-e?
A. As a matter of fact, I think that's the name I could not recall that was the pediatric expert from
St. Louis.

Q. Did he ever indicate that he did not believe that parents would engage in the type of staging that
was being argued existed in the Ramsey case in the absence of pathology?

A. Well, that certainly I think would contradict what he put in a report on letterhead to the Boulder
Police Department.

Q. So you recall that report. Was that one of the documents you copied?

A. I don't know --

Q. Or received?

A. -- if that is, but I do recall that report and in that report I think the outstanding mention was that
he was of the opinion that she had sustained prior vaginal trauma prior to December 26 or 25.


Btw,why would a pediatrician comment re staging or not,that isn't his field of expertise,is LW bluffing here?

 

[madeleine]

the point:

seems there WAS a report re prior sexual abuse.

What I wanna know is,did these doctors form an opinion based on the autopsy report or/and something else?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Courtesy of Ravyn:

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

 

[SheBoss]

I'll jump back on track here - my mission is to see justice done. I want somebody in jail for what they did to that child. I want someone to pay. I'm pissed off over this whole thing and have been ever since it hit the airwaves in 1996. Someone out there is getting away with murder and that's not right.

While I'm firmly RDI, I would be happy to eat crow if someone could just find the killer. I don't care who the killer is at this point.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe I will. In the meantime, just remember there's more evidence a foreign national killed JBR than there is evidence of prior abuse.

You picked a rotten time to develop a sense of humor, HOTYH.

 

[BBB167893]

the point:

seems there WAS a report re prior sexual abuse.

What I wanna know is,did these doctors form an opinion based on the autopsy report or/and something else?

From what I understand, they based it on the autopsy report AND the autopsy photos of JB's private area.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You picked a rotten time to develop a sense of humor, HOTYH.

There is no prima facie evidence that JBR was previously chronically abused. There is however prima facie evidence that the ransom note author represents a small foreign faction.

 

[BBB167893]

Courtesy of Ravyn:

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

Read it again, HOTYH. The FBI was commenting on the vaginal injury from THAT NIGHT, and they were saying how it was part of the staged scene. They didn't mean the older injuries.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Read it again, HOTYH. The FBI was commenting on the vaginal injury from THAT NIGHT, and they were saying how it was part of the staged scene. They didn't mean the older injuries.

I think you need to read it again. The statement is not ambiguous.

 

[BBB167893]

There is no prima facie evidence that JBR was previously chronically abused. There is however prima facie evidence that the ransom note author represents a small foreign faction.

You keep using that term, "prima facie." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Now, onto business. Just what exactly would you consider to be prima facie evidence of chronic abuse? Just so I'll know.

 

[BBB167893]

I think you need to read it again.

I've read it 300 times. One more's not going to matter.

The statement is not ambiguous.

You're right, it isn't. That's what I'm saying! It's entirely clear in reference to the ACUTE injury.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You keep using that term, "prima facie." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Now, onto business. Just what exactly would you consider to be prima facie evidence of chronic abuse? Just so I'll know.

Hey this is your thread on a mission statement. I suggest getting back on topic and letting it go. We'll agree to disagree on the previous chronic abuse claim. Wouldn't it be a lot better for your argument if it appeared in the news as a real component of the crime, like the DNA?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I've read it 300 times. One more's not going to matter.



You're right, it isn't. That's what I'm saying! It's entirely clear in reference to the ACUTE injury.

No, actually it never says acute. You did. Maybe you should ask the FBI for some clarity? It says 'not consistent with a history of sexual abuse' and you're saying they meant 'but over here is consistent with a history of sexual abuse.' Thats just absurd.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey this is your thread on a mission statement. I suggest getting back on topic and letting it go.

You're right. This isn't the place.

We'll agree to disagree on the previous chronic abuse claim.

For now.

Wouldn't it be a lot better for your argument if it appeared in the news as a real component of the crime, like the DNA?

Maybe, but it doesn't have to be reported to be true, and it's possible that those reporting on the case (if you can call it reporting) don't know about it. Wendy Murphy, a sex crimes prosecutor who knows a little bit about child molestation evidence, has been very vocal on this very issue for years.

 

[BBB167893]

No, actually it never says acute. You did.

That's because anyone can see that's what was meant if you read the statement in context. It says plainly: "the sexual violation" It's obvious they meant the injury from that night.

Maybe you should ask the FBI for some clarity?

I would if I knew where to ask. I admit, they could have worded it better.

It says 'not consistent with a history of sexual abuse' and you're saying they meant 'but over here is consistent with a history of sexual abuse.'

No, I did not say that. I don't know what they said about the chronic injuries, other than to recommend some top of the field people, as madeleine mentioned. I'm saying that it helps to know the difference.

Thats just absurd.

What's absurd is that we haven't moved this to another thread.

 

[DeeDee249]

The coroner never stated that he thought JBR had chronic sexual abuse or notable prior injury to anyone present at the autopsy. Nor did he indicate anything like this in the report. Again, where do you get this junk?

He absolutely said to Det. Arndt that JB's injuries were consistent with digital penetration. I don't know what YOU call that, but I call that sexual assault. I have already SAID he didn't write it in the report. Arndt spoke about this in her deopsitions.

 

[madeleine]

JR is doing more than you are also.

yeah for ex JR should be fighting with crap like this:


http://news.therecord.com/article/782989

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/16/the-kids-are-not-all-right-photo-gallery/

I'd sue this guy RIGHT NOW no matter how subtle and philosophical he thinks he is and how good his intentions (he THINKS) are.Yeah kids suffer and kids hurt and the world is a mess,we know,still,I'd SUE his @ss for this.Sorry for even posting the pic (pls mods delete if necessary) but it's reality and IMO parents of a murdered child shouldn't allow this.

 

[Becky319]

Would JR have to give permission for him to use photo's of JB in this picture? I agree with Madeleine, if he didn't give permission he should sue, he has his lawyers on retainer year round anyway; if he gave permission then it's just another good reason I would like to get hold of him for about 5 minutes.