Peculiar letters from the RN

No, I'm not.

Usually RDI knows magically where everthing came and went, and that the R's lied about it all. But LE's OK with the lying and instead found some DNA so they don't have to prosecute the people that lie and don't have any core values and bought their way out of jail.

Or some paranoid conspiracy liberal anti-establishment story like that.

The idea that the blunt instrument was not sourced to the R's is an IDI concept usually, but you've taken the position that RDI doesn't know who ownes the blunt instrument. Thats pretty IDI if you ask me.
 
Well about Tom Miller is Judith Miller's husband so other than trying to make TM damaged goods, PR's pitbull Susan Stine went after JM...And none went after the experts that reported their findings on Chonic sexual abuse...But they did on handwritting hmmm...So the R's lied about the bowl,the paintbrush,pen and paper belong to the R's but IDI can't account that the other items was not in the home...And if this is seeing thur rose colored glasses then so be it...Show where these items wasn't in the home..And above all prove other than from how the R's responded to the flashlight that it wasn't theirs..Just looking for input once again...

First, what makes you think the R's lied about the bowl, paintbrush, pen, and paper? Can you find these four lies? What makes you believe they were lies? Has the news ever stated they lied? Were they found in contempt for lying?

Can you prove they lied, under or not under oath?

I'm doubting this alot. Like chronic abuse, why does RDI make stuff up all the time?
 
You're forgetting the intruder. U Know, the one whose DNA they found!

Sounds just like one of M.Lacy's cute little poems.
And no,we don't know if that DNA belongs to the killer.

Let's say there was a SFF,I've seen it's one of your fav theories.One killed her.The other one wrote the rn note and redressed her.The dna belongs to the second one.Do you agree that in this case the dna doesn't belong to the KILLER??
 
Tell me your opinion about Tom Miller this is the only 6th time I ask you...Reread my post I didn't say they lied about the paintbrush,pen.and paper...And why didn't the R's ever go after the ones that was expert about chonic abuse....
 
I think you will agree.

And in this case,you could also agree that maybe a R killed her and the DNA belongs to someone who helped them out.But you won't.
 
First, what makes you think the R's lied about the bowl, paintbrush, pen, and paper? Can you find these four lies? What makes you believe they were lies? Has the news ever stated they lied? Were they found in contempt for lying?

Can you prove they lied, under or not under oath?

I'm doubting this alot. Like chronic abuse, why does RDI make stuff up all the time?

(re the bowl )I know lawyers advise you to reply "I don't recall","I don't remember","I don't know" mostly in order to protect you from incriminating yourself.

And by rejecting the chronic abuse idea you are also somehow exonerating all possible friends and aquintances of the R's who could have done this.Because if it was one of them,he probably did it before.You're making your own IDI list shorter.
 
I don't think RDI has adequately explained the advantage vs disadvantage of including a ransom note in the accident coverup scenario.

"Adequately explained" is a funny term. I doubt that any explanation would be accepted by you.

Simply stating that the killers mind works in wacky ways, is a blank check explanation that would satisfy any crime scene phenomenon.

What's your point?
 
Similarities with PR must be there if she couldn't be excluded other than RDI explaining the myth.

:clap:

Can someone of the IDI side explain Tom Miller and why did the R's dream team went so far trying to make him damaged goods..

Yes, I'd like to know, too.!

Cause last I checked none that said it was chonic sexual abuse ever been put on trial but someone that said it was PR handwritting was...

Indeed.
 
Tell me your opinion about Tom Miller this is the only 6th time I ask you...Reread my post I didn't say they lied about the paintbrush,pen.and paper...And why didn't the R's ever go after the ones that was expert about chonic abuse....


Once you open a can of worms............... ;)
 
I've discussed this b4, but I really don't see how if PR struck JB in rage, that this would be a "scandal" for JR, esp when balanced against an even greater scandal a coverup would bring. Esp given the notoriety OJ experienced. JR could not predict that it might go to trial but if it did, it could have been like OJ trial.

Was it a scandal for Susan Smith's husband or Theodore Kacyznski's brother to be related to a criminal? You know that BTK Dennis Raider has wife and daughter? I think Jeffrey Dahmer has a brother.

I think it was more of a personal scandal. If PR did this, then he would have to admit to himself that he screwed up his first marriage only to marry a killer. And that he might have been able to do something, but didn't.

That assumes of course that he was snow-white to begin with.
 
My scenario has the killer still out there, probably foreign, possibly in a high military rank position, who either wanted JBR for keeps, or who wanted to kill JBR for some unknown purpose.

Not too rosy, really.

Rosy is a matter of perspective. If the alternative is even more horrible...

I'd sooner believe the housecat did it than PR or JR. At least the housecat had a better chance of being awake at the time.

Yes, HOTYH. That's the whole problem.

Its a sinister, brutal murder that RDI sugar coats, removing all the sinister and brutal details to make it seem a parent could do that.

Sugarcoats it, my 🤬🤬*!

RDI is nothing more than a 🤬🤬🤬🤬-and-bull Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story.

I've always found Jekyll and Hyde to be a very astute commentary on human nature.
 
You're forgetting the intruder. U Know, the one whose DNA they found!

They found unknown DNA. Doesn't mean it belongs to an intruder. Doesn't mean the donor was even there when she was killed. It simply means that unknown skin cell DNA got onto her clothes (NOT her body) in an UNKNOWN way. And known or unknown, it doesn't prove whether the Rs were there or not there. That is why Lacy was so wrong to "clear" them.
BTW, her clearing them has no legal bearing. If later evidence is found that unquestionably links them to the crime, they can be charged or named. Except for PR- she's already faced her justice.

BUT- there was KNOWN R fiber evidence found on the body. JR's shirt fibers in her panties and PR's jacket fibers in the garrote knot and tape.
 
They found unknown DNA. Doesn't mean it belongs to an intruder. Doesn't mean the donor was even there when she was killed. It simply means that unknown skin cell DNA got onto her clothes (NOT her body) in an UNKNOWN way. And known or unknown, it doesn't prove whether the Rs were there or not there. That is why Lacy was so wrong to "clear" them.
BTW, her clearing them has no legal bearing. If later evidence is found that unquestionably links them to the crime, they can be charged or named. Except for PR- she's already faced her justice.

BUT- there was KNOWN R fiber evidence found on the body. JR's shirt fibers in her panties and PR's jacket fibers in the garrote knot and tape.

They found chronic inflammation. Doesn't mean its from JR, or that its necessarily even from child sexual abuse.

Its a damn sight less crass, to speculate on a known like foreign male DNA than an unknown like chronic inflammation. I mean, you don't even know if its abnormal, if its related to abuse, or by whom. Its very likely innocent.

Contrary to RDI's almost constant speculation on the subject, there was nothing found that anybody needed to cover up. The related injuries to JBR were not substantial and would not cover anything up anyway. The whole RDI 'coverup of prior abuse' theory is based on a claim to know the definition or cause of 'chronic inflammation'.

The unknown male DNA is a much, much better representation of an intruder than 'chronic inflammation' is of 'coverup of prior abuse'. RDI doesn't even know what 'chronic inflammation' means, clinically.
 
They found chronic inflammation. Doesn't mean its from JR, or that its necessarily even from child sexual abuse.

Pardon my butting in, but I would agree with that, to a point.

Its a damn sight less crass, to speculate on a known like foreign male DNA than an unknown like chronic inflammation. I mean, you don't even know if its abnormal, if its related to abuse, or by whom.

Look, HOTYH, I'll be the first one to admit that I hate even bringing it up. Quite frankly, it makes me sick. But if you're making an argument about propriety, I've got news for you: when a kid is killed, social propriety goes right out the window. So while I may hate it, I feel I've got to do it.

As for not knowing if it's abnormal, if it was JUST inflammation, I might agree with you. However, it didn't stop there. Not by a sight.

Its very likely innocent.

Hardly!

Contrary to RDI's almost constant speculation on the subject, there was nothing found that anybody needed to cover up.

Oh, no?!

The related injuries to JBR were not substantial and would not cover anything up anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't YOU the one who keeps telling us how awful JB's injuries were?

Moreover, were I in the proper mood, I would say you're right: it DIDN'T cover it up. But I'm not, so I won't say that...

The whole RDI 'coverup of prior abuse' theory is based on a claim to know the definition or cause of 'chronic inflammation'.

It's a fair sight deeper than THAT!

RDI doesn't even know what 'chronic inflammation' means, clinically.

TRY ME
 
The coroner determined digital penetration. That is sexual abuse. That's enough for me.
When will IDI realize that erosion of a hymen in a child is sexual abuse? It is NOT from bubble bath, masturbation, tight clothes, or anything other than something inserted in the vagina which rubbed against the hymen, and eroded it.
 
Portion of JonBenet autopsy released


By Charlie Brennan and Fawn Germer
%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan and Fawn Germer
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writers

BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey's autopsy reveals hemorrhaging in her brain, scrapes and bruises from her head down to one of her legs, and "chronic inflammation'' of her vagina.
It also confirms she was strangled to death.
"It looks like she was beaten up some, too, '' said Dr. Richard Krugman, a University of Colorado Medical Center professor and an expert on child abuse and pathology. He reviewed the autopsy for Rocky Mountain News.
The grim, stark facts of the 6-year-old beauty queen's brutal death came to light Friday when Boulder District Judge Carol Glowinsky unsealed part of the child's autopsy report.
Family spokesman Patrick Korten had not seen the report Friday evening, but had heard about its contents.
"It says there is evidence of 'chronic vaginal irritation,' which can be an indication'' of prior sexual abuse, Korten said. "In this case, it is not.''
JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Francesco Beuf, has said there was absolutely no evidence of prior abuse of any kind, Korten said.
Glowinsky's four-page ruling was the largest breach in the dam of official silence since John and Patsy Ramsey's youngest child was found in the basement of their luxurious home the afternoon of Dec. 26.
Boulder coroner Dr. John Meyer had sought to keep the autopsy sealed until an arrest is made, a request contested in court Wednesday by several media organizations represented by lawyers Tom Kelley and A. Bruce Jones.
Glowinsky did not release the entire report. She ruled instead that only a censored seven-page version should see daylight while JonBenet's killer is at large.
Meyer released a statement that said the material he was most concerned about becoming public is in the portions Glowinsky withheld.
Glowinsky said the balance of the report will stay sealed for 90 days or until an arrest is made, whichever comes first.
Dr. Robert Kirschner, a nationally renowned forensic pathologist who specializes in child abuse and has been an expert witness in hundreds of cases, supported Korten's statement that the "chronic inflammation'' of the vaginal tissues could have more than one interpretation.
It could be a sign of an infection or a collection of white blood cells, said Kirschner.
"There is not enough information there to say,'' said Kirschner, retired deputy chief medical examiner in Chicago who is now on the faculty of the University of Chicago.
"It is much more important to me to see what they observed and see the pictures of the vagina.''
The autopsy reveals evidence of a sexual assault, he said, because there is an abrasion of JonBenet's vaginal membrane. Since the report does not describe the hymen "it does not necessarily imply penile penetration. It could be sexual assault with a finger or some object.''
A source close to the case said the assault was the result of digital penetration.
The kind of bleeding found in the girl's brain suggests that "it would have to have been a pretty hard blow,'' Kirschner said.
Lisa Levitt Ryckman contributed to this story.


February 15, 1997

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RDI, in a nutshell: Accidental death caused by fit of rage by PR, jointly covered up by PR and JR, including adding injuries to mask prior abuse.

Initial impression by MD's: JBR was sexually assaulted, beaten, hit hard over the head, and strangled to death. A brutal death.

Popular RDI theory: JBR was chronically abused. She was sexually assaulted the night of the murder to coverup signs of the previous abuse. In a fit of rage, she was hit over the head and that nearly killed her. Later a garrote was placed on her with the presumption that she was already dead. Not a brutal death, but a coverup of a rage accident that caused JBR's head injury.

Evidence against this RDI theory: JBR was injured all over while alive. She was very much alive when strangled.

RDI should then explain why JBR is injured all over, if it was only an accident that she hit her head. What are all these other injuries?

The autopsy report and medical interpretation are stating that JBR was very much alive when strangled. In fact, the coroner lists the official cause of death as asphyxiation by strangulation.

RDI goes against the evidence, and says that the garrote was only staging. The evidence suggests the garrote was the murder weapon, as JBR died by asphyxiation.

Even back in 1997, the argument for RDI was dubious and not fully supported. The grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to arrest. And this was all BEFORE the CODIS DNA that we have today. Now, the argument for RDI is even weaker, as the DNA found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, that matches skin cell DNA found on her longjohns, was not placed there innocently.

Now, there is no RDI publicity. Not even in the tabs.
 
Anything inserted in a child finger, object is child abuse and none ever went after the experts that said this so hmmm maybe cause there was something to it...
 
Anything inserted in a child finger, object is child abuse and mome ever went after the experts that said this so hmmm maybe cause there was something to it...

Maybe you didn't read?

It could be sexual assault with a finger or some object.''
A source close to the case said the assault was the result of digital penetration.

Says nothing about 'prior' penetration, only from the sexual assault the night she was murdered. Not to worry, many make that mistake.
 
The coroner determined digital penetration. That is sexual abuse. That's enough for me.
When will IDI realize that erosion of a hymen in a child is sexual abuse? It is NOT from bubble bath, masturbation, tight clothes, or anything other than something inserted in the vagina which rubbed against the hymen, and eroded it.

The coroner 'speculated' digital penetration, not 'determined'.

The only connection between 'digital penetration' and sexual abuse is the one you're making. The coroner never did that:

"It could be sexual assault with a finger or some object.''
A source close to the case said the assault was the result of digital penetration.

Notice they're using the word 'assault' , not 'abuse'
 
Mistake I wonder but I have read many links here that says prior abuse and since none ever been taking to court to prove this claim wrong, I'm just wondering why ? But it was important to hurt someone about handwritting but not about sexual abuse still this gets me..So yes,I can only wonder why.......What was the R's hinding to keep quiet about...
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
1,042
Total visitors
1,126

Forum statistics

Threads
626,968
Messages
18,536,015
Members
241,158
Latest member
Detectiveme
Back
Top