Peculiar letters from the RN

[Holdontoyourhat]

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...

LE never went down the prior abuse path, unlike the tabs and sensationalists who love scandals involving 'those types of people'.

Maybe the R's lawyers never took prior abuse issue too seriously because neither did LE?

 

[Ravyn]

LE never went down the prior abuse path, unlike the tabs and sensationalists who love scandals involving 'those types of people'.

Maybe the R's lawyers never took prior abuse issue too seriously because neither did LE?

Thank you for your response this makes sense ....

 

[BBB167893]

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.

AH! You just made my day, HOTYH! First off, Pat Korten? I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw an aircraft carrier with my bare hands. Apparently, the Rs weren't too wild about him either. JR described hiring him as a mistake. Secondly, read it again, HOTYH: only PARTS of the report had been released.

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.

Robert Kirschner, eh? VERY good! Let's take a look at what he said later on after he had more of a chance to review:

"The vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. "The genital injuries indicate penetration," he says, "but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation." "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested"

Isn't that interesting? He's in good company:

-Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital);

-Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at University of Colorado Health Sciences Center;

-Dr. Ronald Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois;

-Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida;

-and Dr. John McCann, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department. of Pediatrics at University of California at Davis.

That's just for openers!

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.

That's about how I'd say it.

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

Key word, "initial."

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.

An admirable summation. Very good.

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

"Very much alive?" Werner Spitz, Ronald Wright and Henry Lee ALL agree that she was hit on the head and likely close to death before she was 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?

I'd be glad to explain them.

The autopsy report and medical interpretation are stating that JBR was very much alive when strangled.

Would you like to see some of that medical interpretation you speak of?

In fact, the coroner lists the official cause of death as asphyxiation by strangulation.

Your point?

RDI goes against the evidence, and says that the garrote was only staging.

We're in good company. Shall I list them for you? I'm game if you are. We'll SEE who's going against the evidence.

The evidence suggests the garrote was the murder weapon, as JBR died by asphyxiation.

I don't believe I said otherwise.

Even back in 1997, the argument for RDI was dubious and not fully supported.

Less than two months in? What did you expect?

The grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to arrest.

HA! The grand jury decided they just couldn't believe a parent could kill a child. I devoted an entire section in the book to this grand jury business. I'd be more than happy to share if anyone asks.

the DNA found mixed with blood in JBR's underwear, that matches skin cell DNA found on her longjohns, was not placed there innocently.

That is an assumption, not a fact. (Sound familiar?)

Now, there is no RDI publicity. Not even in the tabs.

Yeah, Lin Wood saw to that. Don't make it out to be what it isn't.

 

[BBB167893]

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 ?

A very good question.

But it was important to hurt someone about handwriting but not about sexual abuse still this gets me..So yes,I can only wonder why.......What was the R's hiding to keep quiet about...

IDI still won't touch that bolded part. Can't say I blame them.

 

[BBB167893]

Thank you for your response this makes sense ....

LE's decision not to pursue it was a terrible mistake in my view. But I can see why they did it. It goes back to that whole cross fingerpointing deal.

It may surprise you to know that I devoted an entire chapter to this subject. A long one!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

AH! You just made my day, HOTYH! First off, Pat Korten? I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw an aircraft carrier with my bare hands. Apparently, the Rs weren't too wild about him either. JR described hiring him as a mistake. Secondly, read it again, HOTYH: only PARTS of the report had been released.



Robert Kirschner, eh? VERY good! Let's take a look at what he said later on after he had more of a chance to review:

"The vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. "The genital injuries indicate penetration," he says, "but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation." "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested"

Isn't that interesting? He's in good company:

-Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital);

-Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at University of Colorado Health Sciences Center;

-Dr. Ronald Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois;

-Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida;

-and Dr. John McCann, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department. of Pediatrics at University of California at Davis.

That's just for openers!



That's about how I'd say it.



Key word, "initial."



An admirable summation. Very good.



"Very much alive?" Werner Spitz, Ronald Wright and Henry Lee ALL agree that she was hit on the head and likely close to death before she was strangled.



I'd be glad to explain them.



Would you like to see some of that medical interpretation you speak of?



Your point?



We're in good company. Shall I list them for you? I'm game if you are. We'll SEE who's going against the evidence.



I don't believe I said otherwise.



Less than two months in? What did you expect?



HA! The grand jury decided they just couldn't believe a parent could kill a child. I devoted an entire section in the book to this grand jury business. I'd be more than happy to share if anyone asks.



That is an assumption, not a fact. (Sound familiar?)



Yeah, Lin Wood saw to that. Don't make it out to be what it isn't.

Highlighted in red are BS, thats what I think. If RDI had something, it'd get plastered. If JBR had signs of abuse, how would they know it was JR? Parents kill kids, unfortunately, fairly frequently. Everybody knows that. Just not in THIS case.

Please do explain all the other injuries. I mean, if JBR was accidentally hit over the head and the rest was a coverup, why all the other injuries??

Also, you seem to agree that JBR was killed with the garrote. Therefore it was no prop. I'm not sure you're in a position to call the garrote a murder weapon and a prop.

 

[BBB167893]

Highlighted in red are BS, thats what I think.

Yeah, I know what you think. Trouble is, I'm not saying anything that other people haven't already said.

The grand jury decided they just couldn't believe a parent could kill a child.

Would you like to see a direct quote?

Yeah, Lin Wood saw to that.

I can give you plenty to support that. Wendy Murphy agrees with me, I know that.

If RDI had something, it'd get plastered.

Meaning what?

If JBR had signs of abuse, how would they know it was JR?

Now THAT's a good question. I guess they wouldn't, but they'd have probable cause. Heck,

Parents kill kids, unfortunately, fairly frequently.

NOW you're talking my language!

Everybody knows that.

My years on this case have taught me that not quite everyone knows it. But I get you.

Just not in THIS case.

We'll see.

Please do explain all the other injuries. I mean, if JBR was accidentally hit over the head and the rest was a coverup, why all the other injuries??

Okay, here goes. For one thing, it wasn't quite the way the article you posted makes out. Reading it, you'd think JB was black-and-blued from head to foot. In truth, there were only minimal abrasions and bruises on her. Five, in all, every one less than an inch in diameter. As for explaining how they got there, someone already did. Werner Spitz said that they were likely caused by JB lying on something before being redressed.

Also, you seem to agree that JBR was killed with the garrote.

I never said she WASN'T!

Therefore it was no prop.

Says who? Don't put words in my mouth. As long as the person thought she was dead, it is a prop. The fact that it killed her, from a legal standpoint, makes no difference. Alan Dershowitz stated that plainly. (I think it's crazy, too, but that's the law.)

I'm not sure you're in a position to call the garrote a murder weapon and a prop.

Even if I'm not, that's exactly what I'm doing. And I'm not alone. Werner Spitz, Norm Early and the CASKU profilers are with me. Or were, last I knew. I'm not sure what "position" you're looking for, but maybe they're a little closer to it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Even if I'm not, that's exactly what I'm doing. And I'm not alone. Werner Spitz, Norm Early and the CASKU profilers are with me. Or were, last I knew. I'm not sure what "position" you're looking for, but maybe they're a little closer to it.

What you've got is a theory, thats all. You know it, I know it, you're army of experts knows it.
The idea that you've got the answer, with 'they thought she was dead and they thought they were applying a prop' is cantilevered way out there given you don't even know what happened or who killed JBR.

Let me explain. MOST of the details of any given murder, we learn AFTER we know who did it NOT BEFORE.

Its obvious you're guessing. The more people you say are 'behind you' the worse it looks.

Besides, according to the autopsy report, JBR was killed by asphyxiation. That means she was asphyxiating when she died. There were all the indications of a violent brutal death. Sugar coat it if you want, by calling it all window dressing. The murder, and the violence was there. Science tells us this.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Okay, here goes. For one thing, it wasn't quite the way the article you posted makes out. Reading it, you'd think JB was black-and-blued from head to foot. In truth, there were only minimal abrasions and bruises on her. Five, in all, every one less than an inch in diameter. As for explaining how they got there, someone already did. Werner Spitz said that they were likely caused by JB lying on something before being redressed.

Please provide your source that states 'minimal abraisions and bruises' on JBR. If its truth (as in fact) you should be able to prove it, right? Minimal abraisions and bruises sounds like candy coating again.

Hmm. I've never gotten five one inch bruses from lying down. Something's fishy here.

 

[BBB167893]

What you've got is a theory, thats all. You know it, I know it, you're army of experts knows it.

Fine.

The idea that you've got the answer, with 'they thought she was dead and they thought they were applying a prop' is cantilevered way out there given you don't even know what happened or who killed JBR.

It's not as big a leap as you make out.

Let me explain. MOST of the details of any given murder, we learn AFTER we know who did it NOT BEFORE.

I thought YOU were the guy who insisted that information gathered after-the-fact was irrelevant. Make up your mind.

Its obvious you're guessing.

Call it what you want.

The more people you say are 'behind you' the worse it looks.

How do you figure that? I'd tell you what that sounds like to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BBB167893]

Please provide your source that states 'minimal abraisions and bruises' on JBR. If its truth (as in fact) you should be able to prove it, right?

You BET I can! It's from the autopsy report. It describes them:

-A 3/16 inch x 1/8 inch superficial mark below the right ear.

-A very superficial 3/4 inch x 1/2 inch bruise on the right shoulder.

-Two 1/8 inch marks on the lower back.

-A 3/16 inch scratch on the left calf.

Minimal abraisions and bruises sounds like candy coating again.

Hey, don't take my word for it. And I NEVER candycoat anything in this case. Make no mistake.

Hmm. I've never gotten five one inch bruises from lying down. Something's fishy here.

Nothing fishy. I should have been more specific. Spitz said that the marks came from lying on something that pressed into the skin, like small rocks or clothing snaps. Another doctor, Judianne Densen-Gerber, raised the possibility that JB was dragged during the redressing.

 

[eleven]

Shall I list them for you?

Please do.

 

[Ravyn]

Ok, now I can understand the LE not pursuing the child abuse but Henry Lee wrote a book, and CW made public statments on this case and none was taking to court..Now this still makes me wonder if the R's was scared something would get out like maybe the truth or what...

 

[BBB167893]

Please do.

I already did. Werner Spitz, the CASKU agents and Norm Early, just off the top of my head.

 

[BBB167893]

Ok, now I can understand the LE not pursuing the child abuse but Henry Lee wrote a book, and CW made public statments on this case and none was taking to court..Now this still makes me wonder if the R's was scared something would get out like maybe the truth or what...

No kidding. Taking on that one would be like stepping into a beartrap deliberately.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Located just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external auditory canal is a 3/8 x 1/4 inch area of rust colored abrasion.

Located on the right side of the chin is a three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch area of superficial abrasion.

On the posterior aspect of the right shoulder is a poorly demarcated, very superficial focus of abrasion/contusion which is pale purple in color and measures up to three-quarters by one-half inch in maximum dimension.

Several linear aggregates of petechial hemorrhages are present in the anterior left shoulder just above deltopectoral groove. These measure up to one inch in length by one-sixteenth to one-eighth of an inch in width.

On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch. There is no surrounding contusion identified.

On the posterior aspect of the left lower leg, almost in the midline, approximately 4 inches above the level of the heel are two small scratch-like abrasions which are dried and rust colored. They measure one-sixteenth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch and one-eighth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch respectively.

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

In bold are injuries not explained by lying on rocks or by the a single accidental rage head blow. Was there some small rocks that I missed? Perhaps in crime scene photos? Why would Spitz even bring up small rocks?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Please do.

I think SD's gonna use CASKU as if they're on RDI side for the rest of eternity. Even after the DNA match is found to be owned by a homicidal maniac.

 

[BBB167893]

Located just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external auditory canal is a 3/8 x 1/4 inch area of rust colored abrasion.

Located on the right side of the chin is a three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch area of superficial abrasion.

On the posterior aspect of the right shoulder is a poorly demarcated, very superficial focus of abrasion/contusion which is pale purple in color and measures up to three-quarters by one-half inch in maximum dimension.

Several linear aggregates of petechial hemorrhages are present in the anterior left shoulder just above deltopectoral groove. These measure up to one inch in length by one-sixteenth to one-eighth of an inch in width.

On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch. There is no surrounding contusion identified.

On the posterior aspect of the left lower leg, almost in the midline, approximately 4 inches above the level of the heel are two small scratch-like abrasions which are dried and rust colored. They measure one-sixteenth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch and one-eighth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch respectively.

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

In bold are injuries not explained by lying on rocks or by the a single accidental rage head blow.

1) Actually, the first two are actually the same one. And they certainly could be explained that way.

2) As for the petechial hemorrhages on the shoulder, petechial hemorrhages are not necessarily injuries. They can come from anywhere. I have them on MY shoulders, and all I did was start the lawn mower today.

3) The marks on the back were specifically referenced by Spitz.

IOWs, I stand by what I said.

 

[Tadpole12]

Located just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external auditory canal is a 3/8 x 1/4 inch area of rust colored abrasion.

Located on the right side of the chin is a three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch area of superficial abrasion.

On the posterior aspect of the right shoulder is a poorly demarcated, very superficial focus of abrasion/contusion which is pale purple in color and measures up to three-quarters by one-half inch in maximum dimension.

Several linear aggregates of petechial hemorrhages are present in the anterior left shoulder just above deltopectoral groove. These measure up to one inch in length by one-sixteenth to one-eighth of an inch in width.

On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch. There is no surrounding contusion identified.

On the posterior aspect of the left lower leg, almost in the midline, approximately 4 inches above the level of the heel are two small scratch-like abrasions which are dried and rust colored. They measure one-sixteenth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch and one-eighth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch respectively.

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

In bold are injuries not explained by lying on rocks or by the a single accidental rage head blow. Was there some small rocks that I missed? Perhaps in crime scene photos? Why would Spitz even bring up small rocks?

Hi Hotyh.

What? like small rocks brought in the house by/in the treads of winter boots?
small rocks. hmmm.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

1) Actually, the first two are actually the same one. And they certainly could be explained that way.

2) As for the petechial hemorrhages on the shoulder, petechial hemorrhages are not necessarily injuries. They can come from anywhere. I have them on MY shoulders, and all I did was start the lawn mower today.

3) The marks on the back were specifically referenced by Spitz.

IOWs, I stand by what I said.

Whoa.

Located just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible, 1.5 inches below the right external auditory canal is a 3/8 x 1/4 inch area of rust colored abrasion.

The first two are not the same. One is just below the right ear, the other on the chin. The one below the right ear doesn't fit any RDI scenario thus far. Its an unaddressed injury, correct?

BTW, lawn mower pulling injury is more candy coating. Dumbing down JBR's injuries to make it look like they're incidental and RDI, but without actual knowledge of what really happened. Its weak.