pineapple to go....

[Ames]

OMG!

(I totally missed that one! Good Catch!)

That little gasping smiley just kills me, LOL.

I will try to find the Twister reference in John's interview. I have it posted on a thread here and next door at FFJ.

HERE YA GO!

11 LOU SMIT: So just one more area. Everybody
12 has heard about -- I can't say that. What have you
13 heard about a paint tray?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: Just what I read, or tried
15 not to read. But can't help but hear the media
16 that tell us a broken paintbrush that was used as
17 part of the -- you see, I found JonBenet. I never
18 saw a cord or that sort of thing. I thought I saw
19 a cord, but I didn't focus on it or realize there
20 was anything in the way of a twister, which
21 apparently it was.
22 It apparently was a paintbrush. And that's based
23 on what I heard in the media. That's my
24 impression. That's all I really heard.

"I never saw a cord or that sort of thing. I thought I saw a cord, but I didn't focus on it or realize there was anything in the way of a twister, which apparently it was."

DUHHHHHH JOHN...which was it? You NEVER saw it, or you THOUGHT you saw it? (rolling eyes)

 

[angelwngs]

OH MY Gosh! That is a HUGE screw-up, 'cat out of the bag', denial-then-contradiction statement! Why in the heck wasn't that screamed from the rooftops by LE?

 

[JMO8778]

good catch,Ames! he sure seems to know more than he tries to let on,but ultimately,he does let the cat out of the bag,I agree.(then he has the nerve to say LE and the net try to lynch him! duh! talking about twisting,and I don't mean the garotte!)

 

[Ames]

good catch,Ames! he sure seems to know more than he tries to let on,but ultimately,he does let the cat out of the bag,I agree.(then he has the nerve to say LE and the net try to lynch him! duh! talking about twisting,and I don't mean the garotte!)

Thanks! I may RE-Thread this one. It was on a thread that I started over at FFJ about John's inconsistancies, but, I can't remember if I put it on a thread over here or not.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You know, I could make a joke or a really nasty remark here, but I won't, since you pretty much have it right!

With a few exceptions:

1. They're not "strict IDI rules," actually. They're the findings and beliefs of an virtual army of expert profilers, analysts and pathologists.
2. Those same experts are the "some people" you so blithely refer to.
3. There's only one thing preventing progress in this case, and it ain't us!

Other than that, you put it quite well.

Too bad those 'experts' didn't have any access to JBR. Doesn't it concern you that the real experts, the doctors that did have access and were not tabloid hires, never observed anything?

 

[BBB167893]

First of all, I'd like to say that if that's the only nit you could pick out of that, I must be doing something right.

Too bad those 'experts' didn't have any access to JBR.

I don't know the exact statistics on this, but I'm willing to bet that in cases like this, very few doctors have direct access to the victims.

Doesn't it concern you that the real experts, the doctors that did have access and were not tabloid hires, never observed anything?

While your characterization leaves much to be desired, you ask a legitimate question. I will do my best to give you a legitimate answer.

I guess I'll need two parts for this:

On the first account, the doctors you characterize as "tabloid hires," were neither nor. Get it straight: only ONE of those experts was a tabloid hire, and that was Cyril Wecht.

The ones with the real expertise were all consulted (not really even hired) by the Boulder Police and the Boulder DA's office, mostly independent of each other:

John McCann

Richard Krugman

James Monteleone

Virginia Rau

David Jones

Ronald Wright

And they proceeded to give a list (or at least an outline) of what you need to look for.

And on the second account, the your characterization of the doctors who did attend her is lacking, to be polite. Let's start at the top. The coroner, John Meyer, made no mention of it in the autopsy report, to be sure. But he couldn't have anyway. That report can only list what he found, not necessarily what it was caused by. Generally, they save that for their testimony in court. And who knows what he told the Grand Jury? Someone in the DA's office has a vested interest in keeping those proceedings sealed. But if Detective Arndt, who attended the autopsy, is correct, he told her that it was likely she had been abused over time.

Then, you have Andrew Sirotnak, who was brought in on the autopsy. I explained that angle to you before. I see no reason to chew my cabbage a second time.

Last, and certainly least, in my opinion, you have JB's doctor, Beuf. The only one of the three who says she was not abused. Trouble is, he's hardly a credible source. As far back as 1997, he admitted that there was only one way to tell for sure, and that he had not performed that examination, and would not have except under extreme circumstances. And, if memory serves, he hadn't seen her in two months, which, according to McCann, was plenty of time. His own examination could only go back 10 days. Then there's the whole issue of how Beuf tried to hide JB's medical records from the police, thinking he was doing his "friends," the Rs a favor.
And if that's not enough to make you question his role in this whole ugly thing, I think it's helpful to remember that the pediatricians of abused children are not always helpful. Ricky Holland and Jason Midyette are only two examples of that.

In short, if you are trying to argue that it's not a lead-pipe cinch, I can agree with that. There's enough for ME to think that it's a real issue. If you have something that prevents you from being convinced, that's fine with me. I can appreciate a man of good conscience.

But when you do this whole bit about "tabloid hires" you're only shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And on the second account, the your characterization of the doctors who did attend her is lacking, to be polite. Let's start at the top. The coroner, John Meyer, made no mention of it in the autopsy report, to be sure. But he couldn't have anyway. That report can only list what he found, not necessarily what it was caused by. Generally, they save that for their testimony in court. And who knows what he told the Grand Jury? Someone in the DA's office has a vested interest in keeping those proceedings sealed. But if Detective Arndt, who attended the autopsy, is correct, he told her that it was likely she had been abused over time. Over what time? Do you have a source so we can decide if your context is correct?

Then, you have Andrew Sirotnak, who was brought in on the autopsy. I explained that angle to you before. I see no reason to chew my cabbage a second time. He never explicitly stated that JBR was abused over time, correct?

Last, and certainly least, in my opinion, you have JB's doctor, Beuf. The only one of the three who says she was not abused. Trouble is, he's hardly a credible source.

What is this BS. The guys a practicing pediatrician. This is an ad hominem argument that just makes me want to get out my violin for RDI.:boohoo:

As far back as 1997, he admitted that there was only one way to tell for sure, and that he had not performed that examination, and would not have except under extreme circumstances. What extreme circumstances would those be? And, if memory serves, he hadn't seen her in two months, which, according to McCann, was plenty of time. His own examination could only go back 10 days. Then there's the whole issue of how Beuf tried to hide JB's medical records from the police, thinking he was doing his "friends," the Rs a favor.
And if that's not enough to make you question his role in this whole ugly thing, I think it's helpful to remember that the pediatricians of abused children are not always helpful. Ricky Holland and Jason Midyette are only two examples of that.


In short, if you are trying to argue that it's not a lead-pipe cinch, I can agree with that. There's enough for ME to think that it's a real issue. If you have something that prevents you from being convinced, that's fine with me. I can appreciate a man of good conscience.

But when you do this whole bit about "tabloid hires" you're only shooting yourself in the foot.

No, SD. Tabloid hire is what is carefully omitted from RDI posts that quote the tab hire, touting him as a reliable expert witness, albiet 2nd hand. Remember, a reliable 2nd hand expert witness was "100% convinced" JMK wrote the note.

 

[BBB167893]

Over what time? Do you have a source so we can decide if your context is correct?

Well, I have a quote from Arndt's deposition from 2000. We can start there:

Question: Which opinions were these?

Answer: Incest, naming the Ramseys as suspects.

Q: This is incest between John Ramsey and JonBenet?

A: Yes, to the whole incest dynamic in the family.

Q: But involving John Ramsey and JonBenet, any other members?

A: Well, specifically because she's the one who's dead.

Q: But when you refer again to incest, it could involve any number of
family members. I'm just trying to identify the family members when you
use that term.

A: Well, there's a whole dynamic, because everybody's got a role in the
family.

Q: The incest has an effect on family members, does it not?

A: Well, in general terms that covers it when you talk about an act, but
I'm talking about the dynamic.

Q: I understand about the dynamic, but I want to get the predicate first.
The participants in the incest, when you refer to incest, you're
referring to John Ramsey and JonBenet and no other family members?

A: I refer to every member of the family. Every member has a role.

Q: But in terms of the sexual act that's implicit in the term of
"incest," you're referring to John Ramsey and JonBenet?

A: Yes

More specifically, in 1999, Arndt was interviewed on "Good Morning America." said that the coroner told her that JonBenet was the victim of sexual molestation, but he wouldn't go on record unless called into court.

He never explicitly stated that JBR was abused over time, correct?

He and Dr. Krugman co-authored an article for a medical journal on child abuse where they said, and I quote:

We still have much to learn from the death of JonBenet and the thousands of other child abuse homicides

What is this BS.The guys a practicing pediatrician.

No BS. I went down the list. No need to chew my cabbage again. It's there for anyone to read it.

This is an ad hominem argument that just makes me want to get out my violin for RDI.

You know better than to "fiddle" around with me!

What extreme circumstances would those be?

Well, as he himself explained it, an internal exam involves the insertion of a speculum, a procedure which, when involving a small child, requires sedation and parental consent. Sounds fairly extreme to me. But what said was that he would have to have seen some major damage on the outer vagina to have reason to perform it. Trouble is, there were no external signs, only internal ones. Of course, if there had been obvious external signs, he wouldn't have needed the internal exam.

See the problem here? If you don't, I can elaborate. For now, I'll leave you with this:

Neither Ricky Holland's pediatrician nor Jason Midyette's pediatrician saw the terrible things being done to them by their own parents. Do I really need to tell you what happened there, because I will.

No, SD. Tabloid hire is what is carefully omitted from RDI posts that quote the tab hire, touting him as a reliable expert witness, albiet 2nd hand.

Well, that does happen, I suppose. But I make the link clear in my book, so that doesn't really go with me.

Remember, a reliable 2nd hand expert witness was "100% convinced" JMK wrote the note.

Ugh! Don't remind me!

 

[JMO8778]

No, SD. Tabloid hire is what is carefully omitted from RDI posts that quote the tab hire, touting him as a reliable expert witness, albiet 2nd hand. Remember, a reliable 2nd hand expert witness was "100% convinced" JMK wrote the note.

..and he wrongly assumed Lacy must have hard evidence on JMK to go as far as to say that.one only need look at the note and the facts of the case to know that it was impossible for JMK to have written the note...the R's didn't know him,therefore he couldn't have known the inside lines in the note,esp. things like 'use that good southern common sense of yours'.For that matter,LACY obviously didn't even read the note!! If she had,it would have been blatantly obvious to her.To continue on w/ hauling a sexual predator all the way back to the US when it's obvious he couldn't have even written the note requires someone with an ax to grind.