Prior Vaginal Trauma

[ChuckMaureen]

LE may be able to use those tactic in interviewing suspects, but they cannot alter or falsify an autopsy report.

I'm not suggesting a falsified report .. I'm suggesting the possibility information released to the public is purposefully misleading or incomplete, to maintain investigation integrity and / or tactical intent.

What was released seems more like a high-point summary than a complete autopsy .. and perhaps the remaining information is not a game-changer either way?

 

[UKGuy]

LE may be able to use those tactic in interviewing suspects, but they cannot alter or falsify an autopsy report.
However, CORONERS have been known to falsify reports under pressure from certain quarters. I an not suggesting that was done in JB's case, but I have always wondered why the report was vague about some important things. (TOD, what caused her vaginal injuries, whether the round red abrasions were burns, etc).
For an interesting read on this matter, try Thomas Noguchi's book "Coroner". He was he LA county coroner for years and performed autopsies on many famous people. One that sticks in my mind was his chapter on Marilyn Monroe. As we all know, she was involved in affairs with both JFK and RFK, and was threatening to make her diary public because she felt she was being brushed off. She really expected to marry one of the Kennedy brothers.
Her death was ruled a suicide- an overdose of prescription pills, the empty bottle found in her bedroom, where her body was found. Yet- NO evidence was found in her stomach of the GELATIN capsules that contained the drug, although the drug was found in her bloodstream. Dr. Noguchi stated that the remnants of the capsules should have been in her stomach at the time of the autopsy, yet there were none at all. Kennedy friend and in-law Peter Lawford was known to have visited her hours before her death, along with a doctor, and Dr. Noguchi reported a tiny bruise and fresh needle mark was found on her buttocks. Conclusion- he didn't spell it out, but the implication that she was INJECTED with that drug in sufficient quantity to cause her death and had not actually swallowed it is pretty clear. The pills would then, of course, have been removed from the bottle, leaving the empty "evidence" behind. After stating ALL of this his conclusion, offered at the end of the chapter- was suicide. Yet he admitted not knowing why the gelatin capsules were not present nor what would have been injected into her. I was so disgusted reading that chapter- it was so obvious what had happened.

DeeDee249,
I read in some other Marilyn' book that the drug was administered anally?

With Coroner Meyers verbatim remarks regarding digital penetration and sexual contact he will have written a report outlining his reasons for reaching such conclusions. He has to since if the case ever reaches court, and either he is deceased or lost his memory, then his varbatim remarks can be challenged as opinion led. This along with other forensic evidence will be sealed.

.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
I read in some other Marilyn' book that the drug was administered anally?

With Coroner Meyers verbatim remarks regarding digital penetration and sexual contact he will have written a report outlining his reasons for reaching such conclusions. He has to since if the case ever reaches court, and either he is deceased or lost his memory, then his varbatim remarks can be challenged as opinion led. This along with other forensic evidence will be sealed.

.
.

I guess it could have been. This book has been out for many years- I definitely recall the fresh needle mark.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Everyone, since we have been talking about the "Amy" case so much lately, I went digging for some info. Found this link on FFJ. Please, if you don't read anything else about Amy's case, please read this. It is a press release given by the man Amy's father hired to find the person who assaulted her:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09241999petersonconference.htm

Thanks to A Candy Rose for providing this link at FFJ.

ETA: You will know after reading this that this investigator believes there is NO connection between Amy's and JonBenet's cases.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Everyone, since we have been talking about the "Amy" case so much lately, I went digging for some info. Found this link on FFJ. Please, if you don't read anything else about Amy's case, please read this. It is a press release given by the man Amy's father hired to find the person who assaulted her:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09241999petersonconference.htm

Thanks to A Candy Rose for providing this link at FFJ.

ETA: You will know after reading this that this investigator believes there is NO connection between Amy's and JonBenet's cases.

Thank you, jkb, (and of course, acandyrose.com),

A very interesting read, that.

'Objective' journalists? I understand what they were doing, but journalists are not supposed to judge, they are supposed to present unbiased information with surrounding facts. It seems at that time they already had tried and convicted the Rs and were poised to vilify anyone who disputed that 'conviction'.

As for Peterson, he presented in a very unorganized manner, contentious (most likely because hs was forced to be so) and presented little or no 'fact'. It was a waste of everyones time.

Given Peterson's performance I also must dismiss his comments regarding the "Amy" case. IMO, he had not clearly and unequivocally separated the two cases and as for his Santa Clause theory .. possible, given the wife's play (child murdered in basement) and that their daughter experienced an assault years earlier .. I'd keep the McReynolds in view, but certainly not high on the list.

IMO, the Amy intruder is much higher on that list .. simply because the MO presents quite similar to what is 'assumed' to be that of a JBR intruder, if indeed there was one.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Did JBR's killer even display an MO? What aspects are common to MO's?

 

[joeskidbeck]

Thank you, jkb, (and of course, acandyrose.com),

A very interesting read, that.

'Objective' journalists? I understand what they were doing, but journalists are not supposed to judge, they are supposed to present unbiased information with surrounding facts. It seems at that time they already had tried and convicted the Rs and were poised to vilify anyone who disputed that 'conviction'.

As for Peterson, he presented in a very unorganized manner, contentious (most likely because hs was forced to be so) and presented little or no 'fact'. It was a waste of everyones time.

Given Peterson's performance I also must dismiss his comments regarding the "Amy" case. IMO, he had not clearly and unequivocally separated the two cases and as for his Santa Clause theory .. possible, given the wife's play (child murdered in basement) and that their daughter experienced an assault years earlier .. I'd keep the McReynolds in view, but certainly not high on the list.

IMO, the Amy intruder is much higher on that list .. simply because the MO presents quite similar to what is 'assumed' to be that of a JBR intruder, if indeed there was one.

Chuck, going by the following statement, I thought Peterson had determined who the Amy attacker was:

Peterson: No, no. We excluded the first one, who was involved in our client's case. But in the process, through that process, we got into this case with the blessing of the client. And determined--we know what occurred. BBM

To me that statement sounds like he found out who was in Amy's room that night and that it probably was her boyfriend as others on here have suggested. Wish he had referred to him as something other than "the first one". But this tells me he knew who it was and that he had nothing to do with JonBenet.
He also fell into the Ramsey team radar with his search for Amy's "intruder" and got himself what was probably a nice paying job. Seriously, I can't blame these reporters for their attitude as they thought they were having an important press conference with real evidence and this man has nothing but a bad attitude and a need for attention. But you know what, that's what he was paid for. Make sure the reporters hear the words that you believe it was Santa even though the man has been cleared. That's all that mattered that day. JonBenet herself was just secondary to getting that theory out there.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm not suggesting a falsified report .. I'm suggesting the possibility information released to the public is purposefully misleading or incomplete, to maintain investigation integrity and / or tactical intent.

What was released seems more like a high-point summary than a complete autopsy

Chuck, you may really be onto something!

.. and perhaps the remaining information is not a game-changer either way?

Hard to say, since we don't know what the coroner told the GJ. But it just might be.

 

[BBB167893]

'Objective' journalists? I understand what they were doing, but journalists are not supposed to judge, they are supposed to present unbiased information with surrounding facts. It seems at that time they already had tried and convicted the Rs and were poised to vilify anyone who disputed that 'conviction'.

My heart bleeds.

As for Peterson, he presented in a very unorganized manner, contentious (most likely because hs was forced to be so) and presented little or no 'fact'. It was a waste of everyones time.

Given Peterson's performance I also must dismiss his comments regarding the "Amy" case. IMO, he had not clearly and unequivocally separated the two cases and as for his Santa Clause theory .. possible, given the wife's play (child murdered in basement) and that their daughter experienced an assault years earlier .. I'd keep the McReynolds in view, but certainly not high on the list.

It's pretty obvious he's a hack trying to grab publicity for himself.

IMO, the Amy intruder is much higher on that list .. simply because the MO presents quite similar to what is 'assumed' to be that of a JBR intruder, if indeed there was one.

The magic words.

 

[BBB167893]

Did JBR's killer even display an MO? What aspects are common to MO's?

You're talking my language now, HOTYH!

 

[BBB167893]

Chuck, going by the following statement, I thought Peterson had determined who the Amy attacker was:

Peterson: No, no. We excluded the first one, who was involved in our client's case. But in the process, through that process, we got into this case with the blessing of the client. And determined--we know what occurred. BBM

To me that statement sounds like he found out who was in Amy's room that night and that it probably was her boyfriend as others on here have suggested. Wish he had referred to him as something other than "the first one". But this tells me he knew who it was and that he had nothing to do with JonBenet.
He also fell into the Ramsey team radar with his search for Amy's "intruder" and got himself what was probably a nice paying job. Seriously, I can't blame these reporters for their attitude as they thought they were having an important press conference with real evidence and this man has nothing but a bad attitude and a need for attention. But you know what, that's what he was paid for. Make sure the reporters hear the words that you believe it was Santa even though the man has been cleared. That's all that mattered that day. JonBenet herself was just secondary to getting that theory out there.

Yeah, and to me, that's precisely it. These IDI shills would be a little easier to accept if they weren't such raging egomaniacs.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

You're talking my language now, HOTYH!

Possible MO-related:

• Home invasion
• Hide
• Violence
• Garrotte / Ligature / Neck
• Garrotte / Ligature / Wrists
• BDSM / Positioning
• Possile torture (electirc / burns)
• Sexual contact

 

[BBB167893]

Possible MO-related:

• Home invasion
• Hide
• Violence
• Garrotte / Ligature / Neck
• Garrotte / Ligature / Wrists
• BDSM / Positioning
• Possile torture (electirc / burns)
• Sexual contact

Chuck, would you be averse to moving this to another thread?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Possible MO-related:

• Home invasion
• Hide
• Violence
• Garrotte / Ligature / Neck
• Garrotte / Ligature / Wrists
• BDSM / Positioning
• Possile torture (electirc / burns)
• Sexual contact

My list is similar.

Ligatures.
Multi-weapon (garrote handle sharp at both ends for poking).
Black tape.
Strangulation.
Blunt force trauma to the head.
Sexual contact on a child.
Sadistic ancillary details: food, skin drawings, dolls, clothing, handwritten notes, threats to parents, provide hope then dash hope.
Nighttime home invasion.
Extreme violence.
Stalking.
Casing.
Planning.
Hiding, lie in wait.
Holiday.

 

[MurriFlower]

I know that a lot of therapists get children to draw pictures to help decide if they have been sexually abused. We know JBR had her own easel and would join her Mother in painting.

Does anyone know if there are any of her paintings or drawings available on the net?

 

[claudicici]

I thought I remebered PR showing one of JB's drawings during a TV show but I can't remember which one.I remember the colors orange and black but I don't remember what the drawing was about.I'm thinking of Helloween for some reason?

The Burke drawings during his therapy sessions we do know about ,how he omitted JB so shortly after her death.That does seem strange to me.

 

[madeleine]

LE may be able to use those tactic in interviewing suspects, but they cannot alter or falsify an autopsy report.
However, CORONERS have been known to falsify reports under pressure from certain quarters. I an not suggesting that was done in JB's case, but I have always wondered why the report was vague about some important things. (TOD, what caused her vaginal injuries, whether the round red abrasions were burns, etc).
For an interesting read on this matter, try Thomas Noguchi's book "Coroner". He was he LA county coroner for years and performed autopsies on many famous people. One that sticks in my mind was his chapter on Marilyn Monroe. As we all know, she was involved in affairs with both JFK and RFK, and was threatening to make her diary public because she felt she was being brushed off. She really expected to marry one of the Kennedy brothers.
Her death was ruled a suicide- an overdose of prescription pills, the empty bottle found in her bedroom, where her body was found. Yet- NO evidence was found in her stomach of the GELATIN capsules that contained the drug, although the drug was found in her bloodstream. Dr. Noguchi stated that the remnants of the capsules should have been in her stomach at the time of the autopsy, yet there were none at all. Kennedy friend and in-law Peter Lawford was known to have visited her hours before her death, along with a doctor, and Dr. Noguchi reported a tiny bruise and fresh needle mark was found on her buttocks. Conclusion- he didn't spell it out, but the implication that she was INJECTED with that drug in sufficient quantity to cause her death and had not actually swallowed it is pretty clear. The pills would then, of course, have been removed from the bottle, leaving the empty "evidence" behind. After stating ALL of this his conclusion, offered at the end of the chapter- was suicide. Yet he admitted not knowing why the gelatin capsules were not present nor what would have been injected into her. I was so disgusted reading that chapter- it was so obvious what had happened.

Not only that but they didn't find any glasses in that room or rooms nearby IIRC,so how did she swallow all those pills without any water or something.I remember watching a documentary on this particular subject.

 

[UKGuy]

My heart bleeds.



It's pretty obvious he's a hack trying to grab publicity for himself.



The magic words.

SuperDave,

Abracadabra ... there is an MO its like a fake MO. The intruder faked a crime-scene in the wine-cellar to avoid leaving an MO profile behind. But as a little present the intruder wipes and cleans his own flashlight then leaves it in the house reflecting his signature.

The intruder leaves the house taking with him the duct-tape, cord etc and of course JonBenet's size-6 underwear as a trophy.


.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Below is an excerpt from the PR interview from 30 April 1997, four months after the murder.

(as an aside: If I recall correctly, wasn't it ST's contention at one time that the Rs didn't allow themselves to be interviewed until 18 months after the murder? ST was present at and asked questions during the 30 April 1997 interview)

bbm

http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

TT: Okay. So give me kind of a step by step, get to the Whites 5:30, 6:00, 6:30 whatever, what time did you have dinner that night? What did you do before dinner after dinner?

PR: Well, we had um, I think we had cocktails, kind of, she had some cracked crab left over from their Christmas even dinner and we sampled some of that and I remember she kind of, for some reason, made a little plate for JonBenet or I remember her making a special plate for JonBenet for some reason so she would have some crab. . .

/// snippage ///

TT: Okay. Got home about 8:30, 9:00. What’s the fist thing you guy do when you got home that night? Actually, let me step back. Before you got home you went over to . . .

PR: Walkers and dropped of a little gift.

TT: Okay.

PR: And Stines and dropped off a little gift and drove home and JonBenet was asleep. She had fallen asleep in the car.

TT: Did you have to wake her up to get her inside or. . .

PR: Well, she was just really zonked and John carried her up to her room.

Another possibility, I apologize if this was offered previously:

JR and PR, during their interviews of 30 April 1997, never indicated that JBR had awakened from when JR carried JBR from the car and placed her on her bed to when PR changed JBR's pants.

What if the 'special plate' made specifically for JBR by PW (as according to PR) contained a substance that caused JBR to become very tired, eventually to the effect of a 'knock-out' drug?

• Did FW(senior) suggest the 'special plate'?
• Was it strictly PW's idea?
• Why was JBR singled out to receive a 'special plate'?

If a 'knock-out' substance was used, it certainly would have made it much easier to remove JBR from her bed and transport her to the basement.

• Did either F have a key to the R house?
• Did either F know the Rs were to travel early next morning?
• Which movies had the Fs seen up to that day?

I'm sure BPD followed this possibilty .. or did they not?

 

[BBB167893]

Below is an excerpt from the PR interview from 30 April 1997, four months after the murder.

(as an aside: If I recall correctly, wasn't it ST's contention at one time that the Rs didn't allow themselves to be interviewed until 18 months after the murder? ST was present at and asked questions during the 30 April 1997 interview)

I think you read that wrong, Chuck. They didn't allow themselves to be interviewed AFTER the April 1997 round until 18 months after the murders. And in both cases when they WERE interviewed, they came with lists of demands.

JR and PR, during their interviews of 30 April 1997, never indicated that JBR had awakened from when JR carried JBR from the car and placed her on her bed to when PR changed JBR's pants.

Yeah, but like a lot of what they say, you need a grain of salt, if not the whole damn salt shaker.

What if the 'special plate' made specifically for JBR by PW (as according to PR) contained a substance that caused JBR to become very tired, eventually to the effect of a 'knock-out' drug?

• Did FW(senior) suggest the 'special plate'?
• Was it strictly PW's idea?
• Why was JBR singled out to receive a 'special plate'?

If a 'knock-out' substance was used, it certainly would have made it much easier to remove JBR from her bed and transport her to the basement.

• Did either F have a key to the R house?
• Did either F know the Rs were to travel early next morning?
• Which movies had the Fs seen up to that day?

I'm sure BPD followed this possibilty .. or did they not?

Well, the idea of knockout drugs has been brought up. Wendy Murphy mentions them a bit. But since the toxicology report said nothing about any drugs, it's sort of a dead end, no pun intended.