Prior Vaginal Trauma

[MurriFlower]

Or neither! Listen, this is one instance where the wildcard excuse of "cops lie" might--and I hold pretty strong reservations--be the case. Tom Haney is a policeman, a homicide detective. He's probably used that tactic in the past. But let's take a CLOSE look at this.

Finally, an admission from you that they use 'tactics'. This is a breakthrough!!

Tom Haney is widely described as one of the finest homicide detectives in the country. I'm sure if you asked people who know him, "nit wit" is not the first word that comes to mind.

Exactly, so they did not lose, leave behind, or couldn't just put their hands on, the medical report at all. They just didn't have one that said what they were telling PR.

There's also the whole deal with him and Mary Lacy, but we'll get to that later!

Whatever.

No, that's NOT what he said. Like I just said, Haney is no fool. He knows you have to keep your cards close to your vest. I honestly don't see what your problem is with that, Murri. Indeed, maybe if the DA's office had done that instead of giving everything away to the Rs, this case would be solved already!

There is no problem if the interveiws are not made public (as the cops would have expected). They were very careful NOT to out and out lie, just to say things that weren't proven, a fine line but dishonest nevertheless. It wouldn't have mattered what the DA gave away (assuming that they gave ANYTHING away) if they had evidence that was irrefutable.

I have no reason to doubt him, Murri. You keep arguing that this evidence doesn't exist, but were you there? We KNOW that the materials he's talking about exist, because they were presented to the assembled panel in June of 1998, right about this same time.

No, you wouldn't have a reason to doubt him. Were YOU there?? Who was on this assembled panel in June 1998??

Yes, they did! Good thing, too, because they got some interesting stuff out of it. I won't go into the whole thing right now, but if you haven't seen the actual video of this exchange, Murri, you really can't get the whole picture. If a cop told me that my daughter had been abused sexually by some creep, I'd turn into the Hulk. That's not what happened here.

Patsy stays completely calm. Her voice does not alter its pitch or timbre. She's completely flat, with all the emotion of a toothpaste commercial. Now, if you want to tell us that doesn't mean anything, you're certainly welcome to do so. But I believe it about as far as I can throw an elephant by the trunk!

No I haven't seen the video. Wouldn't matter what she did, for you it would have pointed to her guilt. Calm, distressed, it would never have been believed.

Wouldn't YOU ask her that? I'm deadly serious; this is probably the most important evidence in the entire case. If you thought she could give you something to follow up on, would YOU keep it to yourself?

It's been speculated by some that Haney was trying to knock PR off-balance. That he was giving her an opportunity to save herself by implicating JR or BR. Maybe he was. But it's just as likely he was giving her a legitimate out. Wouldn't you say?

Well, I think that's what I said, but you argue and then basically agree. He was giving her nothing, he wanted a confession or as you say for her to give up whoever did it. The one thing he didn't give her was the respect due to an innocent parent, grieving for a murdered child.

 

[Toltec]

MurriFlower...I suggest you watch the video before making claims of trickery...

Patsy picks up the ransom letter and flings it across the room. She covers her face when looking at crime scene photos as if wanting to hide her reactions. She is asked if she suffered any abuse and she regresses into an infant, her responses coming in whispers.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower...I suggest you watch the video before making claims of trickery...

Patsy picks up the ransom letter and flings it across the room. She covers her face when looking at crime scene photos as if wanting to hide her reactions. She is asked if she suffered any abuse and she regresses into an infant, her responses coming in whispers.

Ok, well post a link that works and I will judge for myself.

 

[SunnieRN]

Respectfully snipped by me:

Yes, they did! Good thing, too, because they got some interesting stuff out of it. I won't go into the whole thing right now, but if you haven't seen the actual video of this exchange, Murri, you really can't get the whole picture. If a cop told me that my daughter had been abused sexually by some creep, I'd turn into the Hulk. That's not what happened here.

It's been speculated by some that Haney was trying to knock PR off-balance. That he was giving her an opportunity to save herself by implicating JR or BR. Maybe he was. But it's just as likely he was giving her a legitimate out. Wouldn't you say?

I am curious if there is a transcript with John being asked these same questions about prior molestation? The lack of anger on Johns part has always bothered me more than Patsys "reaction". Thank you!

Unfortunately I think both of the R's were too well rehearsed to be knocked off balance. Pity!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No I haven't seen the video. Wouldn't matter what she did, for you it would have pointed to her guilt. Calm, distressed, it would never have been believed.

:clap:
:clap:
:clap:
:clap:
:clap:

Circular logic. Whatever it is, it fits.

I was thinking of defining a script of innocent behavior for JR, PR from 12-25-96 forward, to fully comply with RDI expectations. Statements, actions, handwriting exemplars, whatever, that would provide zero argument fodder.

If JR and PR had actually complied with that script exactly, then I wouldn't believe them.

 

[UKGuy]

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. If in fact this evidence exists as you say, you would have no reason to ask me for proof of it's non existence, because you would be able to find numerous sources (aside from interviews) that it does actually exist.

You need not query any posts of mine, that is your choice. It is what we are doing here in the absence of actual evidence, we discuss.

MurriFlower,
You are the person accusing BPD that no actual evidence exists. They have published and distribruted papers to named pathologists, who have then peer reviewed these.


Where is your evidence for non-existence? With no evidence you are simply a mouthpiece, uttering opinion from the sidelines.

And yes I will pursue your posts, marking each and every one as bogus, an utterance of a deluded mouthpiece, someone incapable of marshaling evidence to support their claims.


So put up or shut up.





.

 

[Agatha_C]

MurriFlower,
You are the person accusing BPD that no actual evidence exists. They have published and distribruted papers to named pathologists, who have then peer reviewed these.


Where is your evidence for non-existence? With no evidence you are simply a mouthpiece, uttering opinion from the sidelines.

And yes I will pursue your posts, marking each and every one as bogus, an utterance of a deluded mouthpiece, someone incapable of marshaling evidence to support their claims.


So put up or shut up.





.

:fireworks::fireworks::fireworks::fireworks:

 

[BBB167893]

She did not 'dig herself deeper' anywhere but in your mind.

Please!

To subject a traumatised mother to such treatment is disgraceful.

Murri, listing the truly disgraceful and disgusting would take more time than we've got!

But you know I will!

 

[BBB167893]

Finally, an admission from you that they use 'tactics'. This is a breakthrough!!

What breakthrough? I never said they DIDN'T.

Exactly, so they did not lose, leave behind, or couldn't just put their hands on, the medical report at all. They just didn't have one that said what they were telling PR.

Apparently, they did. Otherwise, it would take one big conspiracy for happened to have happened.

Whatever.

Don't "whatever" me, Murri. You want to know what happened? Okay: after Tom Haney's interview with Patsy in 1998, Mary Lacy, who was a member of the DA's staff at the time, got into it with Haney, saying that he was "too tough" on Patsy. Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the he** does she think SHE is?"

Indeed, her reasoning was almost identical to yours: putting the SUSPECTS before the VICTIM.

There is no problem if the interviews are not made public (as the cops would have expected). They were very careful NOT to out and out lie, just to say things that weren't proven, a fine line but dishonest nevertheless.

Whatever.

It wouldn't have mattered what the DA gave away (assuming that they gave ANYTHING away) if they had evidence that was irrefutable.

"Wouldn't have mattered?" I want to make sure I read that right. "Wouldn't have mattered?" You're telling it it wouldn't have mattered for the prime suspects and their million-dollar lawyers to have all the evidence before the court case? That's marvelous thinking!

No, you wouldn't have a reason to doubt him.

Not now. At one time, I would have.

Were YOU there??

No, I wasn't. But thankfully, some of the people who WERE have been kind enough to tell us what went on!

Who was on this assembled panel in June 1998??

Glad you asked!

Alex Hunter, Bill Wise, Henry Lee, Barry Scheck, Tom Wickman, Tom Trujillo, Steve Thomas, Jane Harmer, Ron Gosage, Carey Weinheimer, Michael Everett, Bob Grant, Bill Ritter, Jim Peters, Steven Pitt, Richard Baer, Daniel Hoffman, Robert Miller, Tom Koby, Trip DeMuth, Pete Maguire, Bill Nagel, John Pickering, Mary Lacy, Tom Haney, Michael Kane, Lou Smit, Dan Schuler, John Daley, Terry Gillespie, Molly Bernard, Jim Hughes, Tom Kilpatrick, David Hayes, Bill Hagmeier, Mike Morrow, Larry Ankrom, Pete Mang, Kathy Dressel and Chet Ubowski.

PHEW! Would you like me to tell you what everyone wore and ate for lunch, too?

No I haven't seen the video.

I figured.

Wouldn't matter what she did, for you it would have pointed to her guilt. Calm, distressed, it would never have been believed.

Bah, that's nonsense.

Well, I think that's what I said, but you argue and then basically agree.

No, that's not what you said. You never even CONSIDER the idea that the police were on the level. Don't put words in my mouth!

He was giving her nothing, he wanted a confession or as you say for her to give up whoever did it.

I can only say I'm sorry she didn't when she had the chance. Not that it mattered by then.

The one thing he didn't give her was the respect due to an innocent parent, grieving for a murdered child.

Murri, I'm honestly trying my best not to be insensitive to anyone in this case. But to me, she was not due that respect. Tom Haney is one of the finest cops around. As far as I know, you are not, plus you're shooting from a long way away. The choice for me is not difficult!

 

[BBB167893]

MurriFlower...I suggest you watch the video before making claims of trickery...

Patsy picks up the ransom letter and flings it across the room. She covers her face when looking at crime scene photos as if wanting to hide her reactions. She is asked if she suffered any abuse and she regresses into an infant, her responses coming in whispers.

Beautiful, Toltec! Could not have said it better myself.

 

[BBB167893]

I am curious if there is a transcript with John being asked these same questions about prior molestation? The lack of anger on Johns part has always bothered me more than Patsys "reaction". Thank you!

Agreed.

Unfortunately I think both of the R's were too well rehearsed to be knocked off balance. Pity!

Most of the time, except when they weren't, you know.

 

[BBB167893]

Circular logic. Whatever it is, it fits.

Yes, Murri does have a habit of doing that! It must be bad for a fellow IDI to point it out. :grin:

I was thinking of defining a script of innocent behavior for JR, PR from 12-25-96 forward, to fully comply with RDI expectations. Statements, actions, handwriting exemplars, whatever, that would provide zero argument fodder.

Go for it, man! It would make a good companion to what I'm mulling over.

If JR and PR had actually complied with that script exactly, then I wouldn't believe them.

Okay, I have GOT to hear this one!

 

[BBB167893]

MurriFlower,
You are the person accusing BPD that no actual evidence exists. They have published and distribruted papers to named pathologists, who have then peer reviewed these.


Where is your evidence for non-existence? With no evidence you are simply a mouthpiece, uttering opinion from the sidelines.

And yes I will pursue your posts, marking each and every one as bogus, an utterance of a deluded mouthpiece, someone incapable of marshaling evidence to support their claims.


So put up or shut up.

I second that! I'd third it if I could!

 

[txsvicki]

I hate even typing this, but going by the coroners report is it understood that JonBenet did not have a hymen, but only the rim was left? I've read it several times, but it's confusing since it doesn't specifically say that. I'd like to know if it is fact and undisputed according to the autopsy wording. Surely Patsy eventually understood if it was not there and a healed rim was left, but the opening was twice as large as unassaulted openings in that age group. Also, didn't one expert think that the previous assault happened about 72 hours prior to her death or is that wrong?

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,
You are the person accusing BPD that no actual evidence exists. They have published and distribruted papers to named pathologists, who have then peer reviewed these.


Where is your evidence for non-existence? With no evidence you are simply a mouthpiece, uttering opinion from the sidelines.

And yes I will pursue your posts, marking each and every one as bogus, an utterance of a deluded mouthpiece, someone incapable of marshaling evidence to support their claims.


So put up or shut up.

Well, when I get the evidence for the non existence of the Tooth Fairy, I'll probably find the evidence for the non existence of the prior sexual assault report in the same file.

Funnily enough, it was not me but the BPD who said they actually had evidence. Evidence that has never been published or shown to anyone. And as I said, the onus is on the accuser to provide the evidence, not for accused to PROVE their innocence. That's just the way it works here and in the US. I think things must be different in the UK. I know there are certain countries where an accused person has to prove their innocence, but this isn't the situation we are discussing.

It isn't very kindly to tell someone to shut up, but of course this is allowed for RDI apparently, but not IDI, no sirree! We are outnumbered ten to one, because you guys make the rules.

 

[SunnieRN]

I hate even typing this, but going by the coroners report is it understood that JonBenet did not have a hymen, but only the rim was left? I've read it several times, but it's confusing since it doesn't specifically say that. I'd like to know if it is fact and undisputed according to the autopsy wording. Surely Patsy eventually understood if it was not there and a healed rim was left, but the opening was twice as large as unassaulted openings in that age group. Also, didn't one expert think that the previous assault happened about 72 hours prior to her death or is that wrong?

You got it Vicki! JonBenet, still had her hymen, but it had been partially separated. It was partially intact. Your reasoning is correct. Dependent upon your beliefs Patsys could have been totally in the dark or fully aware that JonBenet was being assaulted or, anywhere in-between.

 

[MurriFlower]

You got it Vicki! JonBenet, still had her hymen, but it had been partially separated. It was partially intact. Your reasoning is correct. Dependent upon your beliefs Patsys could have been totally in the dark or fully aware that JonBenet was being assaulted or, anywhere in-between.

hmm girls. Ever heard of Google. Just do a bit of research. Not on sexual abuse, but on normal ("innocent") erosion of the hymen. Believe it or not, it's quite normal and not necessarily related to sexual abuse. Especially in girls prone to infection. Still, I expect, you would all rather believe........

 

[BOESP]

hmm girls. Ever heard of Google. Just do a bit of research. Not on sexual abuse, but on normal ("innocent") erosion of the hymen. Believe it or not, it's quite normal and not necessarily related to sexual abuse. Especially in girls prone to infection. Still, I expect, you would all rather believe........

It isn't normal for a six year old child. Did your Google research further explain why. Did it mention physical examination and cleansing procedures as contributing factors. Just curious as to what the details are since it takes more than an external diaper rash to create erosion, especially when one is six years old.

 

[BOESP]

She did not 'dig herself deeper' anywhere but in your mind. To subject a traumatised mother to such treatment is disgraceful.

She was a traumatized mother who failed to cooperate with the police like most traumatized mothers have done in similar situations. Even guilty mothers such as Diane Downs and Susan Smith cooperated.

What gets my goat is she felt well enough to cooperate with her public relations team and appear on national television.

 

[UKGuy]

Well, when I get the evidence for the non existence of the Tooth Fairy, I'll probably find the evidence for the non existence of the prior sexual assault report in the same file.

Funnily enough, it was not me but the BPD who said they actually had evidence. Evidence that has never been published or shown to anyone. And as I said, the onus is on the accuser to provide the evidence, not for accused to PROVE their innocence. That's just the way it works here and in the US. I think things must be different in the UK. I know there are certain countries where an accused person has to prove their innocence, but this isn't the situation we are discussing.

It isn't very kindly to tell someone to shut up, but of course this is allowed for RDI apparently, but not IDI, no sirree! We are outnumbered ten to one, because you guys make the rules.

MurriFlower,

Well, when I get the evidence for the non existence of the Tooth Fairy, I'll probably find the evidence for the non existence of the prior sexual assault report in the same file.

Nobody is requesting evidence of the tooth-fairy are they. They require your evidence that the BPD have no evidence relating either JonBenet's prior sexual assault or her size-12 underwear. So far, from yourself, none has been forthcoming.

Funnily enough, it was not me but the BPD who said they actually had evidence.

Sure and even more comical is that it is you who asserts that the BPD have no evidence, so the onus is on you to demonstrate why you are correct.

And as I said, the onus is on the accuser to provide the evidence, not for accused to PROVE their innocence. That's just the way it works here and in the US. I think things must be different in the UK.

It become even more comical does it not. You are confusing even conflating two different subjects e.g. a trial and non-existence of evidence.

The subject of your post is not who the accused is, or what the evidence is ranged against them. The subject is the actual non-existence of evidence. This is your claim, so produce something to support your assertion.

Not all this wooly talk about proving guilt or innocence, or ad-hominem remarks, when all it takes is some reasoned discussion.

So your claim is as per normal an absence of evidence can we have your supporting references , published evidence etc? Otherwise you are simply wasting peoples time on this board with invented claims.

Why invented, because, to date, as with your DNA claims you have produced no evidence!


.