Sexual behavior - Merged and Closed

[ANGRYWOLF]

she seems to have something against me. I haven't posted here very much..I have been preoccupied with this crime..Johnia Berry here locally....Maybe she feels I am stepping on her toes.
I don't think the evidence points towards their guilt at all.I think there's alot of..I would have said or done something different..the Patsyism stuff..that some people are using to imply guilt.The Boulder PD made so many mistakes...It bothers me none of you seem to want to discuss those mistakes.The stun gun...Jay says there wasn't one..others..... experts say there was one...so who should I believe... ....I think emotions obviously run deep...Some people feel they are speaking for Jon Benet...looking out for her interest...when they accuse her parents...They feel some sort of bond.I feel a bond as well..but I am interested in getting things right...not just going after the parents because we know who they are and it's convienent to do so.:snooty:

 

[IrishMist]

she seems to have something against me. I haven't posted here very much..I have been preoccupied with this crime..Johnia Berry here locally....Maybe she feels I am stepping on her toes.
I don't think the evidence points towards their guilt at all.I think there's alot of..I would have said or done something different..the Patsyism stuff..that some people are using to imply guilt.The Boulder PD made so many mistakes...It bothers me none of you seem to want to discuss those mistakes.The stun gun...Jay says there wasn't one..others..... experts say there was one...so who should I believe... ....I think emotions obviously run deep...Some people feel they are speaking for Jon Benet...looking out for her interest...when they accuse her parents...They feel some sort of bond.I feel a bond as well..but I am interested in getting things right...not just going after the parents because we know who they are and it's convienent to do so.:snooty:

Nah, we've discussed the police mistakes at length!!

I think we've discussed EVERY aspect of this case at length... and still it grips me. As an aside, do you think it will ever be solved? I have hope that it will, but I really believe we need access to all of the information. I think that may happen someday, but I don't think it will be until after JR is passed.

IMO, some posters are how you mentioned above, but I don't believe many are that way. The majority that I've talked with, and read the postings of really, truly want to figure out who did it. There may not be justice, or a trial, but to actually know who did it.

When the JMK fiasco hit, many posters said along the lines of "I always thought Patsy did it, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong." Most just want to know the truth for the sake of JonBenét.

I do agree, by the way, about the mistakes the police made. If it weren't for their bungling, this case would have been put away long ago. I'm one that doesn't believe a stun gun was involved, and do believe JonBenét knew her killer. That's about the extent of what I'm sure of.

 

[BBB167893]

I recently read that one of the signs of sexual abuse in a child is the child acting out sexually. Besides the way she acted in the pagents, had there ever been sexually behavior exihibited by JB in any way?

You mean like masturbating with a saxophone in front of a group of seniors?

I read the autopsy report, and I don't recall that there was anything like this mentioned. Please elaborate. Where was this info reported? Thanks much.

It's in there.

I wish SuperDave was here with his list of experts who reviewed the autopsy and slides taken at the time of autopsy and concluded there was prior sexual abuse. A search of WS looking for SD's list turned up this (thanks, SD):

The doctors who said there was abuse over time were:

John McCann

David Jones

Virginia Rau

James Monteleone

Richard Krugman

Ronald Wright

Robert Kirschner

Cyril Wecht


Dr John McCann is the expert who said JonBenet's hymeneal opening was 1 cm. Here's the link, please read post #8 (this also a post of SD's but I don't want to copy it without asking his permission first - thanks again, SD):

In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation's leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim.

I am here!

I also want to point out the Ramseys did sue various people.I think Lin Wood is their attorney...I believe he was successful in those suits..including one against the former Boulder PD detective who said the Ramseys killed Jon Benet. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on that.

I will. Those suits were all settled before they got to trial. Can't hit a home run if you don't get up to bat. I seem to remember that FOXNEWS got out of it clean...

There was a grand jury. There was testimony. If there was proof Patsy /John/ or their son did it..or some combination of them then why no indictments.

Henry Lee told Alex Hunter not to indict, that's why. I can produce his statement if you want it.

such speculation was extremely destructive to Patsy Ramsey and the Ramsey family.So it wasn't simply some academic exercise in free speech.

How about all the folks they threw to the wolves?

I wish more people who are convinced the Ramseys are guilty would look at the evidence and let the evidence lead them to an opinion..rather than already have an opinion..that Patsy murdered Jon Benet and try to fit the facts..and some rather inane suspicions...to it to prove it.

Then I'm your man, because I used to be an IDI.

Also, has any profiler (i.e. John Douglas) ever profiled concerning the traits of the killer? If so, where can I find that info? That would be interesting in deed.

Several have. Clint Van Zandt, Robert Ressler, Ron Walker, Gregg McCrary, and they all say the same: the parents did it.

And no, I don't believe the people who point the finger at Patsy/John/or their son have looked at the evidence.

Sorry to disappoint you.

As far as I am aware, John Douglas has not profiled the killer - certainly not using his normal techniques.

That's one way of putting it. Another, more accurate way would be to say that he made up his mind of their innocence without following even the most basic rules, which many of his colleagues called him on, ignoring his own writings to do it.

I think it is emotional to look at the Ramsey parents and decide that they seem like nice people who wouldn't do a thing like this, so let's not bother investigating them and let's attack anyone who still wants to do things by the book.

Rock on.

Only the Ramseys have accused the police of having tunnel vision - BECAUSE they persisted in trying to investigate the Ramseys when the Ramseys were refusing to be interviewed. The statistics are out there (I don't have them to hand). Many, many people were investigated. The police investigation spanned several states. That they only looked at the Ramseys is a tired, worn out piece of pro-Ramsey propaganda. Sorry.

It's true. Chuck Green just wrote a piece on that if anyone wants it.

There's the old expression about "indicting a ham sandwich". Grand juries will indict if the DA wants it. If the DA believes he has proof for a conviction.

You just nailed it, Wolf. Lee told him not to do it.

There's no proof they killed Jon Benet.Just ..in my view..silly suppositions and assumptions/suspicions.

Would you like a numbered, cross-referenced list? I can make it happen!

Tom Wickman said in an interview that the police proved conclusively that there was no stun gun. Werner Spitz and John Meyer agree with him.

I can honestly say that I can't decide if they are guilty or not. The evidence seems to point that way, and I believe their actions afterward point toward guilt... but really, the only thing keeping me from thinking they didn't do it is emotional. They don't seem the type to me. That's not real firm ground to stand on. To me, the actual evidence points toward their guilt.

That's where I stand now.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Wolf, I'm a hardcore PDI. Please feel free to go off on me and ask whatever you'd like - I'll be happy to answer any questions as to why I suspect Patsy Ramsey was involved in her daughter's death and subsequent staged crime scene.

But please tell me in return - what am I missing? What evidence that completely exonerates Patsy have I overlooked?

 

[BBB167893]

I'll do one better than that.

I'll start a thread: Ask SuperDave.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

so we can have a meaningful discussion.

Lets look at the stuff SuperDave went over.Great Job Dave.

Abuse over time. If it existed..and Jon Benet regularly went to the pediatrician..we know that..then why didn't he diagnose it and tell the police ? I don't know the law in Colorado...but in some states doctors have a legal obligation to report child abuse and can be criminally prosecuted for failure to report it. So why no report ? If Jon Benet was abused then who was the abuser ?
What made them abuse their own child ? I have a daughter..and I know I would never abuse my own daughter. So who abused Jon Benet and why ? Wouldn't there be some indication in the background of the abuser..that he or she had a problem. If it were Burke..the son..wouldn't he be after other girls he was around..other girls in his community ? There's no proof of that. No proof of extramarital affairs on the part of the Ramseys. No proof of any kind of sexual deviancy or issue.If you know of anything..then say so..but be right..so you don't get sued..Smile.

Henry Lee. Lee's an expert.I think he was more recently involved in a case in NC. The jury didn't believe him...he testified for the defense in that case...So why would Alex Hunter take Lee's word..follow his lead...and disregard those other experts...including the ones Dave pointed out believed Jon Benet had been abused.

The parents did it theory..as I have pointed out..isn't always true....so those other profilers could be wrong. Many of them would have said Marc Klass did it for the same reasons they are saying the Ramseys did it. They're simply looking at statistical analysis and not at the case per se. And some of them are rivals with Douglas so they hope to enhance their careers by taking an opposing point of view.

At his presentation in Nashville Douglas showed some scenes where they had test fired a stun gun. The marks looked a lot like the ones on Jon Benet's body. If you ever get a chance to see one of his presentations I suggest you do so. If the Boulder PD says there was no stun gun..they've made so many mistakes and had a vested interest in disputing other theories..so any analysis they did is suspect.

So ..if the Ramseys did it..what was the motive.I've heard the "well Patsy killed Jon Benet in a jealous rage " theory..well hypothesis..well speculation /guess/hope/wish ..there's no proof Patsy was jealous of Jon Benet much less anything else...so what was the motive ?:innocent:

 

[julianne]

Why can't you answer the question? what facts do you have that Patsy is not covering up for someone for harmed her daugther?

Excuse me, but perhaps you need to re-read my posts, because I never made the statement that I had facts that Patsy is not covering up for someone who harmed her daughter. I never so much as inferred it, so maybe you need to read again before you imply that I cannot answer a question.

 

[rashomon]

[ANGRYWOLF]gives a false impression of guilt . The Boulder DA has said they aren't the focus of the investigation. You can make your own mind about what that means.

You bet I do. That Boulder DA was so bent on directing the attention away from the Ramseys that she eagerly focused on JM Karr, a sicko stupid enough to incriminate himself with a phony confession to get his fifteen minutes of fame.
And wasn't it Michael Kane who said that DA Mary Lacy seems to know so little about the case that he doubts she has studied the case file?
It may shock you Angrywolf, but WS posters like Jayelles, Nuisanceposter and SuperDave (who btw was once a Ramsey supporter and therefore knows both sides of the fence) probably know more about the JBR case than Mary Lacy.

Patsy Ramsey isn't around to defend herself anymore..some people still seem to only want to beat up on her even though they know she isn't here....so I don't see any justice in it for the Ramsey family.

A suspect's death before (s)he could be brought to justice does not exonerate the suspect. Plain and simple.

 

[LionRun]

You ask for actual evidence ,then you ask for profiler (i.e. John Douglas ??

That is a very good question lannie. Perhaps I have not been clear about what I am trying to do. I am trying to go back in time and research--starting from the beginning. I wanted to read and see as much of the evidence/reports/ and all original information based on fact. I want to have the facts clear in my mind first (and saved on my computer to re-check or compare later). Only then do I plan to look into theories and deductions by others.

So, eventually, I want to explore things such as what John Douglas, The original prosecutors and LE, and so on had/have to say--not the facts; but, there interpretations of the facts along with speculation, etc.. But, there is so much info, that I am planning ahead. When I see or think of something I may want to explore later I try to find it. If I can't, I ask for help.

I do not want to know yet whatever it was that John Douglas, and others theorized or believe. But, I want to know where to find that info for later.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

doesn't exonerate her...It simply means she isn't around to defend herself from people like rashomon who believe she is guilty. Of course ..some of you insist Patsy prove herself innocent. She's deceased now so she can't do that. My view is nobody should have to prove themselves innocent..law enforcement, prosecutors..and people like those who insist she and the other Ramseys killed Jon Benet should prove guilt.
As far as Karr...I don't agree with the way the current DA handled it.I think your comment ..that the DA was eager to take attention away from the Ramseys was prejudicial and poorly conceived. I do believe the DA should have had Thai authorities arrest him there for offenses he commited there..Then they could have used his arrest there to further their investigation.
I don't know why Mary Lacy would know so little about the case.I tend to think that's another prejudicial comment. There's so much info..including stuff that isn't available to the general public...There's simply no excuse/reason she wouldn't be informed. So I simply don't believe that comment.
I do think the murderer will be caught someday..that we'll learn his/her /their identities.:waitasec:

 

[julianne]

I think it's entirely plausible that there is information that LE has that the general public, including those on WS, doesn't have and has never seen. It's most likely presumptious to conclude that all the information is readily available to anyone - it's not a stretch to conclude that there is information that has been shielded and withheld from public view and scrutiny. So, while there are certain posters who think they know everything there is to know about this case, I would reword that into saying that there are posters who know everything that is on the internet about this case. Big difference. Still commendable, however.

One question, and this may not be the thread for it but I am going to post it here anyway. For those who think the Ramseys did it (I'm an on-the-fencer) why, in the staging of the crime, wouldn't they have made clear and unrefutable evidence of a break-in? Since there was NO clear and unrefutable evidence of a break-in, either because the perp covered his/her tracks or because there was no break-in, then that tends to automatically make one look at the occupants of the house. So, why wasn't a break-in staged to deflect suspicion off themselves?

 

[IrishMist]

I think it's entirely plausible that there is information that LE has that the general public, including those on WS, doesn't have and has never seen. It's most likely presumptious to conclude that all the information is readily available to anyone - it's not a stretch to conclude that there is information that has been shielded and withheld from public view and scrutiny. So, while there are certain posters who think they know everything there is to know about this case, I would reword that into saying that there are posters who know everything that is on the internet about this case. Big difference. Still commendable, however.

One question, and this may not be the thread for it but I am going to post it here anyway. For those who think the Ramseys did it (I'm an on-the-fencer) why, in the staging of the crime, wouldn't they have made clear and unrefutable evidence of a break-in? Since there was NO clear and unrefutable evidence of a break-in, either because the perp covered his/her tracks or because there was no break-in, then that tends to automatically make one look at the occupants of the house. So, why wasn't a break-in staged to deflect suspicion off themselves?

I'm a fence sitter, too. But I'll take a shot at this... maybe they didn't want to be seen or heard breaking a window.

Or maybe they were going to try to pin it on someone with a key. They did talk quite a bit about LHP the next morning while waiting for JonBenét to be found.

Maybe they thought that's what a criminal mastermind would and could do... get in and out without a lot of signs.

I have read a theory that that is why he closed the window. That he initially staged it, but then thought better of it.

One thing that does bother me is that JR didn't say anything to the police about the open window in the basement. Why didn't he say anything about it???

 

[rashomon]

I don't know why Mary Lacy would know so little about the case.I tend to think that's another prejudicial comment. There's simply no excuse/reason she wouldn't be informed. So I simply don't believe that comment.
I do think the murderer will be caught someday..that we'll learn his/her /their identities.:waitasec:

AW, just for clarification: the comment about Mary Lacy knowing so little about the case was not from a poster, but from one of the case investigators, whom I quoted in my post.
And have you ever had the impression that the Ramseys did ANYTHING to get the killer caught? If yes, please post here what they have done in the past years to push forward the investigation into finding JB's killer.

It simply means she isn't around to defend herself from people like rashomon who believe she is guilty. Of course ..some of you insist Patsy prove herself innocent. She's deceased now so she can't do that. My view is nobody should have to prove themselves innocent..law enforcement, prosecutors..and people like those who insist she and the other Ramseys killed Jon Benet should prove guilt.

Don't twist my words. Every poster on WS (RDI, IDI or fence sitter) knows that the defendant does not have to prove his/her innocence in the courtroom. It is the prosecution which has the burden of proof.
But this is not a courtroom, but a true crime discussion board, where people present their opinions about possible guilt or innocence.

Virtually all evidence points to the Ramseys' involvement in their daughter's death.

 

[rashomon]

One question, and this may not be the thread for it but I am going to post it here anyway. For those who think the Ramseys did it (I'm an on-the-fencer) why, in the staging of the crime, wouldn't they have made clear and unrefutable evidence of a break-in? Since there was NO clear and unrefutable evidence of a break-in, either because the perp covered his/her tracks or because there was no break-in, then that tends to automatically make one look at the occupants of the house. So, why wasn't a break-in staged to deflect suspicion off themselves?

Julianne, I think the Ramseys initially did try to stage a break-in (see the broken window in the basement), but then realized the window was just too small to appear convincing. I think they then got the idea to put the blame on someone who had a KEY to the house, e.g. their housekeeper LHP.
Remember that John Ramsey, on discovering JB's body, immediately told the police that JB's killing must have been an INSIDE JOB, since only someone familiar with the layout of the Ramsey home could have put her body there?
LHP was also one of the first persons the Ramseys tried to throw under the bus.

And imo John's blathering about finding the basement window open and then closing it served the purpose to explain his fresh fingerprints on that window from the previous staging attempt.

BTW, no IDI on any JBR forum has ever been able to explain why a father whose daughter allegedly had been kidnapped, on finding a basemet window open ( = a possible kidnappers' point of entry/exit), would simply close it and not even mention this to the police at once.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

the evidence doesn't prove the Ramseys killed Jon Benet..if it did they would have been indicted and arrested...As far as speculation..well there's the flat earth society..the believe the earth is flat and that NASA has lied on the photos and that man has never been to the moon..stuff like that.The members of that organization have a right to their beliefs.....they can come here..to this board and express them if those so choose..I simply am under no obligation to believe the earth is flat.Are you ?
Why dodn't you call Lin Woods office in Atlanta and ask him what the Ramseys have done to find Jon Benet's killer.It was my belief they have hired PIs..Let me know if I am wrong on that.What would you have done if it had been your daughter murdered ? Law enforcement tends to discourage independent action by families in those circumstances. I know that from the Johnia Berry case here. Law enforcement wants to catch the perp...they don't want the family trampling all over their case...and they are reluctant to share info if they feel the family will reveal too much about the case.
So I think you're wrong rashomon.but you are entitled to have your opinion...

Again it seems to come back ..often enough to people second guessing what the Ramseys said or did..people who haven't been through that sort of thing..or investigated it...so ..they want to believe the Ramseys are guilty and continually look for things they say should have been done or said differently...but it doesn't prove guilt.:banghead:

 

[lannie]

Excuse me, but perhaps you need to re-read my posts, because I never made the statement that I had facts that Patsy is not covering up for someone who harmed her daughter. I never so much as inferred it, so maybe you need to read again before you imply that I cannot answer a question.

replyed to my post but will not give a answer??

 

[cynpat2000]

the evidence doesn't prove the Ramseys killed Jon Benet..if it did they would have been indicted and arrested...As far as speculation..well there's the flat earth society..the believe the earth is flat and that NASA has lied on the photos and that man has never been to the moon..stuff like that.The members of that organization have a right to their beliefs.....they can come here..to this board and express them if those so choose..I simply am under no obligation to believe the earth is flat.Are you ?
Why dodn't you call Lin Woods office in Atlanta and ask him what the Ramseys have done to find Jon Benet's killer.It was my belief they have hired PIs..Let me know if I am wrong on that.What would you have done if it had been your daughter murdered ? Law enforcement tends to discourage independent action by families in those circumstances. I know that from the Johnia Berry case here. Law enforcement wants to catch the perp...they don't want the family trampling all over their case...and they are reluctant to share info if they feel the family will reveal too much about the case.
So I think you're wrong rashomon.but you are entitled to have your opinion...

Again it seems to come back ..often enough to people second guessing what the Ramseys said or did..people who haven't been through that sort of thing..or investigated it...so ..they want to believe the Ramseys are guilty and continually look for things they say should have been done or said differently...but it doesn't prove guilt.:banghead:[/QUOTE Well I for one do not go by what the Ramseys did or didnt do. or what they said or didnt say. If you look at the evidence in this case it points to the Ramseys, had there been competent police work and a DA that knew her butt from a hole in the ground they would have been indicted. This case has been bungled from the beginning and the ramseys walk free.:behindbar

 

[julianne]

replyed to my post but will not give a answer??

Nope. Because your question was not directed to me. Looks like your getting posters mixed up AGAIN, LOL!

 

[Show Me]

doesn't exonerate her...It simply means she isn't around to defend herself from people like rashomon who believe she is guilty. Of course ..some of you insist Patsy prove herself innocent. She's deceased now so she can't do that. My view is nobody should have to prove themselves innocent..law enforcement, prosecutors..and people like those who insist she and the other Ramseys killed Jon Benet should prove guilt.
As far as Karr...I don't agree with the way the current DA handled it.I think your comment ..that the DA was eager to take attention away from the Ramseys was prejudicial and poorly conceived. I do believe the DA should have had Thai authorities arrest him there for offenses he commited there..Then they could have used his arrest there to further their investigation.
I don't know why Mary Lacy would know so little about the case.I tend to think that's another prejudicial comment. There's so much info..including stuff that isn't available to the general public...There's simply no excuse/reason she wouldn't be informed. So I simply don't believe that comment.
I do think the murderer will be caught someday..that we'll learn his/her /their identities.:waitasec:

Just curious...how long have you followed the case? Recently? One year? Two year? Ten year?

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

no recent convert.I don't post here often..and as I have said..I have been busy with other stuff...:doh:
I have looked at the evidence.It doesn't prove Patsy/John/or Burke killed Jon Benet. Some of you insist she did..or they did..and want to believe it..but you have no proof of it...Your belief has become a conviction...and I feel reasonably assured it's based upon what Patsy/John/Burke said or did...or you developed some sort of Anti-Ramsey bias or prejudice not backed up by the facts...or you feel you see things as they truly are and must seek justice for Jon Benet. To me accusations not backed by proof are not persuasive.
We do agree the Boulder PD was incompetent. However, I believe..if they had been competent...they would have arrested the killer and it wouldn't have been a Ramsey.