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 ?
By his own admission, he wasn't looking for it. He never did an internal exam. Also, he didn't see her for several months, plenty of time for it to start happening.
If Jon Benet was abused then who was the abuser ?
No idea. I'm up in the air on that one still.
What made them abuse their own child ?
I could list a few possibilities, but I know how much you hate speculation.
No proof of extramarital affairs on the part of the Ramseys.
Actually, John's first marriage ended because of adultery.
If you know of anything..then say so..but be right..so you don't get sued..Smile.
Ask and ye shall receive:
"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused." (Thomas 2000a:253
In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nations 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. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia. Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior. In discussing perpetrators of sexual abuse on children, McCann stated that the majority of children this age are molested by someone with whom they have close contact most commonly family members. He explained that if the molester is a stranger or someone else with whom the child is not close, the child will usually tell someone or psychological problems appear which create behavior changes observed by their parents. Common symptoms would be eating disorders, nightmares or a variety of behaviors indicating that something is bothering them. Commencement or increased bedwetting is also commonly seen in sexually abused children. When asked about JonBenet's sexualized behavior during her pageant performances, McCann said that this was not necessarily a sign of abuse, since this was taught behavior for the pageants. Also, with children's exposure to sexually explicit television programs, sexualized behavior is no longer considered to be an indication of possible sexual abuse.
And I don't give a hoot in hell about getting sued.
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.
That's easy: very little evidence pointed to a specific person. That's absolutely required for prosecution: you have to say who did what.
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.
Please.
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.
No need. I own one of these things. It's completely wrong. They're not quiet, they don't knock people out and they don't leave neat marks. Also, they burn, they don't scratch. These were scratches, per the coroner.
The stun gun is a fabrication out of nowhere. Don't take my word for it. If Smit had been approached by the coroner and the coroner said to him, "Lou, I think such and such happened, but the cops won't listen to me. Maybe you will," I might be on that side of it still. But that's not what happened. Quite the opposite.
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.
Not according to Mike Kane, Dan Hoffman, Mark Beckner, Henry Lee, et al. Kane said flat-out the early mistakes were just that, and that the cops really got it together.
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 ?
Ever heard of Snow White?
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?
Yep.
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.
Tell that to Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman, who have been tirelessly acquiring the documents relating to it. They say the same: a gift to the Ramseys.
I don't know why Mary Lacy would know so little about the case.I tend to think that's another prejudicial comment.
She admitted she never read the autopsy report!
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?
To wit:
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.
I think it was all of thosem with heavy emphasis on the third one.
the evidence doesn't prove the Ramseys killed Jon Benet..if it did they would have been indicted and arrested
The evidence doesn't say who did what. Big difference, but it's enough.
It was my belief they have hired PIs..Let me know if I am wrong on that.
They hired them, but NOT to find their daughter's killer. Don't take my word for it, AngryWolf. It's right in John Ramsey's deposition: they hired them to keep them out of jail. Not only that, in the same deposition, he admitted also that he NEVER READ the reports they made! More than that, one of the PIs they hired, Ellis Armistead, QUIT specifically because of that. His conscience wouldn't let him take part in the charade of justice anymore.
From an on-the-fencer person, I would say that since the crime occurred in the Ramsey home, that it's completely fathomable that the fibers got there due to secondary transfer. Being that she lived in that house, Patsy's clothing fibers would be all over the place, right?
1) They weren't "all over the place." They were in four specific areas.
2) Those areas were places Patsy SWORE she never went near while wearing her Christmas outfit. So the secondary transference begins and ends rather quickly.
I don't think that is conclusive enough to prove Patsy killed Jon Benet
I do, for the reasons I just gave.
but did LE conclude with certainty that those fibers were, without a doubt, the exact same fibers as the clothes she was wearing? I thought that they concluded that the fibers were of the same colors and consistency, but stopped at saying it was unequivocably a complete match? No?
I believe their exact words were "indentical."
....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:
