Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[Anti-K]

I disagree with your opinion wholeheartedly. Where is your evidence of that? You claim it is contradictory but I say it is evidence that they made mistakes. The why of those mistakes IS conjecture but they are hardly stabs in the dark. What are the most likely reasons that they made mistakes? Inexperience, agitation, fear, time-constraints... there are more. Is there hard evidence? No. Is it a consistent leap in logic? Yes. IDI do that too.





Nope! There are plenty of contradictions and inconsistencies. Show me, with evidence not "rationalisation" how the intruder got into the house. Explain, with evidence, why the intruder left the body. The kidnapper having nowhere to take the body is not a simple explanation. It raises more questions not answers any. Why didn't they? Was that their plan all along? If yes, why? If no then what went wrong? I have lots more. Explain the ransom note. Explain the sexual assault. Explain the "garrote". I think you require a higher level of proof from RDI than you apply to IDI.




This was one messed up crime. I have plenty of doubt but there is more doubt about the existence of an intruder than there is that somehow RDI. That's why I think RDI.

I haven't come up with some pat little theory, I have questions and doubts which is why I like discussing it here. I especially like discussing it with IDI; they can give you fresh ideas and ask questions you hadn't considered. But the frustration of dealing with belligerence, hypocrisy and sometimes deliberate misunderstanding that borders on trolling is too hard. You get angry and defensive and it stops being fun. I'd just once like to meet an IDI that was reasonable, could bend and admit occasionally that other people can have important points that differ from their own beliefs.

Saying they made mistakes is your way of explaining why an inconsistency or contradiction exists. It doesn’t make them go away.

I am using evidence btw and referring to evidence when I make the claims that you’re wholeheartedly in opposition to.

Let me give you an example.

The notepad is used. An earlier draft is removed and disposed of. The so-called practice note is left attached, and the ransom note is removed and placed on the stairs. The notepad is put away; the pen is put away. Cord is created and tape is used, but the remainders are disposed of (most RDI will tell you that the cord was recently purchased by Mrs Ramsey because of purchases made for an unknown item of the same price). A paint brush is broken into three – one for the garrote, one (presumably) for the sexual assault and one back into the tote; one end is disposed of. The body is wiped and that which was used was disposed of.

Reason tells us that the items disposed of were done so out of forensic concern. This tells us something about their mindset. They were thinking about what could be traced back to them. They took effort to prevent this. Could they still make a mistake? Sure. Of course. But, I think that depends on the mistake.

Leaving the so-called practice note attached. A mistake? They rip out a page, they leave a page; they rip out a page. How does that one get left behind when the pages before and after it are gone? A mistake, I guess. But, sit down with your note pad and try it out. It could happen, but it seems unlikely, particularly when your intent is out of forensic concern.
Disposing of one piece of the paint brush, but not the other? How does that happen? A mistake, I guess. But, if you disposed of one piece, and the cord and the tape then forgetting the brush end doesn’t seem likely.

Disposing of the cord so the murder weapon can’t be traced back to the house and then breaking the paint brush, attaching one piece to the cord and putting a second piece back into the tote so that the murder weapon can be traced back to the house just can’t be easily explained.

A hair, a fiber, a print, okay, that I can see. They forgot to wipe this, they forgot they touched that. Okay. But, if RDI, the time, effort and risk involved in disposing shows that they were thinking about what could come back to haunt them (people with such concerns don’t give investigators 2 ½ pages of handwriting; maybe, a cpl lines but not 2 ½ pages).

I know I’m not addressing some of your concerns, but I feel this post is long enough already, I’m sure whatever I’ve missed will come back around again.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Maybe I am reading this (and other statements by you) wrong but are you saying that unless we can establish, with absolute proof, every detail of the prior abuse (if it happened) then we can not include it in any theory?

What rubbish! The very nature of that sort of abuse is secretive and it can go on for a long time with out discovery until one of the people (usually the victim) speaks about it. Sometimes there is physical evidence but very often there is not. Even if others find out about it it it is hushed up to save face or other reasons. Exactly what happened inside the Catholic Church (among others) for a long time.

Just because no one could say who did what to whom and when does not mean there is no possibility that it happened. The damage to the hymen raises the possibility so it is not wild conjecture and I don't see a problem with including it in theories. If people use that as the only or most important piece of evidence then that is problematic.

As I’ve said many times, I provisionally accept the premise of prior abuse.

So, I think it is okay to use the prior abuse if you want to; but, doing so means that you have entered the realm of pure speculation. And, to use it – RDI or IDI – one has to work from theory instead of evidence because there is no evidence connecting it to the crime; and we don’t know what, who, etc.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

As I’ve said many times, I provisionally accept the premise of prior abuse.

So, I think it is okay to use the prior abuse if you want to; but, doing so means that you have entered the realm of pure speculation. And, to use it – RDI or IDI – one has to work from theory instead of evidence because there is no evidence connecting it to the crime; and we don’t know what, who, etc.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Its not a Premise its a fact! Your misuse of terminology simply gives you away. All the stuff you refer to as inconsistency or contradiction, is easily explained away as after the fact staging and different actors applying personal forensic cleanup procedures.

There is absolutely no evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household as being responsible for the death of JonBenet, no hair, no fingerprints, no touch-dna, no semen, no saliva, no footprints, no foreign fibers, absolutely nothing, zilch!

Which is unusual assuming we are dealing with a foreign faction, i.e. multiple intruders!

There has never been a cogent IDI theory ever published which stood up to scrutiny, all IDI can do is critique current RDI, precisely because prevailing IDI theory is bankrupt.

So, I think it is okay to use the prior abuse if you want to; but, doing so means that you have entered the realm of pure speculation. And, to use it – RDI or IDI – one has to work from theory instead of evidence because there is no evidence connecting it to the crime; and we don’t know what, who, etc.

Speculation is what we are engaged in, since we were not present on the night of JonBenet's death. Again, so to remind you, there is no current cogent IDI theory available.

The Coroner established that JonBenet had suffered prior abuse, so connecting this to the night of her death is legitimate speculation, based on evidence of course.

BDI is the current flavor of the month regarding RDI theories, given the forensic evidence most people are going to cite the two Ramsey males as prime suspects.

.

 

[inspector rex]

I believe the coroner had already concluded that there was prior abuse. He was THERE- he dissected her body, he saw the injuries to the vaginal area and evidence of healing which proved some of the injuries had occurred at a previous time. Yes, other forensic specialist agreed with him, though they were not present during the autopsy, they did have access to ALL the photographs. I don't know what more could prove it to those who refuse to believe it.

Even if the coroner was subsequently persuaded to agree that what he saw was prior sexual abuse (by the 'experts' in the field), I want you to note that these same experts have SINCE changed their minds largely about identifying factors. What happened in 1996 is NOT the accepted diagnosis today. It is the same with DNA. Technology and studies have improved out of sight in the past 19 years. You can't stay stuck in the thinking of 1996. Much of what was believed then about signs of sexual abuse have been since disproved as definitive evidence.

 

[Mama2JML]

Anti-K,
Its not a Premise its a fact! Your misuse of terminology simply gives you away. All the stuff you refer to as inconsistency or contradiction, is easily explained away as after the fact staging and different actors applying personal forensic cleanup procedures.

There is absolutely no evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household as being responsible for the death of JonBenet, no hair, no fingerprints, no touch-dna, no semen, no saliva, no footprints, no foreign fibers, absolutely nothing, zilch!

Which is unusual assuming we are dealing with a foreign faction, i.e. multiple intruders!

There has never been a cogent IDI theory ever published which stood up to scrutiny, all IDI can do is critique current RDI, precisely because prevailing IDI theory is bankrupt.


Speculation is what we are engaged in, since we were not present on the night of JonBenet's death. Again, so to remind you, there is no current cogent IDI theory available.

The Coroner established that JonBenet had suffered prior abuse, so connecting this to the night of her death is legitimate speculation, based on evidence of course.

BDI is the current flavor of the month regarding RDI theories, given the forensic evidence most people are going to cite the two Ramsey males as prime suspects.

.

With regard to that which is B&UBM: HUH???

How have you established this? What am I missing, UKGuy?...

 

[andreww]

Even if the coroner was subsequently persuaded to agree that what he saw was prior sexual abuse (by the 'experts' in the field), I want you to note that these same experts have SINCE changed their minds largely about identifying factors. What happened in 1996 is NOT the accepted diagnosis today. It is the same with DNA. Technology and studies have improved out of sight in the past 19 years. You can't stay stuck in the thinking of 1996. Much of what was believed then about signs of sexual abuse have been since disproved as definitive evidence.

Could you please supply specific examples of experts who have since changed their minds about this specific matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Quote Originally Posted by Detective Pinkie View Post
The note was the only item to solely point to a kidnapping, so they didn't invest all that much. If the police hadn't identified the note pad and pen, the only thing tying them to the note was the slight similarity to Patsy's hand writing. Not that risky.

Well, there’s the wrist ligatures, the tape on the mouth and IMO these are also elements of the kidnapping, but I realize that I wasn’t very clear here. I was referring to the crime in its entirety –the creation of a 2 ½ page note and the breaking of the paint brush, the sexual assault, the asphyxiation, the body in the basement, etc

That’s a lot of time, planning, and creating, etc.
...

AK

Funny how a couple of days ago you said this...

But, nothing like this was said, and the evidence for a staged or a real botched kidnapping does not exist.

I do realize you said "botched kidnapping", but you are now saying their is evidence of a kidnapping. If the body is still in the house, the kidnapping was botched wasn't it?

 

[BBB167893]

I've been wanting to expand on this exchange:

For example, IMO, the force and brutality committed is exculpatory because extensive investigation into the Ramseys failed to show that they were capable of using such force and brutality. They might have anyway, but the evidence is not for it. The evidence is that they were loving, doting parents.

Oh, God, don't even waste my time with THAT bulls**t! I don't care how loving someone is; ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING. That's a hard lesson for a hard world, and we all had damn well better learn it.

I realize that was a very general response. Allow me to elaborate.

IDI likes to use that pitch: that the Rs, for whatever reason, weren't capable of such "force and brutality." I'd like to deconstruct both aspects of that.

Firstly, the idea that only "some types" are capable is fallacy. To illustrate this, I'll often compare this case to the murder of Danielle Van Dam. God knows I'm not trying to blame the victims here, but if all you knew about the Van Dams and the Ramseys were their backgrounds and that they each had a dead daughter, who would YOU think was more likely to be guilty? (God forgive me for saying that.)

It's also a good comparison as far as an intruder goes, which is my main point for bringing it up. In Danielle's case, her killer behaved the way the vast majority of child-killers do: he didn't hang around the house doing a whole mess of crazy s**t. He was in and out in a few minutes. He took her to a place where he felt secure, did his horrible deeds, then dumped her with no concern for the body at all. And to that end, it helps to remember what I said about child-victimizers being like predatory animals and tending to target the weak. Danielle was a good victim in that regard. She was easy to get to because of how her family lived. (God forgive me.) By contrast, from the standpoint of an intruder, JB would have been too difficult to gain access to. She was never left alone. She was not a latch-key kid. She was not starved for attention. She lived in a high-wealth, low-crime district in a big house that was, as far as an intruder knew, like a fortress. No intruder with any ounce of sense would go after her in her own damn house! Like the predators of the animal world, they would give up and chase easier prey.

Secondly, the brutality itself is more perception than actual reality. Oh, I'm not trying to take away from what was done to JB. Yes, the head wound certainly WAS brutal. But that doesn't require any great capability. When a person gets really angry, they aren't thinking, and they don't know their own strength. Without meaning to do it, a person in that state could inflict an injury like that.

As for the rest of it, I would expect an intruder killing to be WORSE than what was done to JB. Let's take it in steps:

1) Admittedly, the cord around JB's neck LOOKS horrific. But even if we discount post-mortem swelling (and we can), using a garrote would work for the Rs because it's quiet, it doesn't cause bleeding (so there's nothing to clean up), and it allows them to do it from behind, so they don't have to look her in the face, and without actually touching the body. If Anti-K is right, and all it would take is one good pull to tighten it so it wouldn't loosen, that's even better, because it's over with quickly.

2) There's the injury to her vagina. Whether or not it was done to try and conceal prior abuse is one thing, but if this were an intruder, he would have done a great deal more damage. Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done, as if they were repulsed by it. Also, using an object allowed them to do it without having to touch JB. It's as if the person took a blind shot and said, "ugh, there, it's done." Sexual gratification seemed to play no part in it. Same deal as the garrote: using the paintbrush allowed it to be done without touching the body.

3) Someone went to trouble to treat the body kindly after death: pulling her pants back up, wrapping her in a blanket with her favorite article of clothing, etc. It was almost like the killer was saying "I'm sorry."

Now, add all those elements together. It's not so contradictory now, is it?

Saying they made mistakes is your way of explaining why an inconsistency or contradiction exists. It doesn’t make them go away.

I don't think Pinkie was TRYING to "make them go away," Anti-K. Speaking for myself, they're part of the pile. Frankly, I'd EXPECT amateurs to make mistakes.

The notepad is used. An earlier draft is removed and disposed of. The so-called practice note is left attached, and the ransom note is removed and placed on the stairs. The notepad is put away; the pen is put away. Cord is created and tape is used, but the remainders are disposed of (most RDI will tell you that the cord was recently purchased by Mrs Ramsey because of purchases made for an unknown item of the same price). A paint brush is broken into three – one for the garrote, one (presumably) for the sexual assault and one back into the tote; one end is disposed of. The body is wiped and that which was used was disposed of.

Reason tells us that the items disposed of were done so out of forensic concern. This tells us something about their mindset. They were thinking about what could be traced back to them. They took effort to prevent this. Could they still make a mistake? Sure. Of course. But, I think that depends on the mistake.

You're forgetting one thing, Anti-K: assuming there was any cord or tape leftover to dispose of, a length of cord, a roll of tape and the end of a paintbrush are quite easy to carry and conceal. The notepad would have been more difficult to hide on someone's body.

And as I've said before, forensic concern is not the same as forensic understanding.

Leaving the so-called practice note attached. A mistake? They rip out a page, they leave a page; they rip out a page. How does that one get left behind when the pages before and after it are gone? A mistake, I guess. But, sit down with your note pad and try it out. It could happen, but it seems unlikely, particularly when your intent is out of forensic concern.
Disposing of one piece of the paint brush, but not the other? How does that happen? A mistake, I guess. But, if you disposed of one piece, and the cord and the tape then forgetting the brush end doesn’t seem likely.

It is if that brush end was not used.

There, I've said my bit. For some reason, I can hear Johnny Cash tuning up again...

 

[Anti-K]

Quote Originally Posted by Detective Pinkie View Post
The note was the only item to solely point to a kidnapping, so they didn't invest all that much. If the police hadn't identified the note pad and pen, the only thing tying them to the note was the slight similarity to Patsy's hand writing. Not that risky.



Funny how a couple of days ago you said this...



I do realize you said "botched kidnapping", but you are now saying their is evidence of a kidnapping. If the body is still in the house, the kidnapping was botched wasn't it?

Yes, I see the reason for your confusion, Andreww. A badly worded sentence, the fault is mine. “[E]vidence for a staged or a real botched kidnapping does not exist” should have been “evidence for a staged botched kidnapping or a real botched kidnapping does not exist.”

I have always and forever promoted the idea that this was a fake kidnapping.
...
AK

 

[InstantProof]

The contradictions are explained, for me, by my thought that John & Patsy were just not on the same page here for reasons that we do not know. One could be lying to and manipulating the other before we even get to the staging for police. And/or they are not agreeing on what to do. Maybe one is in a blind panic and the other isn't worried. They are said to be distant this day. And John still has plenty of time alone in the crime scene while police and neighbors are there! Who knows what was changing as they got a feel for the situation. So why wouldn't it be anything but a bunch of contradictions?

 

[Anti-K]

I've been wanting to expand on this exchange:





I realize that was a very general response. Allow me to elaborate.

IDI likes to use that pitch: that the Rs, for whatever reason, weren't capable of such "force and brutality." I'd like to deconstruct both aspects of that.

Firstly, the idea that only "some types" are capable is fallacy. To illustrate this, I'll often compare this case to the murder of Danielle Van Dam. God knows I'm not trying to blame the victims here, but if all you knew about the Van Dams and the Ramseys were their backgrounds and that they each had a dead daughter, who would YOU think was more likely to be guilty? (God forgive me for saying that.)

It's also a good comparison as far as an intruder goes, which is my main point for bringing it up. In Danielle's case, her killer behaved the way the vast majority of child-killers do: he didn't hang around the house doing a whole mess of crazy s**t. He was in and out in a few minutes. He took her to a place where he felt secure, did his horrible deeds, then dumped her with no concern for the body at all. And to that end, it helps to remember what I said about child-victimizers being like predatory animals and tending to target the weak. Danielle was a good victim in that regard. She was easy to get to because of how her family lived. (God forgive me.) By contrast, from the standpoint of an intruder, JB would have been too difficult to gain access to. She was never left alone. She was not a latch-key kid. She was not starved for attention. She lived in a high-wealth, low-crime district in a big house that was, as far as an intruder knew, like a fortress. No intruder with any ounce of sense would go after her in her own damn house! Like the predators of the animal world, they would give up and chase easier prey.

Secondly, the brutality itself is more perception than actual reality. Oh, I'm not trying to take away from what was done to JB. Yes, the head wound certainly WAS brutal. But that doesn't require any great capability. When a person gets really angry, they aren't thinking, and they don't know their own strength. Without meaning to do it, a person in that state could inflict an injury like that.

As for the rest of it, I would expect an intruder killing to be WORSE than what was done to JB. Let's take it in steps:

1) Admittedly, the cord around JB's neck LOOKS horrific. But even if we discount post-mortem swelling (and we can), using a garrote would work for the Rs because it's quiet, it doesn't cause bleeding (so there's nothing to clean up), and it allows them to do it from behind, so they don't have to look her in the face, and without actually touching the body. If Anti-K is right, and all it would take is one good pull to tighten it so it wouldn't loosen, that's even better, because it's over with quickly.

2) There's the injury to her vagina. Whether or not it was done to try and conceal prior abuse is one thing, but if this were an intruder, he would have done a great deal more damage. Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done, as if they were repulsed by it. Also, using an object allowed them to do it without having to touch JB. It's as if the person took a blind shot and said, "ugh, there, it's done." Sexual gratification seemed to play no part in it. Same deal as the garrote: using the paintbrush allowed it to be done without touching the body.

3) Someone went to trouble to treat the body kindly after death: pulling her pants back up, wrapping her in a blanket with her favorite article of clothing, etc. It was almost like the killer was saying "I'm sorry."

Now, add all those elements together. It's not so contradictory now, is it?



I don't think Pinkie was TRYING to "make them go away," Anti-K. Speaking for myself, they're part of the pile. Frankly, I'd EXPECT amateurs to make mistakes.



You're forgetting one thing, Anti-K: assuming there was any cord or tape leftover to dispose of, a length of cord, a roll of tape and the end of a paintbrush are quite easy to carry and conceal. The notepad would have been more difficult to hide on someone's body.

And as I've said before, forensic concern is not the same as forensic understanding.



It is if that brush end was not used.

There, I've said my bit. For some reason, I can hear Johnny Cash tuning up again...

"On the other hand, you had things that said there is no way it could have been somebody on the inside," Kane said.

Things like the way in which JonBenét was killed - she had been beaten, strangled and sexually abused - although investigators could never be certain exactly how, partly because her body appeared to have been wiped clean.

"How can anyone who is not just a psychopathic child abuser do something like this to a child?" Kane said.
...
Minimizing the acts committed upon this child is disturbing. Too many people do that.

A critically injured child was asphyxiated to death in a brutal fashion and with a great amount of force and whether or not it was a simple, almost effortless act on the killer’s part does not change the brutality of it.

A critically injured child was sexually assaulted, probably with a paint brush, probably while she was being asphyxiated. The simplicity of it on the killer’s part does not change the brutality of it.
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

Could you please supply specific examples of experts who have since changed their minds about this specific matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_3_1.htm

 

[UKGuy]

With regard to that which is B&UBM: HUH???

How have you established this? What am I missing, UKGuy?...

Mama2JML,
Many will suggest you should never have asked, the answer is obvious. Others will question your intellectual capacity, since querying the veracity of the coroner is debatable!

The answer to question you pose is to be found in the Autopsy Report both written and verbatim, where Coroner Meyer is under no illusion when he cites JonBenet underwent digital penetration and sexual contact.

Naturally I never established this, Coroner Meyer did, I only mirror his views, for you to question me in the manner you have brings your motives into focus!

.

 

[andreww]

Even if the coroner was subsequently persuaded to agree that what he saw was prior sexual abuse (by the 'experts' in the field), I want you to note that these same experts have SINCE changed their minds largely about identifying factors. What happened in 1996 is NOT the accepted diagnosis today. It is the same with DNA. Technology and studies have improved out of sight in the past 19 years. You can't stay stuck in the thinking of 1996. Much of what was believed then about signs of sexual abuse have been since disproved as definitive evidence.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_3_1.htm

Sorry Rex, your post is misleading. When you say that all the experts have since changed their minds, you are not referring specifically to this case are you, but to the article that you linked to. Now that article might actually have some merit, explaining how the science of determining sexual abuse of children had evolved over the years, if that article had actually been written anytime recently. However, it seems that it was actually published in 1989, seven years before the crime. The references for the piece date from the 1960s to the late 1980s, so any new innovations were in place long before JB was ever molested.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Yes, I see the reason for your confusion, Andreww. A badly worded sentence, the fault is mine. “[E]vidence for a staged or a real botched kidnapping does not exist” should have been “evidence for a staged botched kidnapping or a real botched kidnapping does not exist.”

I have always and forever promoted the idea that this was a fake kidnapping.
...
AK

I really don't understand you sometimes. If you believe that this is a fake kidnapping, and you've argued before that there really is no viable entry point, how on earth can you still believe IDI??? And if it were a fake kidnapping and IDI, what would the motive be? Your arguments seem to make no sense, are often contradictory, and to be honest, seem to be simply aimed at pissing people off.

I don't mind a good debate, but it's useless when one side is blind to fact and is unwilling to budge on even the smallest detail. I have never once seen you concede that a good point has been made. You are always right in your mind and you are a frustrating person to deal with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

Sorry Rex, your post is misleading. When you say that all the experts have since changed their minds, you are not referring specifically to this case are you, but to the article that you linked to. Now that article might actually have some merit, explaining how the science of determining sexual abuse of children had evolved over the years, if that article had actually been written anytime recently. However, it seems that it was actually published in 1989, seven years before the crime. The references for the piece date from the 1960s to the late 1980s, so any new innovations were in place long before JB was ever molested.

Actually, that post wasn't misleading -- it was wrong. The experts who were consulted by BPD did not change their (collective) minds "SINCE" they looked at the evidence in this case. The article referenced earlier was written by a psychiatrist describing the change that was going on in the medical community when it was written -- seven years before JonBenet was killed. The ironic thing though about referencing that article is that the "revolution" in medical thinking about child abuse evidence that had happened was led by one of the doctors consulted by BPD. That is the very reason Dr. John McCann had been contacted. He had proven that a lot of what had been considered evidence of sexual abuse was nothing more than differences in anatomy. That article by Dr. Lee Coleman refers a great deal to Dr. McCann's work. Dr. McCann saw the actual evidence in this case and believed she had been sexually abused. No one is better qualified to make that determination than Dr. McCann.

I wrote about all this in a previous post (for anyone interested in reading more about it):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?227531-Why-was-JB-killed&p=10165938#post10165938

 

[inspector rex]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213402003393

Child Abuse & Neglect

Volume 26, Issues 6–7, June 2002, Pages 645–659
Cover image
Children referred for possible sexual abuse: medical findings in 2384 children

Objective: The goal of this study was to compare rates of positive medical findings in a 5-year prospective study of 2384 children, referred for evaluation of possible sexual abuse, with two decades of research. The prospective study summarizes demographic information, clinical history, relationship of perpetrators, nature of abuse, and clinical findings. The study reports on the results by patterns of referral and the medical examination.
[snip]
Conclusion: Research indicates that medical, social, and legal professionals have relied too heavily on the medical examination in diagnosing child sexual abuse. History from the child remains the single most important diagnostic feature in coming to the conclusion that a child has been sexually abused. Only 4% of all children referred for medical evaluation of sexual abuse have abnormal examinations at the time of evaluation. Even with a history of severe abuse such as vaginal or anal penetration, the rate of abnormal medical findings is only 5.5%. Biological parents are less likely to engage in severe abuse than parental substitutes, extended family members, or strangers.

 

[Anti-K]

I really don't understand you sometimes. If you believe that this is a fake kidnapping, and you've argued before that there really is no viable entry point, how on earth can you still believe IDI??? And if it were a fake kidnapping and IDI, what would the motive be? Your arguments seem to make no sense, are often contradictory, and to be honest, seem to be simply aimed at pissing people off.

I don't mind a good debate, but it's useless when one side is blind to fact and is unwilling to budge on even the smallest detail. I have never once seen you concede that a good point has been made. You are always right in your mind and you are a frustrating person to deal with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And, when was the last time you conceded a point, or even acknowledged that the point may have some merit or is at least worth consideration?

If you actually read my posts Andreww you will find many instances where I say things like “RDI could still be true and I’m pretty consistent in saying IF RDI. That is, I rarely to almost never say RDI is not true. I question and object to a lot of RID reasoning, but that’s a different thing; isn’t it? I’m always willing to hear someone out; I want to hear them out. And, when I’m wrong I don’t have any problem admitting it - I’ve done so in the past, here and on other forums, and I’ll do so again. In fact, in the very post that you were replying to I admitted to and error and said, quote, “the fault is mine.”

And, I avoid specific theories (except Docg’s – cuz it’s really IDI but he’s too silly to know it) and let people say whatever they want on most threads. I don’t get caught up in stungun discussions and I always go along with prior abuse and I actually agree with RDI on several points – the Ramseys sometimes acted guilty, they deserved to be suspects, it looks like a staged kidnapping; etc

So, I don’t think things are quite as bad as you make them out to be.
.

I don’t remember ever arguing that there was no viable entry point. I’ve actually suggested a few, but, of course I have no idea about entry. If it is true that Fernie (or, whoever) found the butler door ajar or open, then I think that makes the butler door a good exit point.

The ransom note I see as IDI evidence, although I think that I completely understand the RDI argument for it as being the opposite.

As for motive. I don’t know. Motive is hard to discern especially when we have no suspect. Give me a suspect and I’ll speculate on motive. INTENT is where I’ve done most of my considering. See here (4 parts, iirc): http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh But, that’s just speculation (I used to call it My Speculative Piece).

It’s hard to argue specifics when it comes to IDI because we don’t yet have enough information – we need that suspect. No, I don’t think he will ever be found.

I don’t think this is going to do anything to change your mind about me, Andreww, but I am sincere and genuine and I’m not here to get under anybody’s skin or to cause problems for anyone.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Nope. Once I present my case, I'll watch my theory get burned-down and then move on. I am, however, looking forward to reading SuperDave's book because of his attacks on the DAs and the other characters who were too frightened to stand-up to the Ramseys and money. I also love reading SDs posts here so the book should be fun.


I wouldn't have touched the pineapple, but I'm not 6 anymore. I know too much about germs. I can't speak for a 6 year old who's hungry when everyone has gone to bed. Neither can you.

As for the details mattering, maybe you missed the detail that I was focusing on the mechanics of the garrote. "The Mechanics" Murder weapon or not, there was still a rope around her neck. It was pulled tight somehow. I would guess it was the so called garrote. Or do you dispute that as well?


Yup. I read that book too. If the police haven't investigated the BDI theory enough, I support further investigation. BDI is a possibility. I'm just not solidly in that camp.


That was a joke. Right? Or was it sarcasm? Oddly enough, I'm not wondering about the purpose of the ransom note anymore. It makes sense to me now.

BoldBear,

As for the details mattering, maybe you missed the detail that I was focusing on the mechanics of the garrote. "The Mechanics" Murder weapon or not, there was still a rope around her neck. It was pulled tight somehow. I would guess it was the so called garrote. Or do you dispute that as well?

I never missed it, just that there was nothing new to consider. I suscribe to the view that JonBenet was manually choked, resulting in unconciousness. The ligature/paintbrush handle is staging applied later to mask the former manual choking.

The big clue regarding the ligature/paintbrush is that JonBenet's hair is entangled with the knotting on the ligature/paintbrush, suggesting it was applied in place as JonBenet lay face down?

Another slightly more indirect clue is that the ligature furrow is circumferential. Usually ligature furrows are askew, off at weird angles, etc.

That was a joke. Right? Or was it sarcasm? Oddly enough, I'm not wondering about the purpose of the ransom note anymore. It makes sense to me now.

No its better described as irony!

.

 

[BBB167893]

Even if the coroner was subsequently persuaded to agree that what he saw was prior sexual abuse (by the 'experts' in the field), I want you to note that these same experts have SINCE changed their minds largely about identifying factors. What happened in 1996 is NOT the accepted diagnosis today. It is the same with DNA. Technology and studies have improved out of sight in the past 19 years. You can't stay stuck in the thinking of 1996. Much of what was believed then about signs of sexual abuse have been since disproved as definitive evidence.

I'm not aware of ANY of the experts discounting what they said in this case. Quite the opposite:

http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today011224.html

Moreover, even IF what you say is true, it doesn't change this:

Det. Jane Harmer gave the gathered group an anatomy lesson. She showed side-by-side photographs of JonBenet's vagina and that of a normal six-year-old girl. "Even to the uninitiated, the visual difference was apparent."