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

[BBB167893]

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

Um, Rex? I hate to be the one to point this out, but you might want to check those dates again! That article was written BEFORE JB was murdered and the experts examined her!

 

[BBB167893]

"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.
...

And yet, it's pretty clear who Kane thinks did it, Anti-K. He was very likely expressing what many people's reaction would be.

You want to play that game, Anti-K? I'll play. Try THIS one on for size:

From FBI agent Ron Walker, who was at the Ramsey house on 12/26/96 from the A & E program "Anatomy of an Investigation": "Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

And that's just for openers!

Minimizing the acts committed upon this child is disturbing. Too many people do that.

Don't even TRY that with me.

 

[BBB167893]

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.”

So, you agree with Churchill, then?

"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes."
— Sir Winston Churchill, 1941 address to the U.S. Congress

 

[CanManEh]

I went back to page 1 and 1st post ..Now this is prolly gonna make heads spin in the jbr die hards but when i look at the stick used as the garotte I think i know why the other broken pieces are missing and that is because I don't believe it's actually a broken paintbrush at all. if you really look at it zoom in on it , it's just way too thick to be a paint brush handle...Now i don;t know what it actually is but the 1 thing i do know or believe is that its not a paint brush at all..

 

[inspector rex]

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."

Lets just go back to what I said.

We are discussing evidence of sexual abuse PRIOR to the night she died.

If you read the articles I posted, there is information there that proves that any Detective, Coroner or "sexual abuse expert" would not be able to say with any certainty, that what they saw in her hymen and vagina, indicated sexual abuse of any kind prior to the night she died.

Firstly, the position of the examination (in a living child) is of critical importance. This was known in 1996. In a child that has been deceased for around 18hrs, there is no way to mimic the required position in order to examine the hymen correctly.

Secondly, in the study of 2384 children who were actually sexually abused, the evidence based upon medical examination alone was found to be unreliable. "History from the child remains the single most important diagnostic feature in coming to the conclusion that a child has been sexually abused"
In JonBenet's case, no history of sexual abuse exists.
And contrary to RDIs who believe the persons in the house were the most likely to have abused and murdered their own daughter, the study found:
"Biological parents are less likely to engage in severe abuse than parental substitutes, extended family members, or strangers. "

A five year study, (backed by two decades of research), of 2384 sexually abused children carries much more weight than a statement by Det Harmer IMO.

 

[BoldBear]

I love the way a good study definitively eliminates the possibility of sexual abuse. Only the study doesn't say that. Does it? It says that you need to do further investigation. You need to interview the child, but wait, there's a problem with that. Okay so now you interview the parents...oh, I guess we can't do that either. So now we interview the neighbors, teachers, doctors and friends. But there was a murder investigation and no one will talk about the possibility that a murdered little girl could have been sexually abused. So now we're down to the 'trust me' argument only I don't buy that either.

So since we can't do any further investigation as to whether or not JBR was sexually molested, then it didn't happen. Do you know how crazy that argument sounds?

No one here knows if JBR was sexually molested prior to the night she was murdered. For me, if there was just one less detail in the coroner's report, I would have said, "definitely not"--just one less detail. So I'm stuck between two possibilities that I don't like: she was being molested or her mother thought she was helping her avoid infection with a kind of 'no more wire hangers' forcefulness. I don't like either possibility. But as I've been reminded here so many times before, "Just because I don't like the idea that people can do terrible things, doesn't mean it doesn't happen."

"Biological parents are less likely to engage in severe abuse than parental substitutes, extended family members, or strangers."

That quote says they're 'less likely' and not that 'it doesn't happen'. I'ts a very persuasive argument if you're trying to convince me of...what?

 

[inspector rex]

I love the way a good study definitively eliminates the possibility of sexual abuse. Only the study doesn't say that does. Does it? It says that you need to do further investigation. You need to interview the child, but wait, there's a problem with that. Okay so now you interview the parents...oh, I guess we can't do that either. So now we interview the neighbors, teachers, doctors and friends. But there was a murder investigation and no one will talk about the possibility that a murdered little girl could have been sexually abused. So now we're down to the 'trust me' argument only I don't buy that either.

LOL, that cuts both ways. Det Harmer showing pictures of JonBenet's and another 'normal child's vagina' doesn't prove anything.
JonBenet was known to have recurrent infections and was examined by her Doctor regularly.
It's not as if she was kept hidden away to keep the secret safe is it?

No, I guess you wouldn't trust the argument as it's not what you are looking for if you believe RDI.
And again your reply supports my contention that if you eliminate the prior sexual abuse then RDI has no basis.

So since we can't do any further investigation as to whether or not JBR was sexually molested, then it didn't happen. Do you know how crazy that argument sounds?

I certainly know how crazy it sounds when I hear RDI speak of prior sexual abuse as if it were a proven truth.
I'm pretty sure someone even stated that in this very thread.
I posted the articles to present another opinion. An opinion of experts in the field. A 5 year study of a large number of girls know to have been sexually abused, in order to demonstrate to you that one child not known to have suffered ongoing/prior sexual abuse would not demonstrate visual evidence that was not present in girls definitely known to have been sexually abused.

No one here knows if JBR was sexually molested prior to the night she was murdered.

Certainly no one know that she was.

For me, if there was just one less detail in the coroner's report, I would have said, "definitely not"--just one less detail.

And that detail is?

So I'm stuck between two possibilities that I don't like: she was being molested or her mother thought she was helping her avoid infection with a kind of 'no more wire hangers' forcefulness. I don't like either possibility. But as I've been reminded here so many times before, "Just because I don't like the idea that people can do terrible things, doesn't mean it doesn't happen."

Or, of course, the third and most likely possibility, is that no one sexually abused her prior to that night.

"Biological parents are less likely to engage in severe abuse than parental substitutes, extended family members, or strangers."

That quote says they're 'less likely' and not that 'it doesn't happen'. I'ts a very persuasive argument if you're trying to convince me of...what?

No, not trying to convince someone who has already made up their minds.

There maybe a person viewing who believes what they read here that children are more likely to be sexually abused by their parent(s) rather than parental substitutes, extended family members, or strangers.
This is backed by scientific study, it's not simply an opinion I have expressed.

 

[BoldBear]

IR,

If you understand that there is no way to prove one side or the other, then why not admit it in your argument? You seem to be arguing that sexual molestation didn't happen. You're quoting a study that a vaginal examination doesn't present conclusive evidence--further investigation is needed. But when you quote that study, you fail to mention that there's no way to get that conclusive evidence. It almost seems like you're saying, "therefore, she wasn't sexually molested." In all truth, the study you are citing claims that you can't determine sexual molestation from just a vaginal examination. So did they do a similar study regarding a postmortem examination? An examination where they take and examine tissue samples? If you have that study, I'd be interested to see it. It would be over my head, but as I understand it, scaring recovers at known rates (there are variables like age and the health of the individual).

Let me put it another way: Statistically, there's a 0.67% chance that I'm going to die from drowning. That's a very small chance when you consider that I have a 99.33% chance of dying in some other way. Therefore, I'm not going to die from drowning.

Statistically, biological parents don't molest their children. It's more likely to be a step parent or step child. The Ramsey's were JBR's biological parents. Therefore, they didn't molest JBR.

How about this one: A child is killed. The autopsy determines that she was sexually molested at the time of death. There are signs that there was previous damage to the vagina. There's a strong suspicion that she was previously sexually assaulted.

Final one: There's evidence that she was sexually molested at the time of her death. And there's evidence of damage to her vagina previous to the night she was murdered. But there was no sexual assault prior to the night she was murdered.

You're making a very hard argument here and you're trying to do it with a study that only supports the need for further evidence that you'll never be able to produce. If I fully believed that JBR was sexually molested, you'd never be able to convince me with that argument.

For me, the idea of previous sexual molestation is irrelevant. (I know I'm going to get jumped-on for saying that. It gives motive if you see a molestation cover-up murder, but I'm not in that camp.) The important part is the murder, the staging and the sexual assault on the night of her death. Some will say the RN. That was quite a puzzle. I never thought I'd figure that one out.

 

[Mama2JML]

IR,

If you understand that there is no way to prove one side or the other, then why not admit it in your argument? You seem to be arguing that sexual molestation didn't happen. You're quoting a study that a vaginal examination doesn't present conclusive evidence--further investigation is needed. But when you quote that study, you fail to mention that there's no way to get that conclusive evidence. It almost seems like you're saying, "therefore, she wasn't sexually molested." In all truth, the study you are citing claims that you can't determine sexual molestation from just a vaginal examination. So did they do a similar study regarding a postmortem examination? An examination where they take and examine tissue samples? If you have that study, I'd be interested to see it. It would be over my head, but as I understand it, scaring recovers at known rates (there are variables like age and the health of the individual).

Let me put it another way: Statistically, there's a 0.67% chance that I'm going to die from drowning. That's a very small chance when you consider that I have a 99.33% chance of dying in some other way. Therefore, I'm not going to die from drowning.

Statistically, biological parents don't molest their children. It's more likely to be a step parent or step child. The Ramsey's were JBR's biological parents. Therefore, they didn't molest JBR.

How about this one: A child is killed. The autopsy determines that she was sexually molested at the time of death. There are signs that there was previous damage to the vagina. There's a strong suspicion that she was previously sexually assaulted.

Final one: There's evidence that she was sexually molested at the time of her death. And there's evidence of damage to her vagina previous to the night she was murdered. But there was no sexual assault prior to the night she was murdered.

You're making a very hard argument here and you're trying to do it with a study that only supports the need for further evidence that you'll never be able to produce. If I fully believed that JBR was sexually molested, you'd never be able to convince me with that argument.

For me, the idea of previous sexual molestation is irrelevant. (I know I'm going to get jumped-on for saying that. It gives motive if you see a molestation cover-up murder, but I'm not in that camp.) The important part is the murder, the staging and the sexual assault on the night of her death. Some will say the RN. That was quite a puzzle. I never thought I'd figure that one out.

Based upon the evidence to which we are privy, the ME's findings via the autopsy report, LEOs & witnesses' testimonies, scientifically validated research, etc.; a determination regarding whether or not the victim was subjected to previous sexual abuse (meaning, prior to the events leading up to and resulting in her death) cannot be made. ...inconclusive, equivocal, another question mark, etc. Thus, theories constructed upon this central premise (prior SA) are unsound. IMHO.

 

[OliviaG1996]

<Snipped>

And contrary to RDIs who believe the persons in the house were the most likely to have abused and murdered their own daughter, the study found:
"Biological parents are less likely to engage in severe abuse than parental substitutes, extended family members, or strangers. "

A five year study, (backed by two decades of research), of 2384 sexually abused children carries much more weight than a statement by Det Harmer IMO.

Did the study say anything about biological siblings?

 

[CorallaroC]

Based upon the evidence to which we are privy, the ME's findings via the autopsy report, LEOs & witnesses' testimonies, scientifically validated research, etc.; a determination regarding whether or not the victim was subjected to previous sexual abuse (meaning, prior to the events leading up to and resulting in her death) cannot be made. ...inconclusive, equivocal, another question mark, etc. Thus, theories constructed upon this central premise (prior SA) are unsound. IMHO.

I feel the need to interrupt! and challenge your post Mama. Of all the back-and-forth (including multiple references and quotes) here on this thread on the subject of autopsy findings, expert opinions, I really cannot understand how you can attempt to cleverly word your post to try to make others believe that the autopsy findings indicate no prior SA. You word it such: "a determination regarding whether or not the victim was subjected to previous sexual abuse" - but that is NOT a true statement, and I'm surprised you would try to make others believe you.

I feel that you are being unfair. The autopsy report, and collaboration with several experts, all agree on PREVIOUS SA, with the important designation of "consistent with digital penetration" and was "chronic". Your post sounds more like courtroom theatrics than an intelligent debate among members who have studied this case for many years trying to obtain all the information available. We are not mushrooms in the dark, we are not a jury hearing only litigated portions of evidence. Why would you intentionally mislead others on this important subject? Im frustrated.

 

[questfortrue]

Did the study say anything about biological siblings?

OliviaG,
In the body of my post is the answer to your question.

Afraid there’s been a misinterpretation of Dr. Heger’s thesis here. She is not disproving the findings of medical examiners and physicians who are renowned experts in sexual abuse. Rather she is stating that in those children who show no physical signs of abuse, such abuse can only be determined by lengthy interviews by psychologists, social workers, physicians. (One might be able to understand part of her motivation for this document, by reviewing the link posted in otg’s recent post pertaining to Dr. Heger’s egregious missteps in the McMartin case.)

Also, brushed in broad strokes is the description of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse. “In this study, we found that biological fathers were less likely to engage in vaginal or anal penetration of their children than stepfathers, mother’s boyfriends, extended family members, acquaintances and strangers.” (Biological fathers 60.5%; stepfathers 79.5%; 69.7% by mother's boyfriends; or 73.6% if the perpetrator was a member of the extended family.) Note that totally omitted from the discussion is sibling sexual abuse.

In further description Dr. Heger confirms and portrays the medical findings of abuse as forensic evidence, std’s, acute, nonaccidental injuries and healed trauma. JB manifested both acute and healed trauma. Along with behavioral evidence of encopresis and enuresis, and include the strong claims on the part of CPS, which are not publicly revealed, but nonetheless referenced, I fail to understand why some would dismiss the total picture of prior abuse. I’m well aware one can’t prove who had access to her and sexually abused her on other occasions and tie that perpetrator to her death. Perhaps medical records could give us more insight, but Beckner clues us in that the BPD never received JB’s full records, let alone BR’s or the parents. Thanks to AH.

Imo, JB’s prior abuse is evidence of a child whose victimization went unaddressed in the household, for whatever reasons. That simply speaks volumes. It wouldn’t be the first time a child, victimized by the dysfunctional needs of the family, ends up dead.

 

[OliviaG1996]

OliviaG,
In the body of my post is the answer to your question.

Afraid there&#8217;s been a misinterpretation of Dr. Heger&#8217;s thesis here. She is not disproving the findings of medical examiners and physicians who are renowned experts in sexual abuse. Rather she is stating that in those children who show no physical signs of abuse, such abuse can only be determined by lengthy interviews by psychologists, social workers, physicians. (One might be able to understand part of her motivation for this document, by reviewing the link posted in otg&#8217;s recent post pertaining to Dr. Heger&#8217;s egregious missteps in the McMartin case.)

Also, brushed in broad strokes is the description of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse. &#8220;In this study, we found that biological fathers were less likely to engage in vaginal or anal penetration of their children than stepfathers, mother&#8217;s boyfriends, extended family members, acquaintances and strangers.&#8221; (Biological fathers 60.5%; stepfathers 79.5%; 69.7% by mother's boyfriends; or 73.6% if the perpetrator was a member of the extended family.) Note that totally omitted from the discussion is sibling sexual abuse.

In further description Dr. Heger confirms and portrays the medical findings of abuse as forensic evidence, std&#8217;s, acute, nonaccidental injuries and healed trauma. JB manifested both acute and healed trauma. Along with behavioral evidence of encopresis and enuresis, and include the strong claims on the part of CPS, which are not publicly revealed, but nonetheless referenced, I fail to understand why some would dismiss the total picture of prior abuse. I&#8217;m well aware one can&#8217;t prove who had access to her and sexually abused her on other occasions and tie that perpetrator to her death. Perhaps medical records could give us more insight, but Beckner clues us in that the BPD never received JB&#8217;s full records, let alone BR&#8217;s or the parents. Thanks to AH.

Imo, JB&#8217;s prior abuse is evidence of a child whose victimization went unaddressed in the household, for whatever reasons. That simply speaks volumes. It wouldn&#8217;t be the first time a child, victimized by the dysfunctional needs of the family, ends up dead.

Thank you for the wonderful post, questfortrue. AH's mission of protecting the Ramseys alone is enough to convince me that RDI. Withholding any sort of evidence is injustice in and of itself.

 

[Mama2JML]

I feel the need to interrupt! and challenge your post Mama. Of all the back-and-forth (including multiple references and quotes) here on this thread on the subject of autopsy findings, expert opinions, I really cannot understand how you can attempt to cleverly word your post to try to make others believe that the autopsy findings indicate no prior SA. You word it such: "a determination regarding whether or not the victim was subjected to previous sexual abuse" - but that is NOT a true statement, and I'm surprised you would try to make others believe you.

I feel that you are being unfair. The autopsy report, and collaboration with several experts, all agree on PREVIOUS SA, with the important designation of "consistent with digital penetration" and was "chronic". Your post sounds more like courtroom theatrics than an intelligent debate among members who have studied this case for many years trying to obtain all the information available. We are not mushrooms in the dark, we are not a jury hearing only litigated portions of evidence. Why would you intentionally mislead others on this important subject? Im frustrated.

I understand your frustration, and I am sorry that you feel I am being unfair and intentionally misleading others. My intent has always been the opposite. The autopsy report neither establishes nor confirms "chronic" &/or prior (to the 25th/26th) sexual abuse. As well, experts' analyses & LEOs' opinions vary a great deal. With regard to this conundrum, and most (if not all) aspects of this case, we should defer to validated & reliable scientific research. Then, if these findings remain inconclusive & the evidence equivocal, a sound theory reflects such.

 

[DeeDee249]

I went back to page 1 and 1st post ..Now this is prolly gonna make heads spin in the jbr die hards but when i look at the stick used as the garotte I think i know why the other broken pieces are missing and that is because I don't believe it's actually a broken paintbrush at all. if you really look at it zoom in on it , it's just way too thick to be a paint brush handle...Now i don;t know what it actually is but the 1 thing i do know or believe is that its not a paint brush at all..

You DO realize that there were OTHER pieces of that broken paintbrush, don't you? In fact, the part with the actual BRUSH was found right there in the paint tote where it belonged. This piece had the BRUSH on it, and was matched exactly to the piece attached to the garrote. There is NO mistaking the wood "handle" for anything else. Even the paint matched the broken piece found still in the tote. (and this kind of thing, BTW, is the reason why I don't post much anymore. There are many unanswered questions, of course. But to continue to try to refute KNOWN evidence that is NOT in question again and again as the years go by is counterproductive at best and deliberately misleading at worst).

 

[Anti-K]

And yet, it's pretty clear who Kane thinks did it, Anti-K. He was very likely expressing what many people's reaction would be.

You want to play that game, Anti-K? I'll play. Try THIS one on for size:

From FBI agent Ron Walker, who was at the Ramsey house on 12/26/96 from the A & E program "Anatomy of an Investigation": "Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

And that's just for openers!



Don't even TRY that with me.

When you say that the asphyxiation &#8220;LOOKS&#8221; (emphasis is yours) and that when it comes to eh sexual assault an intruder would have done more damage you are indeed &#8220;minimizing the acts committed upon this child.&#8221; IMO, that is disturbing. Too many people do that.

As for Kane, I think the quote speaks for itself, regardless of who you think he thinks did it: &#8220;How can anyone who is not just a psychopathic child abuser do something like this to a child?"

And, for your Walker quote. Yes, we know that people, even parents are capable of and sometimes do horrific things to their children. No one is denying this and to bring it up doesn&#8217;t really add much to the conversation (BECAUSE, no one is denying it).

The problem is that an in-depth investigation into the Ramseys failed to show that they were such people. So, all you can say is that despite the evidence....
...

AK

 

[CanManEh]

its not a paint brush handle i don't care what they said .

 

[inspector rex]

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."

The quote attributed to McCann was in the book written by ST, which was drawn from the Bonita Papers.

For anyone who is unaware, the Bonita Papers were written by a secretary at a Legal firm who had the intention of selling this to the tabloids.
So, as the source of an article designed to appear in a tabloid, it makes it no more likely to be true than what you read in a tabloid.
If you'd like some examples, I'm sure I can find a ton.
Now, which is the most likely to be true, what you read in a tabloid or the source of information you read in a tabloid?

So, there were no experts who discounted the possibility of prior sexual abuse?

From PMPT:

"Dr. Richard Krugman; Dean of the CU Health Sciences Center and a nationally known child abuse expert who had consulted with the police and the DA since March 1997 said that JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. He also added "I do not believe it is possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone. The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's medical history combined with a child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse. Dr. Kruger had also seen injuries to girls' genitals that could be related to toilet training but had nothing to do with sexual abuse."

Rocky Mountain News:

"Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and a consultant to Boulder investigators trying to solve the 6-year-old's murder, said the report doesn't offer a conclusive answer to some of the biggest questions that remain about JonBenet's Christmas night murder.
A second expert, a Pittsburgh coroner who has followed the case, disputes Krugman's view.
That leaves two key questions uncertain: Was she sexually assaulted? Did she die because of the cord buried deep in the flesh of her neck, or because of her severely fractured skull?
Krugman isn't sure of the answer to either question. But he said he is certain that she was physically abused.
"I know nothing that I have seen that would make me think the primary finding is sexual abuse,'' Krugman said.
The autopsy reported finding a small amount of dried blood around the girl's vagina, scrapes inside and on the exterior of her genitals and a scrape on the child's hymen.
"I'd want to get more of (JonBenet's) history and find out what was going on,'' Krugman said. "But that, by itself, does not tell me there was sexual abuse.
"I look at this and see a child who was physically abused and is dead. I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone.''
Typically, Krugman said, sexual abuse of a child is confirmed through the presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease or the child's history."

I think that seems to be supportive of the studies from the Articles I posted?

 

[andreww]

When you say that the asphyxiation “LOOKS” (emphasis is yours) and that when it comes to eh sexual assault an intruder would have done more damage you are indeed “minimizing the acts committed upon this child.” IMO, that is disturbing. Too many people do that.

As for Kane, I think the quote speaks for itself, regardless of who you think he thinks did it: “How can anyone who is not just a psychopathic child abuser do something like this to a child?"

And, for your Walker quote. Yes, we know that people, even parents are capable of and sometimes do horrific things to their children. No one is denying this and to bring it up doesn’t really add much to the conversation (BECAUSE, no one is denying it).

The problem is that an in-depth investigation into the Ramseys failed to show that they were such people. So, all you can say is that despite the evidence....
...

AK

Come on now, an in depth investigation in to what went on behind closed doors of a family whose mouths are sealed as tight as clams? What the heck did you expect to find???

Without JB being able to speak for herself, all there is to go on is the physical evidence and that seems to point to prior abuse. Granted, without the testimony of the victim, it's not enough to put someone away, but within the context of a murder investigation that has a component of sexual assault, that info is important and very relevant. That is why we have experts in the first place, to answer questions that can't be answered via first hand accounts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

IR,



Statistically, biological parents don't molest their children. It's more likely to be a step parent or step child. The Ramsey's were JBR's biological parents. Therefore, they didn't molest JBR.

I'll call BS on that one. The study only claimed that abuse was more common with substitute parents, it doesn't say it never happens with biological parents. Also, there is no mention of the likelihood of abuse from a sibling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk