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

[InstantProof]

The problem is that an in-depth investigation into the Ramseys failed to show that they were such people.


AK

Did this include Burke? Did this include if they were the sort of people to cover something up in order to save their son or their reputation?

 

[andreww]

Bottom line is that there is never anything in anybody's background until they are caught or accused of something. Certainly the Ramsey's were not lifetime criminals or serial rapists, so looking at their background is irrelevant. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorallaroC]

Bottom line is that there is never anything in anybody's background until they are caught or accused of something. Certainly the Ramsey's were not lifetime criminals or serial rapists, so looking at their background is irrelevant. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

good post andrew, I would only change your wording to say "very often there is little or nothing found/revealed in a person's background" until they are accused or caught at some similar crime. I'm not sure I would agree that looking at the R's background is "irrelevant", but just because nothing proveable popped up (or at least nothing we know about) it surely does not mean that questions should not be asked, even at this late point in time. Sorry, I do not mean to bash your post, because I share many of the same feelings you write about.

Here we are, all these many years after JBR's murder, still trying to find answers - trying to get to the truth of what happened to her. It's interesting there have been no clear-cut cases of a copycat, but then again, the "players" were unique back then, and hard to replicate nowadays.

Thanks for your very intelligent posts andreww, gives good reasoning and food for thought

 

[CorallaroC]

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).

DeeDee249,
Thanks again for clarifying a misleading post, I've appreciated your input many times - you are good at bringing the discussion back to established facts in a clear, easy to understand way. It gets tiresome for you Im sure, but you can trust that many others also appreciate your efforts toward truth and hopefully someday justice for JonBenet.

Progress toward resolving this case is becoming more apparent as the years go by, IMO, and this is good. The errors and omissions about the case are becoming clearer, the long-standing lies actually ring SOUR and unpleasant like a bad chord of music. The truth is slowly emerging IMO. I still have hope this case will be solved someday.

 

[Aynia]

Bottom line is that there is never anything in anybody's background until they are caught or accused of something. Certainly the Ramsey's were not lifetime criminals or serial rapists, so looking at their background is irrelevant. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's something about their background I find interesting, they sure watched a lot of movies [emoji6]

 

[andreww]

good post andrew, I would only change your wording to say "very often there is little or nothing in a person's background" until they are accused or caught at some similar crime. I'm not sure I would agree that looking at the R's background is "irrelevant", but just because nothing proveable popped up (or at least nothing we know about) it surely does not mean that questions should not be asked, even at this late point in time. Sorry, I do not mean to bash your post, because I share many of the same feelings you write about.

Here we are, all these many years after JBR's murder, still trying to find answers - trying to get to the truth of what happened to her. It's interesting there have been no clear-cut cases of a copycat, but then again, the "players" were unique back then, and hard to replicate nowadays.

Thanks for your very intelligent posts andreww, gives good reasoning and food for thought

Gathering of information is never irrelevant CorallaroC, but in this case, given that the Ramsey's can't even get their facts straight for the night of Dec 25, I feel that anything they say about their family history is either fabricated or at the very least, edited for LE's ears. In the Police interviews with Patsy you realize what kind of info the detectives are fishing for when they ask her about things like movies she's watched and books she's read. When she's asked about the family dynamic, what do you think she is going to say? Truth is, in a family with small kids its very unlikely that anybody else is going to know about any disfunction. As kids become teenagers they are more likely to confide in their friends, but young children will NEVER say anything about family dynamics to outsiders. So if we can't get straight answers from the Ramseys, and nobody else is aware, what's the point?

On a side note, I saw the Ramsey's on South Park last night and it was friggin hilarious!

 

[otg]

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?

Again, you’ve started off with something wrong which is completely misleading, and which leads to an incorrect conclusion.

Steve Thomas’ book was not “drawn from the Bonita Papers”. Steve Thomas’ book was based on the BPD investigation (which he was a part of until his departure) and his own personal experience. The Bonita Papers were also based on the BPD investigation and the evidence that had been collected up to the point in time of its writing. Neither the book nor the "papers" were based on the other.

Bonita Sauer never “had the intention of selling this to the tabloids”. So with these two fallacies(?) you’ve drawn the incorrect conclusion and stated that Thomas’ book was based on “an article designed to appear in a tabloid”. Nice try, but it just doesn’t ring true, and I can’t let you get away with it.

If the following quote sounds familiar to some, it’s because it was first posted less than a year ago on another thread. But it needs to be repeated so the Bonita Papers are understood for what they actually are -- not what someone attempts to spin them as.

When the Bonita Papers were written, they were based on the police files that existed at the time, because those files had been given to the three attorneys who were working pro bono for the BPD. Those lawyers were Daniel Hoffman (not Darnay), Robert Miller, and Richard Baer. Hoffman's paralegal secretary (Bonita Sauer) copied those files with the intent (supposedly) of putting them together for a book when all the dust settled. Unfortunately for her, she shared those files with some of her relatives, and one of them (a nephew) saw an opportunity for himself and sold copies of those files to National Enquirer. Its editor, Don Gentile, then used them to release a book (JonBenet, the Police Files). No one can say that the Bonita Papers are the ultimate source for information today, because some of the things police knew (or thought they knew) at the time may have changed since their writing (1999). But much of the information contained in them has since been confirmed by other media sources, and some of it has been overshadowed by additional evidence that wasn't known at the time.

The Bonita Papers were not an official release of police files. Indeed, they contained information that the police wanted kept confidential at the time. So some people will try to say they mean nothing and are unreliable (especially if they provide information detrimental to the position that person is trying to convey). But the information in them is based on the evidence investigators had at the time of their writing. It's up to the individual to decide how much credence they wish to place on the information.
​

Wouldn’t it be better for all if we state facts as they actually are rather than trying to spin them the way we want others to view things? At least readers here might be more likely to trust something said rather than thinking they have to fact-check anything written.

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?

Dr. Krugman was brought in by the DA, Alex Hunter, three months after JonBenet’s death. He was not part of the original group asked to view the evidence of sexual abuse. I really don’t know if (being part of the DA’s group) Krugman was given access to all the evidence the BPD had that was shared with the group of experts, but I think he probably was. (In some places, it says that he was only given the AR and other "police reports".) In various interviews, quotes, and snippets he seems to have been all over the place about the possibility of sexual abuse -- but that's because he draws a distinct difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse. So we have to be careful in reading his statements to differentiate between exactly what he is referring to.

In one place Krugman’s view was this (emphasis mine):

Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

(Wonder where Steve Thomas came up with his theory?) In another quote, Krugman said the following:

”There was probably no way Beuf could know from routine physical exams if JonBenet was sexually abused,” said Krugman.

And yet another:

”Signs of physical abuse are pretty obvious when you see bruises or fractures or abrasions," said Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the University of Colorado Medical School in Denver and former director of the Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. But "children can be sexually abused and have perfectly normal exams.”

One more:

About three months ago, Krugman was asked by Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter to consult on the Ramsey case. He studied the full autopsy report and several other documents.
Krugman said he told Hunter basically what he said Monday, that "there is nothing here that is specific that this was a child who was sexually abused." Instead, Krugman said, "I see a child who was physically abused and is dead."

Dr. Krugman seemed to be telling investigators things that he was unwilling to commit to publicly (JMO). But the best window into what Krugman seemed to be thinking came in an interview on Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997:

COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?
KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.
COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?
KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.
COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.
KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
​

What I gather from what Krugman is saying in the above discourse that seems to get misinterpreted by many when only parts of his statements are quoted is that the genital injuries which we assume to be of a “sexual” nature because of their location, he views as possibly “physical” abuse because of the unknown intent of the perpetrator. Krugman never disputes or diminishes the injuries to JonBenet’s genitals -- only the reason for their being inflicted. IOW, because the assailant was not seeking sexual gratification (in his opinion), the injuries were intended only as physical punishment (again, in his opinion). This is simply my interpretation of what Krugman may have been thinking in his statements. As others have stated, “YMMV.”

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

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.

Gee whiz. That sounds very much like this:

COUNT IV(a) (Child Abuse Resulting in Death): On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously, permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.
​

 

[otg]

There's something about their background I find interesting, they sure watched a lot of movies [emoji6]

In fact, Aynia, they seem to have liked movies so much that they used framed movie posters for wall decorations.

 

[Aynia]

In fact, Aynia, they seem to have liked movies so much that they used framed movie posters for wall decorations.

OMG really? I didn't knew that... seriously, wow, ty you just left me speechless

 

[otg]

Hypocrisy Alert!


Either side of this debate is quick to embrace or dismiss statistics when it suits their purpose (I’ll include myself here as being sometimes guilty of this indictment as well).


On one side, statistics are either important or irrelevant if they relate to the likelihood of child molestation or abuse being perpetrated by family members as opposed to a stranger. OTH, those same sides always take the opposite view of statistics when someone from the FBI is quoted as saying the following:

“When we look at the number of children that are killed around JonBenet's age, older, younger, 12 to one it is usually someone... it is usually a parent or somebody within the home; somebody who has access to the home, as opposed to an unknown offender.”
​

(I only point this out to make us aware of what happens when it does.) My dad always said, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

 

[otg]

OMG really? I didn't knew that... seriously, wow, ty you just left me speechless

Watch the video in the following article from The Daily Beast. It was taken by CSIs on the night they began the investigation and was released by James Kolar. You'll see several framed movie posters in the first 30-seconds of the video.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html

 

[otg]

More about movie references in the RN here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight755-movies.htm

But nothing's as funny as actually watching the clip of the inspiration for the RN from the movie Ruthless People (Thank you, cynic.):

[video=youtube;5QJoV6_o5mU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QJoV6_o5mU[/video]​

 

[Mama2JML]

Again, you’ve started off with something wrong which is completely misleading, and which leads to an incorrect conclusion.

Steve Thomas’ book was not “drawn from the Bonita Papers”. Steve Thomas’ book was based on the BPD investigation (which he was a part of until his departure) and his own personal experience. The Bonita Papers were also based on the BPD investigation and the evidence that had been collected up to the point in time of its writing. Neither the book nor the "papers" were based on the other.

Bonita Sauer never “had the intention of selling this to the tabloids”. So with these two fallacies(?) you’ve drawn the incorrect conclusion and stated that Thomas’ book was based on “an article designed to appear in a tabloid”. Nice try, but it just doesn’t ring true, and I can’t let you get away with it.

If the following quote sounds familiar to some, it’s because it was first posted less than a year ago on another thread. But it needs to be repeated so the Bonita Papers are understood for what they actually are -- not what someone attempts to spin them as.

When the Bonita Papers were written, they were based on the police files that existed at the time, because those files had been given to the three attorneys who were working pro bono for the BPD. Those lawyers were Daniel Hoffman (not Darnay), Robert Miller, and Richard Baer. Hoffman's paralegal secretary (Bonita Sauer) copied those files with the intent (supposedly) of putting them together for a book when all the dust settled. Unfortunately for her, she shared those files with some of her relatives, and one of them (a nephew) saw an opportunity for himself and sold copies of those files to National Enquirer. Its editor, Don Gentile, then used them to release a book (JonBenet, the Police Files). No one can say that the Bonita Papers are the ultimate source for information today, because some of the things police knew (or thought they knew) at the time may have changed since their writing (1999). But much of the information contained in them has since been confirmed by other media sources, and some of it has been overshadowed by additional evidence that wasn't known at the time.

The Bonita Papers were not an official release of police files. Indeed, they contained information that the police wanted kept confidential at the time. So some people will try to say they mean nothing and are unreliable (especially if they provide information detrimental to the position that person is trying to convey). But the information in them is based on the evidence investigators had at the time of their writing. It's up to the individual to decide how much credence they wish to place on the information.
​

Wouldn’t it be better for all if we state facts as they actually are rather than trying to spin them the way we want others to view things? At least readers here might be more likely to trust something said rather than thinking they have to fact-check anything written.




Dr. Krugman was brought in by the DA, Alex Hunter, three months after JonBenet’s death. He was not part of the original group asked to view the evidence of sexual abuse. I really don’t know if (being part of the DA’s group) Krugman was given access to all the evidence the BPD had that was shared with the group of experts, but I think he probably was. (In some places, it says that he was only given the AR and other "police reports".) In various interviews, quotes, and snippets he seems to have been all over the place about the possibility of sexual abuse -- but that's because he draws a distinct difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse. So we have to be careful in reading his statements to differentiate between exactly what he is referring to.

In one place Krugman’s view was this (emphasis mine):



(Wonder where Steve Thomas came up with his theory?) In another quote, Krugman said the following:



And yet another:



One more:



Dr. Krugman seemed to be telling investigators things that he was unwilling to commit to publicly (JMO). But the best window into what Krugman seemed to be thinking came in an interview on Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997:

COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?
KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.
COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?
KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.
COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.
KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
​

What I gather from what Krugman is saying in the above discourse that seems to get misinterpreted by many when only parts of his statements are quoted is that the genital injuries which we assume to be of a “sexual” nature because of their location, he views as possibly “physical” abuse because of the unknown intent of the perpetrator. Krugman never disputes or diminishes the injuries to JonBenet’s genitals -- only the reason for their being inflicted. IOW, because the assailant was not seeking sexual gratification (in his opinion), the injuries were intended only as physical punishment (again, in his opinion). This is simply my interpretation of what Krugman may have been thinking in his statements. As others have stated, “YMMV.”

Regardless of Krugman's chosen classification (physical abuse inflicted upon the victim's genitalia/sexual organs v. sexual abuse), was he able to conclude that JonBenét had been subjected to any similar type of abuse prior to the assault that took place on the 25th/26th & resulted in her death?

 

[OliviaG1996]

More about movie references in the RN here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight755-movies.htm

But nothing's as funny as actually watching the clip of the inspiration for the RN from the movie Ruthless People (Thank you, cynic.):

[video=youtube;5QJoV6_o5mU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QJoV6_o5mU[/video]​

The similarities are uncanny! There is absolutely no way the ransom note writer hadn't seen this movie and possibly memorized those lines.

 

[questfortrue]

DeeDee249,
Thanks again for clarifying a misleading post, I've appreciated your input many times - you are good at bringing the discussion back to established facts in a clear, easy to understand way. It gets tiresome for you Im sure, but you can trust that many others also appreciate your efforts toward truth and hopefully someday justice for JonBenet.
Progress toward resolving this case is becoming more apparent as the years go by, IMO, and this is good. The errors and omissions about the case are becoming clearer, the long-standing lies actually ring SOUR and unpleasant like a bad chord of music. The truth is slowly emerging IMO. I still have hope this case will be solved someday.

BBM - ITA

(rsbm)Gee whiz. That sounds very much like this:

COUNT IV(a) (Child Abuse Resulting in Death): On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously, permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.
​

Ha, ha . . .

Disclaimer: Any similarity of my posts to official legal conclusions of the GJ is coincidental.
I never spoke to a Grand Juror.
I do not know Prosecutor Kane.
I was never even near the GJ room. :couch:

 

[CorallaroC]

BBM - ITA



Ha, ha . . .

Disclaimer: Any similarity of my posts to official legal conclusions of the GJ is coincidental.
I never spoke to a Grand Juror.
I do not know Prosecutor Kane.
I was never even near the GJ room. :couch:

Questfortrue, your disclaimer is priceless! You have left me with no doubt whatsoever lol. Thanks for the light-hearted moment on this thread.

 

[CorallaroC]

More about movie references in the RN here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight755-movies.htm

But nothing's as funny as actually watching the clip of the inspiration for the RN from the movie Ruthless People (Thank you, cynic.):

[video=youtube;5QJoV6_o5mU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QJoV6_o5mU[/video]​

OTG, thank you for the youtube clip! I never had the patience to watch the whole film to find similarities - oh my, Im stunned how the RN has almost the exact same flavor of wording. If it werent for the fact that JonBenet had been murdered in an unspeakably terrible manner, I might be able to laugh a little----but seeing this just makes me feel angry! Such arrogance and disrespect! to copycat like that. Now I have a better "feel" for why some ppl speculate that both PR and JR had a hand in the writing of the RN. It stands out in my mind now, what JR said in one of his interviews, regarding the affair he once had, comparing it to the film Fatal Attraction, and how he could have written the screenplay for it (Fatal Attraction). In light of everything we know now, it was a stupid thing for him to brag about. SMH. JMO

 

[Anti-K]

Again, you’ve started off with something wrong which is completely misleading, and which leads to an incorrect conclusion.

Steve Thomas’ book was not “drawn from the Bonita Papers”. Steve Thomas’ book was based on the BPD investigation (which he was a part of until his departure) and his own personal experience. The Bonita Papers were also based on the BPD investigation and the evidence that had been collected up to the point in time of its writing. Neither the book nor the "papers" were based on the other.

Bonita Sauer never “had the intention of selling this to the tabloids”. So with these two fallacies(?) you’ve drawn the incorrect conclusion and stated that Thomas’ book was based on “an article designed to appear in a tabloid”. Nice try, but it just doesn’t ring true, and I can’t let you get away with it.

If the following quote sounds familiar to some, it’s because it was first posted less than a year ago on another thread. But it needs to be repeated so the Bonita Papers are understood for what they actually are -- not what someone attempts to spin them as.

When the Bonita Papers were written, they were based on the police files that existed at the time, because those files had been given to the three attorneys who were working pro bono for the BPD. Those lawyers were Daniel Hoffman (not Darnay), Robert Miller, and Richard Baer. Hoffman's paralegal secretary (Bonita Sauer) copied those files with the intent (supposedly) of putting them together for a book when all the dust settled. Unfortunately for her, she shared those files with some of her relatives, and one of them (a nephew) saw an opportunity for himself and sold copies of those files to National Enquirer. Its editor, Don Gentile, then used them to release a book (JonBenet, the Police Files). No one can say that the Bonita Papers are the ultimate source for information today, because some of the things police knew (or thought they knew) at the time may have changed since their writing (1999). But much of the information contained in them has since been confirmed by other media sources, and some of it has been overshadowed by additional evidence that wasn't known at the time.

The Bonita Papers were not an official release of police files. Indeed, they contained information that the police wanted kept confidential at the time. So some people will try to say they mean nothing and are unreliable (especially if they provide information detrimental to the position that person is trying to convey). But the information in them is based on the evidence investigators had at the time of their writing. It's up to the individual to decide how much credence they wish to place on the information.
​

Wouldn’t it be better for all if we state facts as they actually are rather than trying to spin them the way we want others to view things? At least readers here might be more likely to trust something said rather than thinking they have to fact-check anything written.




Dr. Krugman was brought in by the DA, Alex Hunter, three months after JonBenet’s death. He was not part of the original group asked to view the evidence of sexual abuse. I really don’t know if (being part of the DA’s group) Krugman was given access to all the evidence the BPD had that was shared with the group of experts, but I think he probably was. (In some places, it says that he was only given the AR and other "police reports".) In various interviews, quotes, and snippets he seems to have been all over the place about the possibility of sexual abuse -- but that's because he draws a distinct difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse. So we have to be careful in reading his statements to differentiate between exactly what he is referring to.

In one place Krugman’s view was this (emphasis mine):



(Wonder where Steve Thomas came up with his theory?) In another quote, Krugman said the following:



And yet another:



One more:



Dr. Krugman seemed to be telling investigators things that he was unwilling to commit to publicly (JMO). But the best window into what Krugman seemed to be thinking came in an interview on Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997:

COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?
KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.
COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?
KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.
COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.
KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
​

What I gather from what Krugman is saying in the above discourse that seems to get misinterpreted by many when only parts of his statements are quoted is that the genital injuries which we assume to be of a “sexual” nature because of their location, he views as possibly “physical” abuse because of the unknown intent of the perpetrator. Krugman never disputes or diminishes the injuries to JonBenet’s genitals -- only the reason for their being inflicted. IOW, because the assailant was not seeking sexual gratification (in his opinion), the injuries were intended only as physical punishment (again, in his opinion). This is simply my interpretation of what Krugman may have been thinking in his statements. As others have stated, “YMMV.”

Bonita Papers aside, I think it should be fair to question Thomas and his sources because, as we learned from his deposition, some (much?) of his book/theory was based on thins that he heard, sometimes second hand, from other people. So-and-so said this, so-and-so was looking into that, etc. Those of us who were around at the time should remember just how big a disappointment his book as – actually causing a few RDI to switch sides!

But, if one wants to go with Thomas and what he had to say about the expert opinion on prior abuse, we should note that Thomas said this: “The results, however, were not what is known in the legal world as “conclusive” – which means that there can be no other interpretation...” p. 254
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Hypocrisy Alert!


Either side of this debate is quick to embrace or dismiss statistics when it suits their purpose (I’ll include myself here as being sometimes guilty of this indictment as well).


On one side, statistics are either important or irrelevant if they relate to the likelihood of child molestation or abuse being perpetrated by family members as opposed to a stranger. OTH, those same sides always take the opposite view of statistics when someone from the FBI is quoted as saying the following:

“When we look at the number of children that are killed around JonBenet's age, older, younger, 12 to one it is usually someone... it is usually a parent or somebody within the home; somebody who has access to the home, as opposed to an unknown offender.”
​

(I only point this out to make us aware of what happens when it does.) My dad always said, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

Stats such as those being currently bandied about are only indicators of which direction an investigation should take. They tell us something in general but nothing in particular.
...

AK