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

[BBB167893]

When you say that the asphyxiation “LOOKS” (emphasis is yours) and that when it comes to the 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.

I'm calling it as I see it, Anti-K. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the dragon's lair.

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?"

Well, excuse me, but I don't necessarily interpret that as a rhetorical question. Indeed, for me, it ISN'T rhetorical. Rather, it seems like the kind of question investigators SHOULD ask themselves.

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).

I think it adds quite a bit to the conversation. Not as much as THIS, though:

The public is uncomfortable accepting the idea that people who look so nice on the outside can be dastardly on the inside.

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....

Considering how extensively they were protected FROM investigation by the DA, just how "in-depth" was it?

Incidentally, I'm not sure ST or LHP would agree.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

Ask John Edwards. (rimshot, please!)

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

Actually, that's not what I meant. I meant, none of the experts in this case have ever recanted their own statements. But if you must know, you're correct: none of the experts discounted the possibility. The closest any of them came were Krugman, who said he couldn't tell if the abuse was for sexual gratification, and Spitz, who hedged his bets.

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?

I guess it's interesting, then, that Krugman became one of the believers in sexual abuse, as the article I provided illustrates.

 

[inspector rex]

I guess it's interesting, then, that Krugman became one of the believers in sexual abuse, as the article I provided illustrates.

Which article?

 

[Anti-K]

I'm calling it as I see it, Anti-K. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the dragon's lair.



Well, excuse me, but I don't necessarily interpret that as a rhetorical question. Indeed, for me, it ISN'T rhetorical. Rather, it seems like the kind of question investigators SHOULD ask themselves.



I think it adds quite a bit to the conversation. Not as much as THIS, though:

The public is uncomfortable accepting the idea that people who look so nice on the outside can be dastardly on the inside.



Considering how extensively they were protected FROM investigation by the DA, just how "in-depth" was it?

Incidentally, I'm not sure ST or LHP would agree.

You’re “calling it as you see it” minimizes the acts committed upon Jonbenet. That is disturbing and saying that you “call it as you see it” does not excuse that.

Yes, people should be asking, “How can anyone who is not just a psychopathic child abuser do something like this to a child?"
.

I’m not interested in whether or not “[t]he public is uncomfortable accepting the idea that people who look so nice on the outside can be dastardly on the inside.” That isn’t evidence and it doesn’t tell us anything about who committed this crime (or, why, etc.).
.
I’d be surprised if LHP had any more of a clue than anyone else about how extensively the Ramseys were investigated. I think that if he were to be honest about it, ST would agree that the Ramseys were in fact extensively investigated; although, he might complain about the difficulties encountered.

Once again, they were investigated extensively – they were the FOCUS – by more than BPD.

It’s always the same thing when an investigation doesn’t reveal what people want it to – they always say, they weren’t investigated enough; if only they’d tried harder, looked deeper, etc.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

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?

Sure looks like it:

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.

 

[inspector rex]

Sure looks like it:

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.

Where does this quote come from? Please provide a link.

 

[BBB167893]

Your position on prior sexual abuse is agnostic, its simply a belief, not something demonstrated, so adopting a pedantic position and making sweeping general assertions regarding the case, is to say the least, not constructive.

But it IS typical for this person, sadly.

 

[BBB167893]

I think a murdered child is evidence of severe abuse.

Oh, that's clever.

We can get history from her Doctor (whom she frequently visited for vaginal infections) and from the lack of any evidence of prior abuse as stated by Thomas
("No reported history of any abuse in the house."), and I'm sure we would have heard if BPD had any reports from anyone else they asked, including friends and family members.

By his own admission, her doctor never looked all that closely. And as for reported abuse, maybe you haven't heard, but the majority of abuse goes unreported. You don't seem to understand just how hard it is to catch these creeps.

She was 6years old.
She was a bedwetter and frequently didn't wipe herself properly.

Yes, I know that. I also know that things didn't start to go bad on that front until PR's cancer and operations which made sexual activity difficult. Coincidence?

Her behaviour was no different to any other child of 6 and there is no
evidence to support your theory.

Wrong on both counts.

Any sexual aspect attributed to pageants would be in the eye of the beholder, but certainly not in the actions of the 6yo child.

Well, that's part of my point. If JB had accepted this stuff as normal, it would take someone from the outside to see it.

Please don't make her sound like some filthy little ****. It's demeaning to both her memory and also to yourself.

I CERTAINLY was not trying to do that. <mod snip>

 

[BBB167893]

Which article?

THIS one:

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

 

[inspector rex]

THIS one:

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

I guess it's interesting, then, that Krugman became one of the believers in sexual abuse, as the article I provided illustrates.

You've confused me.
Where in this article does it say that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night of her death?

 

[inspector rex]

Oh, that's clever.

By his own admission, her doctor never looked all that closely. And as for reported abuse, maybe you haven't heard, but the majority of abuse goes unreported. You don't seem to understand just how hard it is to catch these creeps.

Yes, I know that. I also know that things didn't start to go bad on that front until PR's cancer and operations which made sexual activity difficult. Coincidence?

Wrong on both counts.

Well, that's part of my point. If JB had accepted this stuff as normal, it would take someone from the outside to see it.

I CERTAINLY was not trying to do that. <modsnip>

Facts and logic.
That's what we are permitted to post.

Remember what Tricia asked for:

"All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

When I get time I will be going through the forum to make sure the JonBenet Ramsey forum is being held up to the high standards just like all our other forums on Websleuths.

The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone. Facts and logic. Very simple.

 

[BBB167893]

You’re “calling it as you see it” minimizes the acts committed upon JonBenet. That is disturbing and saying that you “call it as you see it” does not excuse that.

I don't NEED excuses. You can say I'm minimizing, but I am certainly not. I'm not saying anything that the autopsy report and FBI didn't say.

If anything, IDI is making it out WORSE than it was. John Ramsey, Michael Tracey and Lou Smit are particularly guilty of this. What happened to her was horrific enough without that. And it's obvious why IDI does it: the worse it seems, the harder it is to believe the Rs could have done it. Thus, our current conversation.

THAT'S what is disturbing, Anti-K.

Yes, people should be asking, “How can anyone who is not just a psychopathic child abuser do something like this to a child?"

I get the feeling you mean it in a different way than I do.

I’d be surprised if LHP had any more of a clue than anyone else about how extensively the Ramseys were investigated. I think that if he were to be honest about it, ST would agree that the Ramseys were in fact extensively investigated; although, he might complain about the difficulties encountered.

I'm glad someone complained about them. Still, that was not what I meant. I meant that they might disagree that the investigation failed to show they were that kind of people. I quote ST:

Tom Haney, with his no-nonsense style and three days in which to ask his questions, had found something I felt had to be there not too far below that polished beauty queen surface. Patsy Ramsey had, for a few moments, lifted her mask.

It’s always the same thing when an investigation doesn’t reveal what people want it to – they always say, they weren’t investigated enough; if only they’d tried harder, looked deeper, etc.

In this case, that's all TRUE, Anti-K. You want me to list all the missed opportunities?

 

[inspector rex]

rex, for God's sake, it's not that difficult. You have two of the experts who worked on the case, both of whom have said at various points that JB had suffered vaginal damage prior to the night she died, collaborating on an article that includes the phrase, the vast majority of fatal abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the child, usually a caregiver, and it is rarely intentional or premeditated and calling for greater vigilance toward child abuse.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to put it together!

No where in that article does it say that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night she died.

 

[Tricia]

Please stop with the snarkiness to each other.

The topic is the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

That's all their is to it so please everyone just stick to the topic.

It's that simple.

 

[BOESP]

No where in that article does it say that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night she died.

The autopsy report uses the word chronic when describing the vaginal trauma. That means reoccurring over a period of time. Anyone interested can find photocopies of the autopsy report on line.

 

[otg]

otg,
Patently Dr. Krugman was being cautious with what he said, maybe he was attempting to sidestep any litigation issues.

Perhaps. I just think he is cautious about making assumptions.

Coroner Meyer stated to all present at the autopsy that JonBenet had undergone both digital penetration and sexual contact.

:facepalm:

Do you think Dr. Krugman was publicly questioning any of Coroner Meyers autopsy procedures?

No.

Beckner says:

The broken paintbrush used to simulate sex assault. All these were clues to staging.

That might be his (and maybe your) opinion. If so, I disagree.

What do you reckon is going on here, Beckner says the broken paintbrush was used, Meyer that there was digital penetration, including sexual contact, and Dr. Krugman says we cannot know without corroborating evidence, semen, STD, etc?

notgood: Here we go again. I wouldn&#8217;t have responded to that again, but you asked me directly.)

That&#8217;s not what Dr. Meyer said. What he DID say does not conflict with either of the other two -- nor do their statements conflict with one another.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ey-Investigation/page14&p=8186761#post8186761
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?96408-The-garrote-points-to&p=8216408#post8216408
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...f-club-or-flashlight-or&p=8324658#post8324658
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?3491-Known-rope-in-the-house&p=8365345#post8365345
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ppenings-of-December-26&p=9498741#post9498741
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ppenings-of-December-26&p=9517482#post9517482

 

[otg]

I don't want to get bogged down in your verbose arguments.

Good idea! Along that same vein of thought, I'll snip only the parts of your post to which I'm responding (the link to your full post is in the quote box above):

This is from the JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia

"The Bonita Papers. Acording to Internet poster Spade, "These are the unedited "notes" of Bonita Sauer, secretary/para-legal to Dan Hoffman. Bonita intended to write a book from the case documents provided to her boss. But Bonita's notes were sold to the tabs by her nephew." Spade (post deleted) claims that Bonita works in the same office as Larry Pozner. It should be strongly emphasized that much of the information in these papers has not been corroborated. Internet poster Jameson (post deleted) claims Bonita has disavowed much of what is in these papers. User beware."

So, it seems that I am not the only one who doubts that quoting from the Bonita papers is the same as, equal to, or even similar to first hand information.
If the only source of the Bonita papers is via a tabloid, and apparently it seems the person who original copied this information (Bonita) cannot vouch for it's accuracy, then they are not really any use as a reference and is no better than quoting from a tabloid story.

Assuming that by “the JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia” you mean “pbworks.com”, you should know that it is not THE authority on this case. That site was an attempt at impartially compiling information by a fellow forum poster (Miss Marple). The website has not been updated since 2007. So the statement she (Miss Marple) wrote about much of the information not being corroborated might have been true (in her opinion, of course) when it was written. But since the original disclosure of the Bonita Papers, much of the information in them HAS been corroborated by people inside the investigation. And as for the claim that another internet poster (Jameson) made that “Bonita (Sauer) has disavowed much of what is in these papers”... well okay, do you have any other source for that other than another internet poster? And if so, would it be any surprise that Sauer might disclaim it under certain circumstances to avoid possible legal ramifications or even public notoriety?

I’ve stated several times already (and usually whenever I post something from the Bonita Papers, because I understand what a problem the information in them presents to IDI/ABAR) that it’s up to the individual to decide for himself/herself (or “hirself”, since Jammie’s name has come up) how much credibility they wish to assign to them. But you’re just wrong in trying to associate the document with Steve Thomas’ book.

I have posted previously that Dr Krugman has stated that there was no evidence of prior abuse. I can't see the point in doing so again, however, for the sake of others, here is a quote that is clear enough:

"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. "

So, if Dr Krugman was contacted by the BPD and was asked his opinion on prior sexual abuse, would they not have provided him with the evidence if they had any? I think this says it all.

So, you say Steve Thomas did not rely solely on the Bonita papers for his opinion that JonBenet had been the subject of previous sexual abuse and that he had some other source. However, in his deposition he clearly stated:

You really don’t get it, do you? It really is just over your head to try and understand the difference in Dr. Krugman’s distinction between what constitutes sexual abuse over physical abuse.

So there was no history of any abuse. (WRONG)
No forensic evidence of any abuse. (Absolutely WRONG)
Nil.
Zip.
Now, can we stop talking about it as if there was? (Scroll and roll, rexie. Just scroll and roll.)

I've read and understand the AR (okay, I had to look up the big words). I accept as a fact that JonBenet was sexually molested on the night she died, as well as repeatedly during an indeterminate period of time prior to her death. Who the person is who is responsible for that is up for debate -- but not whether or not it happened. Take off the blinders.

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

The public is uncomfortable accepting the idea that people who look so nice on the outside can be dastardly on the inside.

Forensic pathologist Dr. Frederick Zugibe (R.I.P.) said something similar. I love this quote from him (emphasis mine):

“More to the point, I was hereby being summoned to provide expert testimony in a trial that would once again drive home to me a definitive rule of forensic psychology: When unspeakably wicked events happen in quiet, wholesome places -- or, to put it another way, when ordinary people are confronted with the horror of naked evil -- their tendency is to deny the evidence of their reason and senses; sometimes -- often, perhaps -- to an irrational degree.”
​

 

[UKGuy]

Perhaps. I just think he is cautious about making assumptions.


:facepalm:


No.


That might be his (and maybe your) opinion. If so, I disagree.


notgood: Here we go again. I wouldn’t have responded to that again, but you asked me directly.)

That’s not what Dr. Meyer said. What he DID say does not conflict with either of the other two -- nor do their statements conflict with one another.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ey-Investigation/page14&p=8186761#post8186761
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?96408-The-garrote-points-to&p=8216408#post8216408
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...f-club-or-flashlight-or&p=8324658#post8324658
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?3491-Known-rope-in-the-house&p=8365345#post8365345
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ppenings-of-December-26&p=9498741#post9498741
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ppenings-of-December-26&p=9517482#post9517482

otg,
Thanks for the reply and citations. This is not the thread for this topic, so wont enlarge upon it.

I just found Beckners claims curious when considered against that of Kolars.

.

 

[inspector rex]

The autopsy report uses the word chronic when describing the vaginal trauma. That means reoccurring over a period of time. Anyone interested can find photocopies of the autopsy report on line.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

You have both mis-read and mis-understood the Autopsy Report
It doesn't describe 'vaginal trauma'.
The word 'trauma' is only used in the following sentence:
"No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified"

The word 'chronic' is used several times in the Autopsy Report. In the Microscopic Description (of the tissue) from various organs (BBM):

"Thyroid: [snip] An occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial inflammatory inflitrate is seen"

"Trachea: There is mild chronic inflammation in the submucosa of the trachea"

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation.

This is a term to describe what is seen on the slides under a microscope.
It is not an indicator of any previous/ongoing/long term sexual abuse.
The summary of findings, the Coroner notes "V. Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa".