The actual vs. desired outcome

[Holdontoyourhat]

wow Holdon,none of us has done that.the evidence fits the parents,from RN right down to the fiber evidence and pineapple.that's just such a silly comment,it really is.



surely you jest.pathology reports and the examinations of her body don't lie.her body told the truth about what happened,from the head injury right down to the sexual abuse.



for what reason would she be enlarged 2x the size for a girl her age? for what reason would she have an internal abrasion/injury and chronic infiltrate into the cells? it speaks for itself.

Since there is NO corroborating evidence to any chronic sexual abuse activity, its almost pure conjecture and hardly worth discussing. Makes good tabloid fodder, though.

 

[JMO8778]

Since there is NO corroborating evidence to any chronic sexual abuse activity, its almost pure conjecture and hardly worth discussing. Makes good tabloid fodder, though.

pathology doesn't report to the tabloids.her body got that way somehow...and not by conjecture.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

pathology doesn't report to the tabloids.her body got that way somehow...and not by conjecture.

Pathology reports to physicians, and some physicians report to tabloids. So apparently some pathology does report to the tabloids. Sorry.

How her body got that way is your speculation. I think that because these other physicians never interviewed or attended JBR personally, and the ones that did aren't on the abuse bandwagon, that any prior abuse allegation would need some sort of corroborating evidence that establishes sexual misconduct. Without it you don't know how her body got that way.

Most sexual abuse cases manifest themselves not by showing up on autopsy. Its that other manifestation you're missing.

For now its only manifestation is in your imagination.

The picture RDI paints of JBR and her home life stands in stark contrast to witness testimony, as though they have to be disregarded by RDI for everything to fit their way.

 

[UKGuy]

yes,but what I'm saying is,that would require more than just a one time 72 hour old injury,right?

JMO8778, Yes I agree. The relevant reference is:

We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse ... There was chronic abuse... Past violation of the vagina...Evidence of both acute and chronic sexual abuse In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before.

Chronic sexual abuse would patently erode the hymen! p.s. This is Steve Thomas' evidence! Yes the guest room, and JAR's bedroom are the same.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

for what reason would she be enlarged 2x the size for a girl her age? for what reason would she have an internal abrasion/injury and chronic infiltrate into the cells? it speaks for itself.

'internal abrasion/injury' would be from the night she was murdered.

'chronic infiltrate into the cells' is a medical expression that needs to be interpreted by a physician. It does NOT automatically mean she was chronically sexually abused. That's your interpretation.

Remember, neither physician attending JBR in life or death are on the chronic sexual abuse bandwagon. That fact puts a lot more pressure on doctors with photos who never even saw or interviewed JBR.

There needs to be corroborating evidence of sexual misconduct on somebody's part to get anywhere. Is there any corroborating evidence? Why not? Wouldn't the chronic abuse argument be more effective if there was? Without it seems like just crass speculation.

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse."

RDI goes on and on as if chronic sexual abuse was a given. There are obviously differing opinions on the subject among the experts. The physicians attending JBR and the FBI are no small matter.

 

[JMO8778]

'internal abrasion/injury' would be from the night she was murdered.

NO,it was not the same injury that Cyril Wecht said was about 72 hrs old.

'chronic infiltrate into the cells' is a medical expression that needs to be interpreted by a physician.

Oh please...I went to college and took Microbiology....it's not a term to be interpreted only by a DR.We looked at tissues/cells and plenty of types of things underneath very high-powered microscopes...I KNOW what it means!

It does NOT automatically mean she was chronically sexually abused. That's your interpretation.

It doesn't mean it was done for gratification of the offender,no.But abuse to the sex organs is considered a form of sexual abuse.

Remember, neither physician attending JBR in life or death are on the chronic sexual abuse bandwagon. That fact puts a lot more pressure on doctors with photos who never even saw or interviewed JBR.

That Dr Beuf was a total GOOF and was very unprofessional.He encouraged Patsy's whining instead of encouraging her to empower herself by going down to the police station and giving a statement while events were still fresh in her mind.THAT was very unprofessional and he knew it.Doing what she could to help would have given her power and encouragement.IF she wasn't guilty,that is.
And why hide her med records if he's not in on something?

There needs to be corroborating evidence of sexual misconduct on somebody's part to get anywhere. Is there any corroborating evidence? Why not? Wouldn't the chronic abuse argument be more effective if there was? Without it seems like just crass speculation.

there was more than one professional who felt there was chronic abuse.I'm sure you would have to know that from reading here.Why do you think Patsy wouldn't take her to anyone but Dr Beuf goof,who was doing nothing for her soiling issues? Why not take her to a specialist?

 

[JMO8778]

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse."

the FBI also believed the parents were involved in JB's death,and since
she had vaginal trauma,that is abuse,why else would it be called TRAUMA? The abuse came from somewhere,and they didn't think it was from an intruder...

 

[JMO8778]

Pathology reports to physicians, and some physicians report to tabloids. So apparently some pathology does report to the tabloids. Sorry.

nothing to be sorry about,b/c your comment doesn't hold water.some?? that's not a very solid statement.ie-it doesn't mean all did,or even any.but you know full well,if you've read at acandyrose.com,that chronic infiltrate into the cells and JB being enlarged 2x the size for a girl her age is a fact.

Without it you don't know how her body got that way.

the professionals have a good idea,they've seen it before.
the FBI thinks the parents are involved in her death,and with the chronic signs there,who do YOU think could have done this to her? It had to be someone who freely had access to her.

Most sexual abuse cases manifest themselves not by showing up on autopsy. Its that other manifestation you're missing.

what other? (and besides,her body did show abuse).due to something Wendy MURPHY says is called 'accommodation abuse syndrome',victims rarely ever tell on the offender.

The picture RDI paints of JBR and her home life stands in stark contrast to witness testimony, as though they have to be disregarded by RDI for everything to fit their way.

you mean like LHP talking about the daily screaming matches in the bathroom? and the other mothers who were planning an intervention on JB's behalf? I could go on but I'm sure you kwim..

But really Holdon...what is your true agenda? Because I can't see anyone twisting the facts and betraying the memory of JonBenet in such a hideous manner without one.

 

[Ames]

the FBI also believed the parents were involved in JB's death,and since
she had vaginal trauma,that is abuse,why else would it be called TRAUMA? The abuse came from somewhere,and they didn't think it was from an intruder...

I was watching CourtTV today, and they were talking about some crime story, where an older lady was murdered while at her job at a convenience store. Alot of time was taken while murdering her....the guy that does the narrating (that isn't spelled right!)......said that a killer doesn't take alot of time with their victims...while killing them, unless it is someone close to the victim, a family member...etc. I thought of the JB case, when he said that. The making of the garotte, the tying of the hands, the head wound, the paintbrush insertion....and the almost three page ransom note.

Oh yeah, the killer of the lady in the convenience store took alot of time...they found out later, that it was her own son, that was the murderer.

 

[JMO8778]

I was watching CourtTV today, and they were talking about some crime story, where an older lady was murdered while at her job at a convenience store. Alot of time was taken while murdering her....the guy that does the narrating (that isn't spelled right!)......said that a killer doesn't take alot of time with their victims...while killing them, unless it is someone close to the victim, a family member...etc. I thought of the JB case, when he said that. The making of the garotte, the tying of the hands, the head wound, the paintbrush insertion....and the almost three page ransom note.

Oh yeah, the killer of the lady in the convenience store took alot of time...they found out later, that it was her own son, that was the murderer.

it does sound similar,in regards to amt of time spent on the crime..criminals like a quick in and out..they do NOT like to spend a lot of time inside a residence...particularly one,I would think,that is occupied ! (unless it's their own). I remember this from getting my home alarm installed.And THAT is just for robbery !

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But really Holdon...what is your true agenda? Because I can't see anyone twisting the facts and betraying the memory of JonBenet in such a hideous manner without one.

Wow thats quite a paragraph you've got going there. Now I have an agenda, and I'm doing it in a 'hideous manner.'

How is exposing RDI claims as uncorroborated hideous? Chronic sexual abuse is not corroborated. Cord and tape purchase, a claim of accidental death theory, not corroborated. Yet both are repeated over and over in the context of established fact.

Now you've got this RDI propaganda machine rolling for what purpose? Why not consider IDI objectively, since RDI has all these issues with not being able to independently confirm their so-called 'facts'.

No salesman said "she bought cord"
No pediatrician wrote "she's abnormal"

RDI draws a wildcard and says "he's a goof". What a coincidence. It so happens that of all the pediatricians who aren't goofs, JBR's suddenly is, because he doesn't support your nonsense. Making the doctor a goof is a fabrication to suit RDI needs. Very much like making PR wicked. Or was there any corroboration that the doctor is a goof? Or PR wicked? Didn't think so.

 

[UKGuy]

Wow thats quite a paragraph you've got going there. Now I have an agenda, and I'm doing it in a 'hideous manner.'

How is exposing RDI claims as uncorroborated hideous? Chronic sexual abuse is not corroborated. Cord and tape purchase, a claim of accidental death theory, not corroborated. Yet both are repeated over and over in the context of established fact.

Now you've got this RDI propaganda machine rolling for what purpose? Why not consider IDI objectively, since RDI has all these issues with not being able to independently confirm their so-called 'facts'.

No salesman said "she bought cord"
No pediatrician wrote "she's abnormal"

RDI draws a wildcard and says "he's a goof". What a coincidence. It so happens that of all the pediatricians who aren't goofs, JBR's suddenly is, because he doesn't support your nonsense. Making the doctor a goof is a fabrication to suit RDI needs. Very much like making PR wicked. Or was there any corroboration that the doctor is a goof? Or PR wicked? Didn't think so.

Holdontoyourhat,

Chronic sexual abuse is not corroborated.

Oh but it is, evidence collected by Steve Thomas' investigation team corroborate this as does Coroner Meyer's autopsy report.

We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse ... There was chronic abuse... Past violation of the vagina...Evidence of both acute and chronic sexual abuse In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before.

So unlike some of your own IDI claims, the RDI claim that JonBenet was chronically molested, can be corroborated from more than one source. Two that are credible are Steve Thomas and Coroner Meyer.

Once again you are making it up as you go along, naturally to suit your IDI agenda, how sad is that?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

Oh but it is, evidence collected by Steve Thomas' investigation team corroborate this as does Coroner Meyer's autopsy report.



So unlike some of your own IDI claims, the RDI claim that JonBenet was chronically molested, can be corroborated from more than one source. Two that are credible are Steve Thomas and Coroner Meyer.

Once again you are making it up as you go along, naturally to suit your IDI agenda, how sad is that?

Coming up with more people to do 3rd party, 2nd hand interpretations of autopsy photos isn't the corroboration I was looking for. I meant independent confirmation of chronic sexual abuse in the form of corroborating evidence. A witness coming forward, evidence found of pedophilia, etc., etc.

There isn't any.

Its like the cord ownership RDI dreams about that has no other evidence that confirms it.

So RDI invented slings, and presents store receipts and dirty underwear as if they were corroborating evidence.

 

[BOESP]

Coming up with more people to do 3rd party, 2nd hand interpretations of autopsy photos isn't the corroboration I was looking for. I meant independent confirmation of chronic sexual abuse in the form of corroborating evidence. A witness coming forward, evidence found of pedophilia, etc., etc.

There isn't any.

Its like the cord ownership RDI dreams about that has no other evidence that confirms it.

So RDI invented slings, and presents store receipts and dirty underwear as if they were corroborating evidence.

Holdon, based on your postings here, your IDI theory needs some shoring up before you start dissecting RDI theories. You have offered nothing but a personal opinion and we all have one. Maybe a different hobby would better suit you since it is impossible for a public, lay message board such as Websleuths to satisfy your high standards of documentation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

BESOP, really I wanna be RDI. Give me some corroboration and I'll gladly be like you, content that while there were no arrests (the R's being rich and all), at least we know where the killer is.

 

[BOESP]

BESOP, really I wanna be RDI. Give me some corroboration and I'll gladly be like you, content that while there were no arrests (the R's being rich and all), at least we know where the killer is.

I don't enjoy trying to persuade anyone to see things as I see them. I enjoy studying the psychology of the killer and the victim and putting crime-scene clues together. I enjoy reading and thinking about the viewpoints of others and how they might fit or not fit. Most adults interested in criminology can come to reasonable conclusions without my help.

We are somewhat similar, though, because I want to be IDI. I started out neutral but admit that my first thought was "the parents did it." I quickly dismissed that bias in favor of finding out all I could as a private citizen. While I am not totally convinced about who did what and exactly what part John played and when he entered the scene, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that, at best, one or both parents know what happened and at worst one or both took part in whatever it was that caused JonBenet to die.

By the way, wouldn't you think with all that IDI evidence you say you believe in that some "Intruder" would have been charged by now, if one existed?

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, Holdon- I think the first one's it. Either that or Number 6- rage attack gone wrong. Either way- sexual abuse gone wrong or rage attack gone wrong- the killers did not set out to kill JBR. All the more reason for me that it points to a family member and not an intruder.
Many people get confused by the "accident" concept here. When we read things like "this was no accident"- it implies premeditated murder. While I am firmly in the RDI camp, I do not think for a moment that they planned to kill their daughter that night. The head blow was intentional (a shove in anger, a whack with a bat or flashlight or golf club) but done in a split-second of emotion- rage or to stop her from screaming. But her death was not what was intended. Her silence was.
This may sound strange coming from an RDI, but regardless of what anyone thinks about the Rs and their parenting skills- regardless of how PR paraded her daughter in the pageants, and even regardless of whether JR (or JAR or BR) was sexually abusing JBR, they loved their daughter, and were both horrified that she'd been killed, though they were responsible. In the case of sexual abuse- it sadly does happen with little girls and fathers (and stepfathers) but rarely leads to the murder of the child. I can't think of any case where a father killed his little girl after abusing her. This kind of abuse usually goes on for years, until it is discovered, the child grows old enough to resist or grows past the abusers age of attraction. With JBR, her death stopped what the abuser was unable to stop him/herself.
Here's another thought- I believe they were both actually relieved she was dead. Here's why- PR had been building up the "Mega-JBR" thing into an entity of its own, and one she was frightened of losing control over if she died. It was getting away from her, and she knew it. Even her friends knew it. The crescendo of emotion leading to her death instantly put a stop to something PR could not stop herself.
As for JR, if he was abusing JBR, as I think he was, her death gave him the same release- it stopped what he was unable to stop himself. And if PR was aware of or suspected the abuse, it was double release for her. Mega-JBR had ceased to exist, and her fears that her husband was sexually abusing her daughter were instantly and forever rendered moot.
That explains a lot about their post-death behavior. For years after.

DeeDee249,
Audra Matheny was sexually assaulted by her step-father and the crime-scene was staged e.g. a bedroom homicide.

Clothes drying on the line behind the Wilson home is pictured in one of the evidence photos from the trial for the murder of Audra Matheny. Even though the dryer was broken and clothes had been left on the line in the rain all night, Steve Wilson still made a point of washing his dead stepdaughter's bedding as soon as medical personnel had removed her body from his home. Audra's bedding was still wet from the washing machine, sitting in a basket, later that afternoon when police arrived to arrest Wilson for rape and murder.

...

During a secondary examination, Forbis noted that there was a stiffness in the jaws, neck and extremities that he associated with rigor mortis. There was postmortem lividity (settling of the blood) present on the right side of the body. There was mucus and blood coming out both nostrils and the mouth, Forbis said months later, on the witness stand. There was also blood stains on the pajamas - at the seat of the pajamas. Forbis said that he saw a bruise on Audra's left side, on her back, and scratches running in an outward angle from the center of her buttocks.

...

Chapman said that the tears and abrasions were from at or near the time of death, and that he believed the hymen had been torn during the attack. He said there were no indications that intercourse had taken place before the night she died. Chapman also found what was believed to be the cause of death. Audra had irregular areas of abrasion on the nose, abrasions and hemorrhages on the lips, a bruise by her hairline and small hemorrhages in the linings of the eyes on the eyelids. Based on his findings, Chapman testified that Audra had smothered to death while being sexually assaulted.

 

[UKGuy]

Coming up with more people to do 3rd party, 2nd hand interpretations of autopsy photos isn't the corroboration I was looking for. I meant independent confirmation of chronic sexual abuse in the form of corroborating evidence. A witness coming forward, evidence found of pedophilia, etc., etc.

There isn't any.

Its like the cord ownership RDI dreams about that has no other evidence that confirms it.

So RDI invented slings, and presents store receipts and dirty underwear as if they were corroborating evidence.

Holdontoyourhat,

I meant independent confirmation of chronic sexual abuse in the form of corroborating evidence. A witness coming forward, evidence found of pedophilia, etc., etc.

The principal witness is dead, and behind that molestation may be the motive for killing and silencing her? JonBenet's chronic sexual abuse is evidence of pedophilia, as is her genital injuries, not to mention any innapropriate photographs taken of Jonbenet found by the investigators. Lets put it this way the RDI theory is streets ahead of any IDI theory thats because there is currently no consistent IDI theory and no evidence that links to an intruder.

 

[Solace]

There are far more ABFDE certified document examiners who dont say PR wrote the note than who do. Not one concluded she wrote the note. Not one. With Epstein "strong indications" and Liebman "90-95%", both HIRED by RDI and they still leave it open.

Ubowski is the closest thing RDI has to an independent CDE, and he says "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion." In reality, this is probably about where RDI is on the "PR wrote the note" idea.

Hold on,

Page 537, Perfect Murder, PT, by Lawrence Schiller, "Ubowski was prepared to say Patsy Ramsey wrote the Note".


Once again, please lets hear their names. This is a board of "fact". So when you say one said this and one said that, it doesn't work. Lets hear some names. And also, please read Epsteins's depostion. He states he believes Patsy Ramsey wrote the note and so does Larry Siegler (sp).

 

[rashomon]

DeeDee249,
Audra Matheny was sexually assaulted by her step-father and the crime-scene was staged e.g. a bedroom homicide.

Anderson said that Wilson was worried about the messy house, since police were there and relatives would be arriving. He asked if he could clean up, and Anderson told him he could. At the time, police did not know that Audra had been murdered. Wilson went to Audra’s bedroom first thing, stripped the sheets, and put them in the washing machine. It was a move that would later be questioned.

A (step)father whose child has just been found dead allegedly being concerned about such trivial things - given the situation - as a messy house because "relatives would be arriving" should have raised a thousand red flags with policeman Anderson. But it didn't, and so he let Wilson clean up the crime scene. This reminds me of the Boulder cops allowing te victims' advocates to wipe off the fingerprint dust in the Ramsey home.

Interesting case, UKGuy. But it can't be quite compared to the Ramsey case because the wife was not involved in the cover-up.
Whereas in the JBR case, Patsy Ramsey was the main stager of the scene (fibers from her jacket were found in the garrote, and she most likely wrote the ransom note). So I always come back to the question: why on earth would Patsy have covered up for John if he both molested and killed her daughter? For this does not mesh with a scenario in which JonBenet threatened John to tell Mommy and he silenced her for good.