The Case of JonBenet Ramsey-CBS Sept. 18 # 2

[PositiveLight]

Yes, three times.

Yes, a six year old.

One head trauma in 2 years I could buy. Two head traumas in 2 years is pushing it. 3 head traumas in 2 years, and a 4th that kills her?

Yes, she's six years old. Not a newly walking toddler. Her frequent traumas should be skinned hands and knees, and shin bruises. Not repeated head trauma that requires explanation to the doctor.

If she were a grown woman and came in with 'accidental' head trauma 3 times in 24 months, she would get a social services referral. If she died because of the 4th head trauma, they'd be looking at the other 3 with fresh eyes.

Agreed!

 

[ThinkHard]

Regarding the pictures of a doll in the wine cellar, are we sure that isn't just one of the many (partially open) presents we know for a fact were in the wine cellar? I was looking at ACR's page on the basement that was linked earlier and she includes a picture of FAO Schwartz wrapping paper.

We also know for a fact that the Ramseys had that exact wrapping paper on Dec. 25th:

This one shows at least three presents with that paper:

And if you look at this picture of the blanket, there is clearly a box on the floor that is white with some sort of yellow design on it that looks similar to the yellow box with a white rocking horse on it on the FAO wrapping paper. It's in approximately the same place as the doll would be.

So if you compare the pattern on the wine cellar mystery object to the yellow, red, and blue squares on the wrapping paper behind JB, I can see the yellow square (mistaken for doll hair) above a red square (mistaken to be a dress) with two little dark triangles where the blue and purple squares are wrapped around the box. The red square's rocking horse is somewhat distorted because it's being wrapped around the back part of the box.

Couple questions....and hoping long time sleuthers can help here.....my first thought is perhaps JBR carried that blanket down herself when she came down to see what Burke was doing? I know kids who would carry around an oversize blanket like that to go down and watch cartoons in the am.....so was just thinking perhaps she brought that down herself.


Which brought me to this question.....when did JBR get changed into PJ's......did she come back from the whites in them? Parents say she was asleep when they got home....did they change her while she was still asleep? Just wondering if she was asleep the whole time how she went from Xmas dinner clothes, to being found dead in PJ's?

 

[observation]

Where are Dr. Beuf's reports?

Likely in a shredder by now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThinkHard]

BBM. I agree with you that I am not convinced that she was sexually by anyone. I do believe that she was not toilet trained at 6 1/2, regularly had irritating and germ introducing urine and feces in her perineal area, and that the mother who was incapable of providing toilet training (neglect), was also frustrated (emotional abuse) with the toilet problems, and also likely scrubbed the child raw. This could be classified as 'sexualized' abuse. I would suspect that JBR often rubbed her genitals not so much as a 'sexual' gesture but because they were sore and itchy, which may have added further problems to the mother-child relationship. This is all JMO conjecture, but I agree with (from The Bonita Papers): "... 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...." JMO this is the Occam's Razor most probably position for me with the totality of information available (with congratulations to all those who have never ruled out the BDI theory as also plausible).

Respectfully but that is not Occam's razor....because Occam's razor would be based on facts. And your information regarding toileting issues is innacuarate and subjective.

 

[PositiveLight]

Why should I have to verified? Have you? You make a claim that you've seen a pediatrician ask a child about sexual abuse.

She is referring to being verified on this site so that others will know you are a MD, if you are. That's all.

 

[Frigga]

There is absolutely NO evidence to support any of these theories. None. So kiddos playing outside don't injure each other? Kids that play outside do. All the time

Are you kidding? Wow.

 

[Magdalyn]

Who's to say anyone carried her down the stairs....perhaps that's were the crime occurred in the first place. that seems like pretty poor reasoning for a CJ class....not to mention an almost ten year old can definetly carry a 6 year old, especially sense he was the tallest in his class and she was slight.

Nice! I'll let my son know some in his high school elective class have poor reasoning. :thumb:

 

[PositiveLight]

I don't believe any of this was new. These same theories have been discussed up and down and back and forth for years. All of them. Nothing was new or ground breaking. Same ole, same ole.

Honestly, I have to disagree with you. I have only become aware of some of the evidence they covered only because I started researching the case. The lay person more than likely knew none of the things that the show covered. Plus, most shows are full of fluff. I honestly feel that they did look at everything properly even if they felt one way of another. They still did testing to see if there was any legs for the IDI theory. Compared to all of the other shows on this case, this one by far covered more ground and destroyed a lot of the theories especially in regards to the touch DNA. THAT was amazing to witness. I learned a lot from the show and I'm still learning more each day about this case. It is one of the reasons I think, that so many people are interested in this case. There is SO much evidence its crazy.

 

[ThinkHard]

Who knows how complete these records are, but she was diagnosed with one bladder infection in 4/94. (for the uninitiated, that's a UTI that has progressed to the bladder). I clipped and highlighted in red things that are of note to those who believe she may have been sexually abused.

Regarding the red highlighted pieces while I think some are significant....others are not.....

Her toilet training regression is classic in children that age who's parents especially mothers are battling cancer as JBR's min was at that time.

Because of wiping issues chronic UTI's are very very common amongst girls this age....and bubble baths are HIGHLY irritated to girls that deal with frequent boughts.

Have no idea why chicken pox rash even occurring in vaginal area would be any indication of abuse.....it's only evidence that the boils spread because she likely scratched and wiped herself of touched herself.

Asking about reproductive issues,,,,aka where do babies come from....also completely normal.

The chronic congestive issues and stomach ailments likely due to food allergies or sensitivities.

The big question marks to me are the injuries.....

 

[fedfan4life]

Who prescribed the meds? Regardless, Dr. Beuf had treated the family for years. I'm not sure why this is an issues. No, and I repeat, NO, pediatrician or family practioner is going to examine for sexual abuse or ask outright about sexual abuse. None of us in this field would ever do that. We look for signs and go from there. Bottom line, he never thought she was sexually abused. I take his opinion seriously. I'm sorry you don't.

You are a physician or medical professional? Or, you are just trying to make us think that you are?

Your one-line, overarching assertions cannot be taken seriously, as you have not proven that you have intimate knowledge of any medical specialty or otherwise. If you are, in fact, an individual with specific knowledge that allows for unique insight, perhaps you should become verified. That way, others here are able to give you leeway that currently does not apply.

 

[carolinea]

Apparently you are at odds with every single expert on this case.

That's an odd statement, considering I posted the findings from a group of experts who worked on the case.

 

[ThinkHard]

Nobody ever said this was a normal masturbation. Not a single expert

What point are you getting at? That was in reference to transcripts by experts who said they felt JBRs vaginal injuries weren't from masturbation.....I said while that might be true for a normal child.....I have seen children who are aggressive in their masterbation and I'm quite certain their vaginal areas would look quite different the a normal child masterbating at that age.

The experts in the report I referenced did not specify what kind of masturbation they meant, but I can only assume they were referring to normal touching fir a 6 year old girl.

So again, I don't understand what point you are trying to make?

 

[otg]

Yeah. I think she changed her user name.

She did once before. Take a look at Post #1195, #1197, and #1200:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Hope-27-January-2013-2&p=8879903#post8879903

 

[Brendon]

It's one thing to discuss the spider web, it's another to show someone going though the window trying to avoid it. That was new.

And the demonstration of the boy bashing the skull in a remarkably similar way with the flashlight was new.

And showing that the touch DNA was irrelevant was good for people to see.

I'll add, it was very helpful of Burke to admit that he went back downstairs after everyone was kind off in bed.

But I'm not 100% happy with the show, I thought they were sloppy with their conclusion which relied heavily on imagination, not facts that they could back up. They have no way of knowing that JBR snuck a piece of pineapple from Burke and that made him mad and hit hurt. They're just guessing - like many of us here are guessing. I don't really feel that it was responsible for them to do that - even though I'm glad they got Burke's name out there in a big way.

I'm not quite getting that. You are glad that they are getting Burke's name out there in a big way. Yet at the same time you are saying everyone is guessing - assuming you are accepting there is not enough evidence to do otherwise.

Can you accept that Burke may be entirely innocent. That he is being dragged into the public eye again. That this is most probably taking an enormous toll on his life. And there is next to no actual real evidence he did anything.

 

[carolinea]

Yes I read that and that is there opinion and it may or may not be true. But you have to recognize they are referring to normal level of masterbation for a child her age....in the example I gave, the level and aggressiveness of what I witnessed including inserting objects like pens, pencils etc, into herself was far far far beyond normal....this child was basically masterbating multiple times a day and it was far from gentle. A child with sensory processing who has this issue is rare, so I doubt the experts would have considered that level of masterbation and the evidence it might leave behind in a child that age....so it wouldn't have fallen in the scope of their lens as an acception to that comment when they made it.....I believe they are referring only to what would be for a typical child....but we know the Ramsey children were not typical....so it's possible in my mind, that some evidence of activity could have been self inflicted.

That said I certainly don't think she shoved a paintbrush handle so aggressively she would have screamed.....If she was sexually aggressive at all herself, that doesn't exclude the idea someone else was also doing something to her.

By all accounts, JBR was a social, outgoing child with a full schedule--school, dance lessons, pageant lessons, frequent play dates, church, etc. I find it hard to believe that she could have had that level of compulsion to masturbate and not one single person noticed.

 

[CoolJ]

Here's a better quality coloured (although clearly touched up) copy of photo being discussed up-thread. I don't think there's any mark evident above the eye. I do find the dilation of her pupils interesting, though.

The dilation of the pupils is certainly curious especially when you consider the photography lights should be constricting the pupils

 

[PositiveLight]

Seriously? The pineapple means nothing. The Ramsey's left all of their dishes out from that day. I could see Patsy giving the kiddos a bowl of pineapple sometime during the day and it was left there. They left every single thing out from that day.

The spider web has been discussed over and over for years. Just because Lou Smit said it does not make it true. But it makes me feel bad to say that because I think that Lou Smit was a good and decent man and his heart was in the right place.

Um. The pineapple is actually a HUGE clue! It shows time of death. Did you watch the program? They went into detail about where the pineapple was in her intestinal tract at the time of death and also that the evidence showed it was eaten much later than dinner because her dinner had already passed through and was broken down. That is HUGE. Who fed her the pineapple? Who ever did was awake and moving around the home at the time of her death. For PR to say she didn't recognize it and for BR to go wide eyed.... thats telling.
The spider web is fairly new info to me and again the only reason i was aware of it was recent research into the case. BUT the show proved to me the fact that no intruder came through that window. The show did the testing that we all wish we had the capability to do but can't. I'm so glad they did all of that testing and on national tv. If BR and JR are innocent, then they would not still be under a cloud of suspicion. THEY put themselves in that position by not helping the LE and hiding behind lawyers. If they really wanted the killer found they would gladly stand and be confronted and do what it took to clear their names. But they didn't. So, if people think they are guilty it's pretty much their own dang fault for not helping with the case. They held the case up by not letting LE rule them out. They looked at 150 other suspects and ruled them out. That is my opinion of course and how I feel but I will say this. Had it been my child? I would have beat the doors of the PD down to rule me out so they could move on to the next potential suspect.
Their lawyers did them an injustice then and their lawyer now is doing them an injustice.
When it is all said and done, a little 6 year old child has been brutally murdered and has never received any sort of justice. She never will either.

 

[fedfan4life]

What happened to Scarlett Scarpetta.? She is usually in the thick of it when it comes to defending the Ramsey's.

She was chastised, then stated that she was leaving.

 

[mauidreemn]

What point are you getting at? That was in reference to transcripts by experts who said they felt JBRs vaginal injuries weren't from masturbation.....I said while that might be true for a normal child.....I have seen children who are aggressive in their masterbation and I'm quite certain their vaginal areas would look quite different the a normal child masterbating at that age.

The experts in the report I referenced did not specify what kind of masturbation they meant, but I can only assume they were referring to normal touching fir a 6 year old girl.

So again, I don't understand what point you are trying to make?

My point is; I never recall anyone saying anything about masturbation. Can you please point me to those documents?

 

[ThinkHard]

I agree but you can't claim a child sexually abused other children without evidence. And from all accounts, Burke seems to be a normal guy. What else do you want?

Burke isn't even close to a normal guy! Do you have much experience observing human psychiatric pathophysiology?

Um no. CBS is faultering in all categories. They would LOVE a lawsuit, even if the are total in left field. It gives them an audience. I think that pointing at Burke and the Ramsey!s gives them the most coverage.

You assert a lot that CBS's claims that they backed with evidence holds no merit....yet you present no facts to back up your assertions.