Anyone else ever think she has a mark above her eye?
I see what you're talking about but remember this pic is from a magazine/tabloid. If not kept in pristine condition, these pages can get marks. For all we know, that mark could be from a drop of soda or even the person holding the pic in that spot too long.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining the 'wronged' spouse going to these great lengths to protect their cheating spouse and their murdering lover when their child turned up dead as a result. I'd think they'd rightfully and righteously throw the cheating spouse and murdering lover to the wolves, take their remaining living child, and move on. But maybe that's just me. :dunno:
Also take into consideration that Patsy supposedly had no sex drive dur to everything she went through during her cancer ordeal. It wouldn't rule out JOhn though but IMO this crime doesn't come across as some boiling bunnies, fatal attraction crime.
Would Patsy write a note for a rival that boils bunnies? Doubtful.
Dave, your book is supposed to arrive this week and I can't wait to read it. But some of your responses are questionable here
Not directed at me but what's so questionable about his responses there?
Dave is PDI through and through. He also has a unique posting style(which I like). A hint of sarcasm, a hint of humor when it calls for it, also good at easing a tense debate among members, and can jump right into a long, complex debate at the drop of a hat. Very well known here and well liked and rightfully so.
I have yet to order his book. I read and reread a lot of books on this case earlier this year and started to get burnt out before I got around to his. After I read Woodward's book maybe I'll take the plunge. It gets mixed reviews but hell most books do.
So was there prior sexual abuse or not? The night of her murder, was Jonbenet sexually assaulted or not?
Always been controversial even though many experts agree there was and some like Arndt who witnessed the autopsy believe she was. I'm no big fan of Arndt but since she said looking at the damage to JOnbenet's genitals was shocking, I'll take her word for it.
CBS claiming she wasn't threw many for a loop, including me. They needed to back that up with a bit more evidence IMO.
I don't even know where to start. So let's start here: "Quote Originally Posted by ZoriahNZ View Post
I do find it very odd that the investigators quickly glossed over the sexual assault evidence on the show, but maybe they were just playing it safe with regard to the impending lawsuit from the R's lawyer.
It was inexcusable to gloss over it. Playing it safe from a lawsuit?!? They named Burke as the killer. If they wanted to play it safe, maybe they should have not went in that direction or if doing so, actually make a solid case for it.
Mentioning abuse/sexual assault doesn't mean it was Burke doing it. There's a list of suspects as far as the abuse goes so its not like that spotlight would shine only on Burke. IMO that's why it was quickly glossed over. Bring up abuse or sexual assault and it causes the viewer to think about other people besides Burke. It was inexcusable to gloss over it. "
Maybe because there isn't one single piece of evidence that points to Burke sexually assaulting his sister. And the "experts" can't even agree if of any sexual assault before, after or during the crime.
I don't think he assaulted her either. Anything going on between those two(such as the incident under the blanket) I would place in the "playing doctor" category.
Experts cant even agree on who murdered her. Experts cant agree on who wrote the note. Uncertainty is no reason to gloss over certain aspects of the case. IDI docs pulled that stunt for years. It used to infuriate many sleuths. I'm not giving it a free pass for using the same tactic just because its a RDI show.
I do realize there are time constraints for any show covering this case. You could never fit in all the evidence into a documentary. Some things would have to be left out but abuse/sexual assault is something that should always be addressed.
Apparently you are at odds with every single expert on this case.
Considering the fact many experts believe she was being sexually abused, Caroline is not at odds with "every single expert on the case".
We're entering territory where everything mentioned on that one show is somehow gospel. Many people have followed this case for years and know a lot more about the case than what little was addressed by CBS. JUst because CBS said something or failed to say something doesn't mean everything we know about the case was swallowed up by some black hole.
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
Mary never claimed kids don't injure themselves playing outside. No need to build up straw men here.
Instead of constantly disagreeing with everything people say here maybe you should do some more reading on the case. There are many intelligent posters here who have debated the issue of abuse for years and they're not just pulling it out of thin air.
And this is why we can't have nice things. Every single bit of this is supposition and not backed up by a single person on this case.
You're doing it again.
Hell, the woman who actually took the photograph pointed it out years ago. LIke I said, just because it wasn't mentioned in a TV show you watched doesn't mean its a supposition "not backed up by a single person on this case".
Are you speaking of Clemente? Clemente has been hawking this point of view for years. Only reason any of us know of him is because of Jonbenet.
No......that's the only reason
you know of him.
To me, the mark on her arm looks like ringworm. Maybe a reason for not keeping the dog?
INteresting observation.
I'd like to see this bruise/injury/ringworm from a different POV.
Pediatricians do not ask out right. None of us do. We look for symptoms, clues, etc. Vaginitis is easily explained and I still have prescription ointment for my kiddos. I trust what her pediatrician says. If we can't trust experts with a history with their client, who can we trust?
Obviously its natural to trust what a doctor says but I wouldn't consider this guy a picture of integrity. He was there that morning doping up Patsy with enough benzos to down an elephant. He's JOnbenet's pediatrician......its not his place to be doing that. Patsy has her own doctor. Why is he there so early in the timeline? I mean other than to heavily sedate Patsy. His client is dead in the wine cellar even if he thinks she is kidnapped. His services as a doctor for Jonbenet are not required.
Does your child's pediatrician hand you mothers little helpers whenever you need them? If not, would you trust your child's pediatrician if you knew he handed adults medication like candy? I'd imagine not.
Christmas Eve they had been in and out of the wine cellar room taking presents up which had been hidden there, to put under the tree after the children were in bed. Their foot prints would have been everywhere in that house.
I think too big an issue is made of WC footprints. LIke you said, everyone and their grandma had been down there those few days. Berserker asked if Patsy's footprints are down there. Are Fleet's? He'd been in there the 23rd and 26th. Are John's? How about Pugh's family who got the Christmas trees out of the WC? How about the footprints of others at that party?
IMO footprints in the WC are not some smoking gun no matter whose prints were identified.
Why is that fishy? My dentist prescribed meds when I had a cold sore. Lock him up!
Wow. You seriously don't know the difference between
your dentist prescribing
you meds for your cold sore and a child's pediatrician prescribing their mother who is not a patient a schedule IV medication. Unreal.
looking through a lot of her pictures, those are the only ones that she had a mark right there in. Other pics her arm was free of marks.
Yeah and over the years when people were digging for pics showing these marks, the marks only showed up in pagaent photos.
Who prescribed the meds? Regardless, Dr. Beuf had treated the family for years. I'm not sure why this is an issues.
YOu know who prescribed the meds. You keep saying its ok.
It doesn't matter if he treated the Ramseys for generations, it is not his place to be giving Patsy medication in that setting. Patsy has a doctor. Instead of calling him/her, she calls JOnbenet's doctor. Even though you think its normal, its far from normal for a child's doctor to make a house call and give that child's parent benzos. He also became her spokesperson and told BPD she was not going to speak to them. Its not his place to be making such decisions. This doctor got very lucky the investigation was botched and the FBI was cut loose because he would have had a lot of splainin' to do.
You were already told who did that and now you're immediately asking again who did it.
Are you trolling? Now I wish I hadn't wasted my time responding to your comments about her pediatrician. You don't seem to care what anyone has to say anyways. No matter what anyone says, you simply say "there's no evidence whatsoever" or parrot a question you've asked that's already been answered.
A lot of your posts are insulting to many people here who have contributed a lot to this site. Someone can post info from many experts and they did it for other members to read/learn more about the JBR case and I know from experience this takes time. For you to just immediately jump all over that persons posts with generic, blanket statements acting like its nothing is insulting.
TRICIA- can you repost how to block certain posts from showing in the feed- please and thank you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click on the persons profile and on the left hand side there is an 'ignore user' option and their posts will no longer show up in threads.
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.
Thanks for finding that Zoriah. I am in the small group that believe she was being drugged in certain situations, mainly in various pageant and modeling pics.
Under Settings you can add people to the Ignore List. I am wondering if I will still have to see all the argumentative posts though if people quote them and respond?
I have four people blocked. I only see their posts if someone quotes them which thankfully isn't very often.
Fleet White also said he opened the WC door but didn't know where the light was and couldn't see anything from the doorway. Yet, when JR went down with Fleet he could see immediately that JBR was in there before he turned the light on. Odd. Considering she was wrapped up in a blanket.
My own speculation here, but Fleet went down there basically as the cops were getting there. EVEN IF her body wasn't in there at the time, it could have easily been moved there when JR went missing for the 1 1/2 hours (not missing from the house i doubt just out of Linda Arndt's field of vision.
JR was not aware that Fleet had went down there that morning on his own and JR changed his story to reflect that later on. It does look hinky.
JMOO and hopefully the long term sleuths can point you to the links to help you with references to these points.
The basement sequence IMO is one of the key pieces of the overall puzzle and the case might be able to be solved if this sequence could be unraveled. I was hoping the CBS show would go in depth on this issue. Its my biggest disappointment about the show. I always had issues with it as red flags are waving all over the place during that sequence. KOlar did a great job talking about it in his book and it deserved to be acknowledged on a show that millions of people who do not know as much as we do about the case to give them a different perspective on what they have been fed all these years(mainly IDI docs).
With regards to the cigar box which wasn't mentioned on the special, do you think there's any significance in the detail of one or two of them being partially unwrapped?
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cigar-box.htm
If memory serves me correctly, neither cigar box was wrapped. One box John admits to owning yet multiple times he attempts to distance himself from the other box. When these are brought up in Patsy's interviews, she has the collossal gall to lie and say neither of them smoke even though people saw Patsy smoke cigars at her birthday party.
IMO the cigar box they try to distance themselves from in the wine cellar contains something other than cigars. THis is also the box that Fleet touched on his last trip to the wine cellar(along with the piece of tape). Something about it must have stood out to him as well.
To believe John that the second box isn't his and he doesn't smoke that brand would mean an intruder brought his/her own box of cigars and forgot to take them when he/she left. Obviously that is preposterous.
Some of these various oddities in the basement and wine cellar are the main reason some believed Fleet was the killer or at least an accessory. I don't believe that to be the case. He is just a crucial witness in that sequence and I wish the corrupt DA had treated him with at least an ounce of dignity and respect and maybe Fleet could have actually helped them solve this mystery. How he was treated is deplorable and I hope someday he speaks publicly about his ordeal.
