Wendy Murphy: Klonopin + pineapple?

[Tristan]

he also mentioned the "eroded hymen" and "chronic interstitial vaginal injuries," which were clear to her experienced eyes as a sexual assault prosecutor that there had been sexual abuse that predated the murder. Dr. Wecht is clear on this as well; I believe he said it went back days if not longer.

Finally, she again mentioned that fibers consistent with John's clothing were found on JonBenet's genitals. When asked about those fibers during police questioning, Lin Wood and John's reactions were very telling: false anger about the implication and classic "lawyer distraction" strategy of changing the subject. But no real answers about how his fibers got there. Couldn't be from the washing machine since the oversized underpants had just been taken from the package.

Halycon...EXCELLENT post. John Ramseys clothing fibers were found on
Jonbenet's genitals. HOW was he planning on explaining that?

Oh, I KNOW!! With a really good lawyer!!!

 

[JMO8778]

I just recalled something else I heard Wendy say on that program...

She made the point that as a lawyer she would never let a client answer such probing questions about drug use unless they were truly relevant in an investigation. That the Ramseys were asked this rang all sorts of bells for Wendy -- she didn't think the investigators would be talking about Klonopin unless it was in either the pineapple or JB's body or both. The lawyers would not be talking about it just for the sake of talking about it.

She also said that if JonBenet were being used in production, she might be more accommodating if drugged.

She might also be asleep,or too drugged to recall anything clearly.In which case it might be easy to tell her she must have been dreaming.
Someone mentioned that PR probably wouldn't let her do anything like that because of the pageants.But I think it's possible, not only because JR seemed to be the "boss" of the family,but also consider that with computer imaging being able to change things these days,I'm guessing that someone might could have modified her enough so no one could regoconize her.Or maybe her face wouldn't be shown at all.
If this is what was going on, the most likely thing I can think of is JB wasn't drugged as much as someone thought, and she woke up and screamed, recognized what was going on, and the person or persons doing it.Especially if it was being filmed,she could have told someone about that,so perhaps that's when she got hit on the head and the rest followed.I have to agree with another poster,it sure did seem like someone wanted to make sure she was dead.And with the interest in politics there,I don't think it's unfathomable that it could have been done for political favors or whatnot.
Are we getting close to the truth here? I'm guessing that might be where the sueing comments are coming from.

And like my name says,JMO=just my opinion.

 

[s_finch]

[/color]


She might also be asleep,or too drugged to recall anything clearly.In which case it might be easy to tell her she must have been dreaming.
Someone mentioned that PR probably wouldn't let her do anything like that because of the pageants.But I think it's possible, not only because JR seemed to be the "boss" of the family,but also consider that with computer imaging being able to change things these days,I'm guessing that someone might could have modified her enough so no one could regoconize her.Or maybe her face wouldn't be shown at all.
If this is what was going on, the most likely thing I can think of is JB wasn't drugged as much as someone thought, and she woke up and screamed, recognized what was going on, and the person or persons doing it.Especially if it was being filmed,she could have told someone about that,so perhaps that's when she got hit on the head and the rest followed.I have to agree with another poster,it sure did seem like someone wanted to make sure she was dead.And with the interest in politics there,I don't think it's unfathomable that it could have been done for political favors or whatnot.
Are we getting close to the truth here? I'm guessing that might be where the sueing comments are coming from.

And like my name says,JMO=just my opinion.

That was me, or at least I was one of the people who said I didn't think PR would let JBR be involved in a pedo ring because of her Miss America quest. Even though it's true that her face could be digitially altered or not shown, etc.... I still have a hard time seeing PR risk the CROWN for pervy reasons. Who could guarantee her that JBR's face wouldn't ever surface in a pedo pic?? I've known pageant moms (as I'm sure most of you have) and they are so focused on nothing but winning those titles that they ruin friendships and everything else in their pursuit.

 

[BBB167893]

Damn! I missed that one!

"Who could guarantee her that JBR's face wouldn't ever surface in a pedo pic??"

Per my brother:

"Simple, guv: she had a pageant mask on."

Anyone want to tackle that one?

 

[JMO8778]

Damn! I missed that one!

"Who could guarantee her that JBR's face wouldn't ever surface in a pedo pic??"

Per my brother:

"Simple, guv: she had a pageant mask on."

Anyone want to tackle that one?

No,I...think you hit the nail on the head with that one !

 

[LinasK]

Stratton Oakmont Inc., v. Prodigy Services (1995) established that defamation exposure existed even at the higher Internet Service Provider (ISP) level. Portions of the 1996 Federal Communication Act were based on Stratton.

However, since websleuths forums are moderated and the content is controlled (modified or entirely deleted), then publishing standards apply. Simply put, when you "control content", you become a publisher. To remain beyond the reach of a ruling on a defamation case, publishers focus heavily on whether or not what they produce is based on "reliable" facts/data.

Moreover, editors (or like gatekeeping agents) at publishing firms are also exposed if they willfully fail to exercise due diligence as regards the existence of reliable facts/data upon which the published work product was based.

Further still, if in producing a certain work product, the publisher's standards were to be knowingly and willfully ignored or, even worse, purposefully set aside, then "malice" (what libel lawyers dream of) could become a major focal point. Hence, instead of an "Absence of Malice" [I'm sure most everyone remembers the Wilfred Brimley/Paul Newman scene in that movie], a presence of malice could, and almost assuredly would, be argued.

Wudge. evidently the California Supreme Court feels otherwise. Have you seen my thread in the Up To The Minute forum posted today???

 

[FourthBase]

Wait a minute. People here actually think that the Ramseys were incapable of exploiting their daughter as a sexualized object?

http://www.laist.com/images/jonbenet.jpg

I'm sure many here have seen or heard of those disgusting "child supermodel" sites.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/730491.asp?cp1=1
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/04/19/barely_legal/index.html
I think the pageants are just a fancier form of "supermodeling".
And "supermodeling" is just a hair away from being child .

Are there actually people here who support the act of dressing up one's 6-year-old daughter like a Vegas stripper? :sick:

My stomach turns at the idea that JonBenet could have been sedated with a drug like Klonopin. Bedwetting? Rendering her unconscious for sexual abuse? Relaxing her muscles? :sick:

 

[Pedro]

Fourth Base...interesting hat.

 

[FourthBase]

Fourth Base...interesting hat.

What's a hat?

 

[Pedro]

What's a hat?

Sorry, a moniker, I like it "FourthBase"

 

[FourthBase]

Sorry, a moniker, I like it "FourthBase"

I created it as my screenname on a Red Sox message board.
It's a baseball pun/misnomer: first base, second, third...
I also use it on the Rigorous Intuition message board.

 

[Pedro]

Thanks for telling me, again good choice.

 

[BBB167893]

"People here actually think that the Ramseys were incapable of exploiting their daughter as a sexualized object?"

They think they were incapable of a LOT of things!

Back to Wendy Murphy for a moment.

Let's speak the unspeakable: let's say she does get a suit against her and wins. Would that then FORCE the DA to arrest John Ramsey?

 

[JMO8778]

"People here actually think that the Ramseys were incapable of exploiting their daughter as a sexualized object?"

They think they were incapable of a LOT of things!

Back to Wendy Murphy for a moment.

Let's speak the unspeakable: let's say she does get a suit against her and wins. Would that then FORCE the DA to arrest John Ramsey?

I would venture to say no,because that would be a civil suit,and not as much evidence is needed to win.
Maybe someone else here would know more.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, a guy can dream, can't he?

 

[JMO8778]

Well, a guy can dream, can't he?

sure, can a girl,too? I'd love to see justice served in this case

 

[JMO8778]

I've known pageant moms (as I'm sure most of you have) and they are so focused on nothing but winning those titles that they ruin friendships and everything else in their pursuit.

Reminds me of the "cheerleader mom" awhile back.It's so dumb when ppl stop at nothing to win !

 

[4sure]

You know...I don't know who Wendy Murphy is, but I've had the chance to read up on her a bit on this forum. What she is saying is very interesting.

I read Stephen Singular's book this past week. I thought, and it's just my humble opinion, that he has some very interesting perspectives on this case.

Now we have Wendy Murphy making statements that dovetail into what Singular has stated about this murder. I still think Singular's on to something here. One Boulder cop, in particular (can't recall his name)...spoke with Singular and told Singular he was 'very incisive' and seemed to give every indication that Stephen was near the mark as to his theory about what may have happened to this poor little girl.

Singular states that it may be quite probable that one parent knew more than the other...that perhaps NEITHER of them actually murdered their daughter, but they know who probably did. That would explain, perhaps, why two sets of attorneys were hired...two for him...two for her.

There is a woman by the name of Kay Griggs, who has gone underground to reveal the truth about our government/military connections (her husband is a former NATO head of Psychological Operations). The minister interviewing her mentions the Ramsey case to her after she had made a remark about a 'sexual perversion' ring in Colorado. She stated, unequivocally, that the parents 'were involved' and this whole thing is a cover-up. She stated this is the reason there has been no arrest (this was before the Karr fiasco), and there will be, no arrest. AND...according to Singular, perhaps too many well-connected political figureheads in and around Boulder would be 'hurt' if this thing blew wide open.

Mrs. Griggs is from a proment Virginia family, with a strong Naval Intelligence background. I've viewed her entire 8-1/2 interview with Pastor Strawcutter. I think she's telling the truth...and I still say that what Singular is saying ties into what Mrs. Griggs states in her interview.

JMHO, of course...

I was just going through some 911 web sites when I stumbled upon excerpts from this interview. I almost fell over when Mrs. Griggs mentioned a "sex ring in Colorado" and "that little girl was probably involved". I had to search here at WS to see if anyone else had brought up her name before. I wonder how this could help explain AG's sudden financial succsess. This also could help explain why Nancy Krebs who claimed that she was molested by the last two men who saw JBR alive was quickly hushed up and made to look insane. As I think about it even more it sure helps explain the last paragraph of the RN.

 

[JMO8778]

I was just going through some 911 web sites when I stumbled upon excerpts from this interview. I almost fell over when Mrs. Griggs mentioned a "sex ring in Colorado" and "that little girl was probably involved". I had to search here at WS to see if anyone else had brought up her name before. I wonder how this could help explain AG's sudden financial succsess. This also could help explain why Nancy Krebs who claimed that she was molested by the last two men who saw JBR alive was quickly hushed up and made to look insane. As I think about it even more it sure helps explain the last paragraph of the RN.

Good thoughts,I've always thought if more people were involved than just the R's,that JR knew more than PR did and that she was probably naive as to what was really going on.It sounds like JR wore the pants in the family and had the final say all the time.But I wouldn't discount him lying to her or leaving things out in order to do so though.
It reminds me of PR saying 'why did they do this?' and 'we didn't mean for this to happen'.

 

[4sure]

Good thoughts,I've always thought if more people were involved than just the R's,that JR knew more than PR did and that she was probably naive as to what was really going on.It sounds like JR wore the pants in the family and had the final say all the time.But I wouldn't discount him lying to her or leaving things out in order to do so though.
It reminds me of PR saying 'why did they do this?' and 'we didn't mean for this to happen'.

I agree. I've just started kicking this around alot. Could it help explain some of R's actions that morning?
I suppose a lot of things could of happend to JBR that night. Was she loaned out for some sort of perverted episode and brought back dead? Was she attacked at home with permission from her parents? Or was she attacked because her parents wouldn't let her be part of the ring?
But imagine JR and PR that morning, knowing the people they may be dealing with and their connections, calling LE and then wondering if they could trust them or the FBI. This could explain the call for their "friends" to come over. Later on after JR discovers the body he becomes even more paranoid. His "new" friends the Whites quickly turn on them and forces them back to the "old friends" and soon they are convinced that they need to leave Boulder as soon as possible because they have no idea if theirs anyone they can trust.