Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evidence? Many on this thread have posted links stating that this is not true.
Experts in the field found it true based on the coroners autopsy report, although, they couldn't determine the length of time. I posted the link, however, does not implicate John, Patsy or their sons. Its possible the abuses hadn't yet occured at the time JB was examined by other physicians. A quick visual exam may not determine a ruptured hymen. 1 in 4 children are sexually abused, go unreported, undetected, and unspoken by the victim. Not complicated to comprehend.
Did I call it a fact? I wrote, "I disagree." I'm basing my opinion on what I've read, which may also be other people's opinions. Would you like me to quote the media, such as The Denver Post? Talk about skewed...
You can base your opinion on whatever you like. You cannot, however, quote opinion as "fact" when disputing another person's views.
BTW, where are your links?
I do not repeatedly post my links as I assume those who post on this forum are familiar with the "facts", which I obtain directly from official documentation, for example transcripts of interviews, the autopsy report, and other sources which are already in the public arena. I will read "opinion" and articles, but before I believe anything I check the original documents/reports and make sure it is accurate. You would be shocked at the amount that is not if you too had indulged in this level of checking "facts".
You state what you claim are facts but never post anything to support those "facts." And you slam other people for not agreeing with you.
I do not "slam" anyone. Please show an example. Disagreeing and pointing out the gaps in other's logic and claims is not SLAMMING...yet here you are, slamming me...
Evidence? Many on this thread have posted links stating that this is not true. If you have an opinion, say so, but don't roll your eyes and put others' opinions down. I don't see anything supporting what you claim to be "facts
Again, the links posted were opinion only and WILL NEVER constitute proof no matter how many times you repeat it. I had a discussion on another thread where a poster was adamant JR was not involved because she had read his book and was quoting that. The man is a suspect! Nothing he writes is "fact"!
I have posted many links on this site but those who are truly familiar with the facts in this case already know where to find the source documents.
Last edited by MsAnnThrope; 06-14-2012 at 04:34 PM..
It is a fact, for example, that JBR had 30 doctors appointments in 3 years...not just a GP, but a paediatrician.
That averages out to once every six weeks. She had no physical health problems AT ALL (see autopsy) apart from repeated urinary infections which are a classic sign of sexual abuse, as is chronic bed-wetting, which JBR also suffered from.
The autopsy confirmed no sexual assault at time of death, but PREVIOUS SCARRING and the lack of a hymen. (NB: the general public believes that JBR was sexually assaulted at the time of her death. This is incorrect).
I quote Dr Cyril Wecht, Forensic Pathologist, who studied and "translated" the autopsy -
"I have learned that the police called in three separate child sexual abuse experts. They separately and independently came to the same conclusion that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. Not that I needed anybody to hold my hand, but for saying that same thing I took abuse on national television from self-appointed Ramsey defenders and sycophants. But it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, a little girl with half of the hymen gone and she's dead, and you've got a tiny abrasion, a tiny contusion and a chronic inflammation of vaginal mucosa. That means it happened more than 72 hours earlier; we don't know how long, or how often it was repeated, but chronic means it wasn't from that night. This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."
Some background on Wecht, in case anyone starts disputing his opinion - he has presided over some 14,000 autopsies.
Since 1962, Wecht has had a private practice. He has served as a medical-legal and forensic pathology consultant in both civil and criminal cases. Wecht is consulted by both plaintiffs' and defense attorneys in civil cases, and by both prosecutors and defense attorneys in criminal cases in jurisdictions throughout the United States and abroad.
for the Health Hospital, Panama Canal Zone as a member of the Special Expert Panel on American Legionnaires’ Disease (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Centers for Disease Control)
for the ABC network television show 20/20 in regard to the John F. Kennedy assassination (in 1976) and the death of Elvis Presley
U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, Forensic Pathology Panel
[quote=Magritte25;24738338]Never? Well you live in AUS so I don't know what the pediatrician exams are like there. Here in America, babies and small children sometimes have their genitalia briefly examined for a variety of reasons.
Who considers medical examination of genitalia traumatic?[/quote]
The AMA for one, they have created ethical standards for it and recommend it not be performed at all without compelling reasons -
Genital examination in children requires ethical standards that should become routine practice in physician’s offices...The following practices are recommended for the genital examination of the paediatric patient...If the child is not at ease with a genital examination, force should never be used. The reason for the procedure should be clearly explained to the parents and the child. If the child refuses to cooperate, the examination should be postponed, if it is not urgently required... Examination of the genitalia should be performed if indicated, such as during the annual examination to check for normal development of the external genitalia, to look for endocrine anomalies, to check for physical signs of suspected abuse or if requested by the parents. It should be the last part of the physical examination.... Pelvic examinations are not a routine part of physical examination...In cases of sexual abuse (particularly in young children), a vaginal examination under general anesthesia is often the least traumatic method of assessing injury, and it should preferably be done by an experienced gynecologist. With careful planning and attention to detail, physicians can convey respect to young patients and gain their confidence, so that the genital examination is a nonthreatening, nontraumatic experience.
I believe that she fits the criteria for this syndrome. I also view her dressing up Jon Benet as an extension of this syndrome, she dressed up Jon Benet to receive vicarious attention, and additional kudos, "What a beautiful child you have.".
I believe Patsy was abusing Jon Benet, to get attention from medical professionals. And it went too far one night, maybe because maybe she had been drinking or was stressed. She created the "scene". I believe after a few days Jon Ramsey knew she had done it, but stayed silent, as he felt guilt and partial responsibilty, as he knew of the abuse, and did nothing about it.
As for the DNA, I completely discount that. I right now, probably have random DNA under my fingernails, I did not scrape them underneath with a scalpel while washing them today. I also have no doubt there is random DNA on me, and my clothing. I stayed at a hotel last night.
This scenario explains the note, fits in with the numerous medical appointments. This woman was screaming for attention. And she definitely got it.
I believe that she fits the criteria for this syndrome. I also view her dressing up Jon Benet as an extension of this syndrome, she dressed up Jon Benet to receive vicarious attention, and additional kudos, "What a beautiful child you have.".
I believe Patsy was abusing Jon Benet, to get attention from medical professionals. And it went too far one night, maybe because maybe she had been drinking or was stressed. She created the "scene". I believe after a few days Jon Ramsey knew she had done it, but stayed silent, as he felt guilt and partial responsibilty, as he knew of the abuse, and did nothing about it.
As for the DNA, I completely discount that. I right now, probably have random DNA under my fingernails, I did not scrape them underneath with a scalpel while washing them today. I also have no doubt there is random DNA on me, and my clothing. I stayed at a hotel last night.
This scenario explains the note, fits in with the numerous medical appointments. This woman was screaming for attention. And she definitely got it.
Absolutely I think it's a possibility, in fact a probability. Sadly we will never know because there was never a trial, therefore completely inadequate disclosure of relevant information like this.
The folly of Mary Lacy in declaring the Ramseys innocence based on the belated discovery of touch DNA can be appreciated when the current understanding of touch DNA is far from complete.
The interpretation of trace DNA analyses is currently the most controversial aspect of its use within the medico-legal systems. In placing a profile obtained from trace amounts of biological material found at the crime-scene into context, the analyst should take into account the potential for transfer of the material, the possible cellular origin of the DNA profile in question, the stochastic nature of the collection and analytical procedures and the possibility of artefacts confounding the true result. In most laboratories the analyticalmethods and statistical calculations employed for standard DNA typing are used for trace DNA - a process which is statistically and scientifically incorrectand which can bias calculations heavily"
An amusing little tale of the dangers of collection methods of dna -
"The Phantom of Heilbronn"
The murderer dubbed the Phantom of Heilbronn had been baffling German investigators for two years. The criminal was a rarity, a female serial killer, and a very busy one: police had linked DNA evidence from 40 crimes — including the infamous homicide of a policewoman in the southern German town of Heilbronn — to the same woman.
Police had found her DNA on items ranging from a cookie to a heroin syringe to a stolen car. They had put a $400,000 reward on her head. Profilers from around Europe were called in to help hunt her down. The police even consulted diviners and fortune-tellers in hopes of discovering her identity. The papers declared the case "the most mysterious serial crime of the past century."
The police thought they'd been looking everywhere. But it turns out they should have been looking down — at the cotton swabs they were using to collect DNA samples. On March 26, German police revealed that the cotton swabs they use may have all been contaminated by the same worker at a factory in Austria — and that the Phantom of Heilbronn never existed.
Scary, especially when you consider parts of the US still have the death penalty, and people blindly think DNA is infallible.
More at link
Once you educate yourself a bit about this "touch DNA" you quickly realise that it should never have been claimed to exonerate anybody...there are just too many variables, especially when we all know the crime scene was never secured, and JBR's body was handled by several people after her death.
I will try to find the link to a local professor and DNA expert who said he always laughed when he read that "police obtained DNA scrapings from under the fingernails" - apparently this simply cannot be done unless the body is very fresh, as the body's own acids and deterioration process will quickly destroy anything of significance. JBR was not found for HOURS yet they still claim fingernail DNA which in itself is laughable to anyone who is an expert.
You cannot, however, quote opinion as "fact" when disputing another person's views.
Once again, when was anyone's opinion stated as a fact?
Quote:
I do not "slam" anyone. Please show an example. Disagreeing and pointing out the gaps in other's logic and claims is not SLAMMING...
Surely you're aware that you don't "disagree and point out the gaps in others' logic" in your posts. Look at the other JBR thread, where you were called on your rude post. And your sarcasm is belittling.
Quote:
I have posted many links on this site but those who are truly familiar with the facts in this case already know where to find the source documents.
A quote, not a link, about a forensic scientist who never examined the child, with your implication that somehow, no one else on this forum is familiar with the case or knows anything about where to find source documents.
Once again, when was anyone's opinion stated as a fact?
Um yours.....quoting website opinion as fact. Which I have already highlighted to you...
Surely you're aware that you don't "disagree and point out the gaps in others' logic" in your posts. Look at the other JBR thread, where you were called on your rude post. And your sarcasm is belittling.
As I said, please show where I have "slammed" another poster?
A quote, not a link, about a forensic scientist who never examined the child, with your implication that somehow, no one else on this forum is familiar with the case or knows anything about where to find source documents.
link was provided...as was backup info on the forensic scientist I quoted.
I have just posted several links and additional information but you are personally attacking me instead of sticking to the topic of the thread, and perhaps providing real information to back up your blind insistence that there was an intruder.
One thing NO supporters of the Ramseys has been able to answer is this - why were there no footprints in the snow?
Never? Well you live in AUS so I don't know what the pediatrician exams are like there. Here in America, babies and small children sometimes have their genitalia briefly examined for a variety of reasons.
Who considers medical examination of genitalia traumatic?[/quote]
The AMA for one, they have created ethical standards for it and recommend it not be performed at all without compelling reasons -
Genital examination in children requires ethical standards that should become routine practice in physician’s offices...The following practices are recommended for the genital examination of the paediatric patient...If the child is not at ease with a genital examination, force should never be used. The reason for the procedure should be clearly explained to the parents and the child. If the child refuses to cooperate, the examination should be postponed, if it is not urgently required... Examination of the genitalia should be performed if indicated, such as during the annual examination to check for normal development of the external genitalia, to look for endocrine anomalies, to check for physical signs of suspected abuse or if requested by the parents. It should be the last part of the physical examination.... Pelvic examinations are not a routine part of physical examination...In cases of sexual abuse (particularly in young children), a vaginal examination under general anesthesia is often the least traumatic method of assessing injury, and it should preferably be done by an experienced gynecologist. With careful planning and attention to detail, physicians can convey respect to young patients and gain their confidence, so that the genital examination is a nonthreatening, nontraumatic experience.
Yeah that doesn't say genitalia exams are inherently traumatic. It says if the doctor is cognizant of the child's feelings, empathetic and professional, genitalia exams are nonthreatening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
