2024 JonBenet Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

Different PP I’m not going to post it here because it will probably violate Jeff’s rules but you can google “jonbenet full autopsy report” and you can read what it says about that portion of the autopsy. It will be in medical terms that you will not be able to decipher. But then you can google other documents where, as a PP pointed out, 4 out of 5 medical experts said this was clear prior sexual abuse, the other expert said it was inconclusive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

No, the report just notes the size - not the meaning of it. That is the purpose of a report.

The coroner explained to linda arndt, the lead investigator with the boulder police department at the time of the murder, that it was small and shriveled and indicative of prior sexual contact. He then deferred to medical experts on how long ago that contact may had occurred and how many times. This is all very well documented in articles accessible on Google and yes, books written by actual investors on the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

No, the report just notes the size - not the meaning of it. That is the purpose of a report.

The coroner explained to linda arndt, the lead investigator with the boulder police department at the time of the murder, that it was small and shriveled and indicative of prior sexual contact. He then deferred to medical experts on how long ago that contact may had occurred and how many times. This is all very well documented in articles accessible on Google and yes, books written by actual investors on the case.

Ok. Stop saying the report says this, that, and the other when it clearly doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

No, the report just notes the size - not the meaning of it. That is the purpose of a report.

The coroner explained to linda arndt, the lead investigator with the boulder police department at the time of the murder, that it was small and shriveled and indicative of prior sexual contact. He then deferred to medical experts on how long ago that contact may had occurred and how many times. This is all very well documented in articles accessible on Google and yes, books written by actual investors on the case.

Ok. Stop saying the report says this, that, and the other when it clearly doesn’t.

A report indicating cancer is going to show increased white blood cells. It’s not going to say leukemia. Don’t be intentionally obtuse.

[Anonymous]

I don't think this is ever going to be solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

No, the report just notes the size - not the meaning of it. That is the purpose of a report.

The coroner explained to linda arndt, the lead investigator with the boulder police department at the time of the murder, that it was small and shriveled and indicative of prior sexual contact. He then deferred to medical experts on how long ago that contact may had occurred and how many times. This is all very well documented in articles accessible on Google and yes, books written by actual investors on the case.

Ok. Stop saying the report says this, that, and the other when it clearly doesn’t.

A report indicating cancer is going to show increased white blood cells. It’s not going to say leukemia. Don’t be intentionally obtuse.

Sorry you got caught with your pants down.

[Anonymous]

This is so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

No, the report just notes the size - not the meaning of it. That is the purpose of a report.

The coroner explained to linda arndt, the lead investigator with the boulder police department at the time of the murder, that it was small and shriveled and indicative of prior sexual contact. He then deferred to medical experts on how long ago that contact may had occurred and how many times. This is all very well documented in articles accessible on Google and yes, books written by actual investors on the case.

Ok. Stop saying the report says this, that, and the other when it clearly doesn’t.

A report indicating cancer is going to show increased white blood cells. It’s not going to say leukemia. Don’t be intentionally obtuse.

Sorry you got caught with your pants down.

DP-you being pedantic is not helpful for this discussion. Your "points" are incorrect as the report needs discussion/analysis. As a PP above stated, your lab reports won't say leukemia when your white blood cells are off. But it doesn't make it less true. Your need to state the same thing over and over is something I would look into if I were you- rigidity does no one any good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

No, the report just notes the size - not the meaning of it. That is the purpose of a report.

The coroner explained to linda arndt, the lead investigator with the boulder police department at the time of the murder, that it was small and shriveled and indicative of prior sexual contact. He then deferred to medical experts on how long ago that contact may had occurred and how many times. This is all very well documented in articles accessible on Google and yes, books written by actual investors on the case.

Ok. Stop saying the report says this, that, and the other when it clearly doesn’t.

A report indicating cancer is going to show increased white blood cells. It’s not going to say leukemia. Don’t be intentionally obtuse.

Sorry you got caught with your pants down.

DP-you being pedantic is not helpful for this discussion. Your "points" are incorrect as the report needs discussion/analysis. As a PP above stated, your lab reports won't say leukemia when your white blood cells are off. But it doesn't make it less true. Your need to state the same thing over and over is something I would look into if I were you- rigidity does no one any good.

Posting lies and untruths isn’t helpful, but hasn’t stopped anyone either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.

A sadistic killer who just wants to mess with everyone, that’s who. Not a normal suburban housewife. She didn’t write the letter then go violently and maliciously murder her daughter.

What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer?

There was no prior abuse whatsoever at all and no signs of her having any pathology, and she was a devoted mother and cancer survivor. But suddenly she’s a sadistic killer?

That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse.

No, there wasn’t. There were tawdry allegations in grocery store tabloids, that’s all. Which apparently you aren’t smart enough to recognize as not reliable or credible.

Her pediatrician said there were absolutely no signs of abuse of any kind, and that he was a mandatory reporter and would lose his license if there was and he didn’t report it

The pediatrician never did any kind of internal gynecological exam (why would he on a 6 year old?). But, she actually had like 5 visits in the past year for vaginitis complaints, and had issues with soiling, so, the pediatrician probably should have dug a little deeper. The coroner, however, did do an internal exam and found signs of prior sexual abuse. This is not really disputed.

No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.

Go and read the report. He did indeed.

.

He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.

The coroner did conclude past sexual contact. I don’t feel comfortable posting the wording on DCUM since this was a six year old girl we’re talking about, but she had anatomical findings consistent with prior sexual contact. He deferred to medical experts on the timeframe of those injuries and how many times she may have been assaulted.

People should really read a book on the facts before claiming misinformation after viewing one sensationalist Netflix documentary.

Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.

It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.

So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.

The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.

Let’s see it.

Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.

You have nothing and contradict yourself. You said it’s in the autopsy (it’s not) then said read some fool’s self published book.

That’s a different PP. the autopsy itself very clearly states damage at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Damage between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions is indicative of prior sexual abuse. The size of the hymen - also noted in the report - is small and shriveled indicating prior sexual contact.

4 out of 5 medical experts that the coroner brought in determined the findings to be consistent prior sexual abuse, but some num num on DCUM says otherwise so…

The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”.

https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf

No, the report just notes the size - not the meaning of it. That is the purpose of a report.

The coroner explained to linda arndt, the lead investigator with the boulder police department at the time of the murder, that it was small and shriveled and indicative of prior sexual contact. He then deferred to medical experts on how long ago that contact may had occurred and how many times. This is all very well documented in articles accessible on Google and yes, books written by actual investors on the case.

Ok. Stop saying the report says this, that, and the other when it clearly doesn’t.

A report indicating cancer is going to show increased white blood cells. It’s not going to say leukemia. Don’t be intentionally obtuse.

Sorry you got caught with your pants down.

DP-you being pedantic is not helpful for this discussion. Your "points" are incorrect as the report needs discussion/analysis. As a PP above stated, your lab reports won't say leukemia when your white blood cells are off. But it doesn't make it less true. Your need to state the same thing over and over is something I would look into if I were you- rigidity does no one any good.

Posting lies and untruths isn’t helpful, but hasn’t stopped anyone either.

Look, as the PP said, a radiology report for example doesn’t usually say what something is, it gives findings. When I had an ectopic pregnancy it said “there is a 2cm x1cm echogenic focus in the right adnexa with blood flow, please correlate clinically” or something. Then I had bloodwork that showed elevated HCG. So then the ER doc interpreted this to say I had an ectopic pregnancy.

That’s how autopsy stuff works sometimes too. The coroner will say their findings and then a medical expert will interpret them. So when I say “my ultrasound said I had an ectopic pregnancy” those aren’t the actual words that were printed, but it was implied from the findings reported.

As PP said, don’t be intentionally obtuse.