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:

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.

“Go and read the report. He did indeed.” Was a lie. Now there’s just a bunch of backpedaling. Post the actual report you’re referring to which is not the autopsy. What’s the problem?

[Anonymous]

My understanding is that there is debate about prior sexual abuse and that one of the reasons the grand jury indictment didn't proceed was because of the lack of agreement.

[Anonymous]

Ok, ignoring the one poster who wants to argue semantics, yes most experts said the autopsy indicated prior sexual abuse and I think one expert said it wasn’t conclusive, so that probably didn’t help with the state not wanting to proceed because it wasn’t unanimous. But I think the main reason it didn’t proceed was that all the evidence was circumstantial - even the mother’s clothing on the garotte - because the whole crime scene was so contaminated at that point that nothing could be trusted.

[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:

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.

“Go and read the report. He did indeed.” Was a lie. Now there’s just a bunch of backpedaling. Post the actual report you’re referring to which is not the autopsy. What’s the problem?

Ok imagine your kid comes home with a math test that shows he got a 23% , multiple choice test about long division. The teacher calls you and says “did you see his test? He doesn’t know long division”. And you go, “yeah I saw his test but it doesn’t say anywhere that he doesn’t know long division!”

Well no, it says that he got 23% correct in a multiple choice test about long division. It is now up to you to look at that, and interpret its meaning.

This is similar. So there is no arguing with you. Have a nice day.

[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:

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.

“Go and read the report. He did indeed.” Was a lie. Now there’s just a bunch of backpedaling. Post the actual report you’re referring to which is not the autopsy. What’s the problem?

Ok imagine your kid comes home with a math test that shows he got a 23% , multiple choice test about long division. The teacher calls you and says “did you see his test? He doesn’t know long division”. And you go, “yeah I saw his test but it doesn’t say anywhere that he doesn’t know long division!”

Well no, it says that he got 23% correct in a multiple choice test about long division. It is now up to you to look at that, and interpret its meaning.

This is similar. So there is no arguing with you. Have a nice day.

Still moving the goal posts.

[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:

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.

“Go and read the report. He did indeed.” Was a lie. Now there’s just a bunch of backpedaling. Post the actual report you’re referring to which is not the autopsy. What’s the problem?

Ok imagine your kid comes home with a math test that shows he got a 23% , multiple choice test about long division. The teacher calls you and says “did you see his test? He doesn’t know long division”. And you go, “yeah I saw his test but it doesn’t say anywhere that he doesn’t know long division!”

Well no, it says that he got 23% correct in a multiple choice test about long division. It is now up to you to look at that, and interpret its meaning.

This is similar. So there is no arguing with you. Have a nice day.

Still moving the goal posts.

I have no idea how you function. Do you need everything repeated in three word sentences? Inferencing seems impossible for you. Speech therapists work on this with autistic children.

[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:

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.

“Go and read the report. He did indeed.” Was a lie. Now there’s just a bunch of backpedaling. Post the actual report you’re referring to which is not the autopsy. What’s the problem?

Ok imagine your kid comes home with a math test that shows he got a 23% , multiple choice test about long division. The teacher calls you and says “did you see his test? He doesn’t know long division”. And you go, “yeah I saw his test but it doesn’t say anywhere that he doesn’t know long division!”

Well no, it says that he got 23% correct in a multiple choice test about long division. It is now up to you to look at that, and interpret its meaning.

This is similar. So there is no arguing with you. Have a nice day.

Still moving the goal posts.

I have no idea how you function. Do you need everything repeated in three word sentences? Inferencing seems impossible for you. Speech therapists work on this with autistic children.

Lol. Produce a single report that says “small and shriveled” or any other “fact” you’re pushing. Your insults don’t help your case.

[Anonymous]

An autopsy cannot conclude WHY or HOW something happened. It reports on what did happen. Experts are then needed to explain what the findings are consistent with. Here prior sexual contact. Or just vaginal contact. There are theories out there that she was forced to douche due to the accidents etc. Regardless, the autopsy as interpreted by experts indicates the vagina had been interfered with in a non-natural way.

[Anonymous]

I don’t have a case. The people that did have a case concluded she was sexually interfered with prior to the assault. They based that on evidence and experts. What is your conclusion based on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An autopsy cannot conclude WHY or HOW something happened. It reports on what did happen. Experts are then needed to explain what the findings are consistent with. Here prior sexual contact. Or just vaginal contact. There are theories out there that she was forced to douche due to the accidents etc. Regardless, the autopsy as interpreted by experts indicates the vagina had been interfered with in a non-natural way.

You mean like with a paintbrush?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An autopsy cannot conclude WHY or HOW something happened. It reports on what did happen. Experts are then needed to explain what the findings are consistent with. Here prior sexual contact. Or just vaginal contact. There are theories out there that she was forced to douche due to the accidents etc. Regardless, the autopsy as interpreted by experts indicates the vagina had been interfered with in a non-natural way.

You mean like with a paintbrush?

There was past scarring. So, who knows? But again. PRIOR to the assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a case. The people that did have a case concluded she was sexually interfered with prior to the assault. They based that on evidence and experts. What is your conclusion based on?

I think they based that off on not having an intact hymen, which is not conclusive to me at all. I broke mine in gymnastics as a kid, no a sexual abuse, so if that's their smoking gun for prior sexual abuse I'm skeptical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a case. The people that did have a case concluded she was sexually interfered with prior to the assault. They based that on evidence and experts. What is your conclusion based on?

I think they based that off on not having an intact hymen, which is not conclusive to me at all. I broke mine in gymnastics as a kid, no a sexual abuse, so if that's their smoking gun for prior sexual abuse I'm skeptical.

From my understanding it wasn’t that- it wasn’t torn, it was stretched and scarred , which would look different. Because you’re right, straddle injuries are super common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An autopsy cannot conclude WHY or HOW something happened. It reports on what did happen. Experts are then needed to explain what the findings are consistent with. Here prior sexual contact. Or just vaginal contact. There are theories out there that she was forced to douche due to the accidents etc. Regardless, the autopsy as interpreted by experts indicates the vagina had been interfered with in a non-natural way.

You mean like with a paintbrush?

There was past scarring. So, who knows? But again. PRIOR to the assault.

Show us the report so we can all see b/c there is zero credibility to what posters here are saying given all the details they get wrong again and again. Where does anything say what YOU say?

[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:

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.

“Go and read the report. He did indeed.” Was a lie. Now there’s just a bunch of backpedaling. Post the actual report you’re referring to which is not the autopsy. What’s the problem?

Ok imagine your kid comes home with a math test that shows he got a 23% , multiple choice test about long division. The teacher calls you and says “did you see his test? He doesn’t know long division”. And you go, “yeah I saw his test but it doesn’t say anywhere that he doesn’t know long division!”

Well no, it says that he got 23% correct in a multiple choice test about long division. It is now up to you to look at that, and interpret its meaning.

This is similar. So there is no arguing with you. Have a nice day.

Still moving the goal posts.

I have no idea how you function. Do you need everything repeated in three word sentences? Inferencing seems impossible for you. Speech therapists work on this with autistic children.

Lol. Produce a single report that says “small and shriveled” or any other “fact” you’re pushing. Your insults don’t help your case.

Different PP here. Use my math test example! Would you argue with the teacher and say “show me a single place in this test where it says he doesn’t know long division. Shoe me! I’m waiting!”

The teacher would be baffled, and go, “it’s all over the test. He got 3/4 of the problems wrong! Each wrong answer shows you he doesn’t know long division!”

And you’d really then say “well I’m staring at the test and NOWHERE does it say the words he doesn’t know long division, so, I think we are done here”
Lol