Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "2024 JonBenet Documentary"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]No intruder wrote that absurd long ass fake random note. Everything else is hogwash.[/quote] 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.[/quote] What if the normal suburban housewife IS a sadistic killer? [/quote] There was [b]no prior abuse[/b] 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? [/quote] That's actually not true, there were signs of prior sexual abuse. [/quote] 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 [/quote] 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. [/quote] No the coroner didn’t. More misinformation.[/quote] Go and read the report. He did indeed.[/quote]. He can’t conclude that so he didn’t.[/quote] 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. [/quote] Show us the report where it says that. Because it doesn’t.[/quote] It was written in James kolars book. He was the lead detective on the case with the boulder police department in the early 2000s.[/quote] So the autopsy report doesn’t say that. Got it.[/quote] The report does say that, but in technical medical terms - as autopsies do.[/quote] Let’s see it.[/quote] Are your fingers broken? Google too hard for you? You go see it, fool.[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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…[/quote] The report doesn’t not say “small and shriveled”. https://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/ramsey,%20jonbenet_report.pdf[/quote] 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. [/quote] Ok. Stop saying the report says this, that, and the other when it clearly doesn’t.[/quote] A report indicating cancer is going to show increased white blood cells. It’s not going to say leukemia. Don’t be intentionally obtuse.[/quote] Sorry you got caught with your pants down. [/quote] 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.[/quote] Posting lies and untruths isn’t helpful, but hasn’t stopped anyone either. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
