Evidence of....... Evidence suggestive of.....

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by sue, Apr 28, 2005.

  1. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    In the autopsy report, the triangular mark on JonBenet's anterior neck is described as a "parchment-like rust colored abrasion" . A while ago, a poster on another forum gave link to a site where it said that post-mortem abrasions are often parchment-like.
    If it is only an abrasion, it may look worse in the picture than it actually was.
    Could it be that JonBenet got this abrasion as her body was being handled post-mortem during the staging process?

  2. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    KK, I took this part of your post over here from the other thread, since there has been a lot of of discusion re possible sexual abuse here on this thread.
    The question whether JonBenet had been the victim of prior sexual abuse is one I have kept ruminating over ever since I began studying this case. I keep wavering back and forth, have tried to think of several possible scenarios involving sexual abuse or not, the gamut ranging from a rage attack by Patsy driven by her anger over JonBenet's (bed)wetting/soiling, to a rage attack over JonBenet's refusal to go to bed (possibly combined with a wetting accident), to a rage attack by Patsy because she discovered John molesting JonBenet, yanked her away from John and (either accidentally or on purpose) slammed her head against hard, flat surface such as a wall.

    Therefore it would interest me very much what this poster (FedoraX) said about LE having more evidence of prior sexual abuse.
    I did a search on FedoraX here on FFJ - she has written 1240 posts here, the last one dating back to March 1994.
    Do you have alink to any specific posts of hers wehre she mentioned the chronic abuse evidence? Did FedoraX post another forums too? How reliable do you think this poster is when it comes to info she claims to be privy to?
    TIA for your help.
  3. Elle

    Elle Member

    Surely if LE knew more about the sexual molestion scene relating to JonBenét's death, they would have dealt with the Ramsey family much more severe than they did,rashomon? Shame on them for not bringing it out into the open.
  4. JoeJame

    JoeJame member

    I do agree Elle.
  5. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    If LE witheld additional info pointing to chronic sexual abuse, this would be an incredible scandal, making them guilty of obstruction of justice.
    It would interst me very much what this poster (FedoraX) had to say. Has anyone of you followed the discussion? Did she post on other forums too?
  6. Pearlsim

    Pearlsim FFJ Senior Member

    Since no one else is jumping in to answer...my recollection of Fed is that she had connections with one of the tabloids. In that context, she seemed reliable to me.
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    Who knows why some posters leave, rashomon(?). I haven't posted on any other boards for years. I wouldn't know. I don't have the time. Some of the others may have come across this poster (?).
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Rashomon, I'll try to find the old post for you. Fedorax was reported to be a tabloid hack, but she was extremely professional. You know, before this case, the tabs were a laugh to me. But as time proved, the tabs were sometimes a good source. Fedorax never posted anything that I saw that turned out to be a lie, though I didn't always agree with her opinions. I didn't like her on some levels, but she did have inside sources. She protected them as any reporter does, however, and when she put up info like this about other evidence of prior molestation, you either believed her, didn't believe her, or considered it "possible". I considered it "possible". She wouldn't have lied about it, I don't think, but without the info and source being revealed, I always leave a question mark, no matter who says it. So much is open to interpretation and bias, after all.

    Fedorax was totally wrong about one thing: I did hear the enhanced 911 tape played on Geraldo, and Fedorax wouldn't believe it because she didn't know about it. So she certainly wasn't infallible. But many won't believe it, so I guess it's reasonable that she didn't; whoever made the call to the Geraldo show after the tape was played effectively got every trace of it erased from any record of it being played. Though many posters reported hearing it, or even having relatives say they heard it, people who don't want to believe it will never believe it. Fedorax seemed not to believe it mostly because she thought she'd have heard about it professionally, so it couldn't have happened. She was just wrong on this one.

    I wasn't posting here when Fedorax left. Can't remember what happened, but it seems like she got miffed at someone over something. Maybe someone else remembers. It happens.
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    "Withheld" info...from whom? LE has no obligation to inform the public of their evidence before trial. Without Smit spilling the beans, parading the PowerPoint all over TV and showing it to everyone Ramsey sympathetic he chose, we'd have much less insight into the evidence than we do now.

    Fedorax did believe the Ramseys were involved, if I remember correctly, though I don't think she ever posted a theory in particular.

    Some things she let slip through the years: she saw Nancy Krebs' interview tapes with LE; she saw case evidence others on the forums hadn't; JAR had a pilot's license at the time of the murder, which I'd tried to find out for YEARS because of research I did on whether he could have been involved.

    One other thing, rashomon, since I noticed you quoted an old post of mine on another forum: the petechial hemorrhages on the neck, around the garrote, are nothing more than that, I now believe. The pictures I saw that Smit showed on TV do have the "crescent shaped" colorings, but after much study of the autopsy and researching the language, there were no fingernail abrasions, as BEST as I can deduce. It looks like there are, which is why Smit said so, and why I did work on that theory for awhile. But I have found no medical corroboration of Smit's interpretation of WHAT HE SAW, and not what those experts in medical forensics know: the autopsy states these are petechial hemorrhages caused by the capillaries being squeezed to bursting at the garrote. There are also some "gouge-like" spots in one picture, but they could be from the necklace chain being rolled up the neck, or some other explanation. Since there are no indications of any other defensive bruising or injuries, I don't see how JonBenet could have been conscious when she was being strangled. But that's only my best guess now. Our theories have always suffered on the forums for not having an expert discuss this autopsy evidence in detail to address our questions. Best guessing is all we can do.

    Another thing y'all are discussing at CL: the lower bruiseline on the neck came from the same garrote, from the initial tightening of the ligature, IMO, as the autopsy pictures seem to indicate. Then it rolled up the neck, being pulled from behind and upward, as it tightened more. The necklace can be seen rolled up into the cord as it went up the neck. This caused the purple triangular shape as well, common in ligature strangulations at that very spot. Online autopsy photos of ligature strangulation victims show the same bruising.

    Here is a good site to see and compare strangulation injuries with JonBenet's, but BE WARNED: GRAPHIC AUTOPSY PICTURES.

  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    KK I don't see any resemblance to the "flashlight shape" on the right of JonBenéts neck on any of these examples. Maybe some similarities with rope marks, but definitely not this flashlight shape which looks like the head of a flashlight was pressed right into her neck.

    I see this mark on her neck shaped like the head of a hand held flashlight, the type that is round where the batteries go. jmo
  11. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Correct, but wouldn't the grand jury with its rules of secrecy have been the place for LE to present such info? How can LE expect to get an indictment if they don't lay such crucial info before the GJ?
    It is true that we don't know what the GJ got to see, but S. Thomas wrote that according to the conditions laid out by the DA office', the GJ might not hear the whole case.
    While Smit was allowed to testify there and present his intruder theory, Steve Thomas was told could not testify because allegedly only a limited number of police detectives were allowed to do so - an info which the BPD lawyers said was clearly wrong.
    With all that biased GJ proceeding in mind, it is not very likely imo that they were informed about additional evidence of chronic sexual abuse.
    The BPD handed over the case to the DA's office almost a decade ago, so they havehad ample time to review all the evidence again.
    It is the prosecutor's duty to seek justice for the victim, he is the lawyer for the victim, so to speak. So if A. Hunter knew there was more evidence pointing to chronic sexual abuse and decided to sweep it under the carpet, then he miserably failed his duty to the victim JonBenet. Wasn't an FBI profiler of the opinion that Hunter is guilty of obstruction of justice?

    Lol, you're right KK, I have never considered Louie from this angle. :)
    Indeed, while running wild with his intruder theory in public, Smit offered us great insight into the actual evidence, evidence often totally contradicting his own theory. For example, we probably would never have seen a picture of the basement window, hadn't Louie tried to squeeze himself through it for his demonstration. Too bad Smit wasn't asked to show how the alleged intruder climbed out of that window again while carrying the suitcase with the victim in it at the same time :D
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2007
  12. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    I remember looking at the autopsy pictures with a magnifying glass a while ago, thinking maybe any crescent-shaped colorings came from Patsy's fingernails as she was fumbling with the cord around the neck, but could not see anything of the sort. And since the autopsy report doesn't mention those "crescent-shaped colorings" either, I think Smit merely "saw" what he wanted to see, like so often.

    I too think the second circular mark came from the same ligature, which was tightened first and then was shifted upward to its final position. D. England is also of the opinion that the lower bruiseline around JonBenet's neck came from Patsy's fumbling with the cord prior to it ending up higher on the neck.

    I even found a crime fiction book which mentions this type of injury too:

    From my Oct 28/2006 post on FFJ:

    Last edited: Dec 31, 2007
  13. Paradox

    Paradox Banned for Stupidity by RiverRat

    The hanging victim's mark is perpendicular to the neck just like JonBenet's. JonBenet has a mark for strangulation AND one for hanging. The non garrote has a handle suitable for insertion into some kind of holder;

    gibbet1. n. a gallows with a projecting arm at the top for suspending and displaying the bodies of criminals after hanging.
  14. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Where do you see any perpendicular mark for hanging in JonBenet's autopsy pictures?
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Rashomon, you're not going to get an argument from me that Hunter didn't obstruct justice. I think that is clear in his refusal to obtain search warrants for the clothes or the phone records of the Ramseys...ever. What DA DOES that? Not one who pretends to be trying to find out the truth and represent the People in prosecution of a very serious crime.

    What went on in the grand jury, though, will always be a secret, if Hunter and Colorado law hold out, as currently written. And this grand jury wasn't even called to vote on an indictment, IMO. It was purely used to investigate, which grand juries often are: you get witnesses under oath who otherwise won't talk to you; you get evidence missed so far; etc. JonBenet's grand jury did just that: they asked for evidence, like having Ramsey family members' DNA gathered for testing almost two years after the murder, and I believe the maid's daughter was also tested at that time, maybe some others as well. Why THEY didn't demand phone records to be subpoenaed, I'll never know. I guess they were satisfied with the ONE MONTH offered up by the Ramseys a year after the murder. Pathetic as THAT is: let the PRIME SUSPECTS VOLUNTEER EVIDENCE, and ignore that which they DON'T volunteer?

    I personally don't believe the grand jury even voted; if you read Dr. Lee's last book, he writes about this grand jury and his advise to Hunter at the end of its process: don't indict, you're not ready. That tells me that Hunter COULD HAVE indicted. That tells me that there was no vote of "no indictment". That's ALL just RST lies. They get away with it because the DA let them. They knew he would. I think Hunter has been in bed with the Ramsey lawyers from DAY ONE. No other way he would have behaved as he did with the search warrants. You go dig up a coffin and put it in your basement, write a ransom note for A LEGALLY DECEASED BODY, and call LE; see how fast they have YOUR PHONE RECORDS AND CLOTHES. Hunter knew he was burying this case. Any low IQ fool who watches cop shows would KNOW he was burying the case by crippling the investigation so badly right off.

    I believe there was a reason, too: Lockheed Martin. It doesn't get any BIGGER than LM, not on the entire planet. John worked for THEM. That the case was deliberately buried by the DA, who made every effort to do so for 3 years, and may have helped destroy the most damning evidence in allowing the phone records to be tampered with while Hunter sandbagged the subpoena, IMO, is proof enough for me that the fix was in before 911 was even called.

    Oh well. No matter how cynical I get, it's never enough to keep up, is it?
  16. sboyd

    sboyd Member

  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Here is the post Fedorax made about more evidence of sexual abuse:

    If you want the context, maybe you can check the Fed posts by date with this. I didn't save the url for some reason, but I'm sure it was on this forum.

    As I said, I had issues with Fedorax, and I'm sure she could tell you her side because she had issues with me. But I don't believe I ever saw her post as fact anything she didn't believe was true. She often spoke of her "sources" and traveled extensively, she said, to various LE conventions and events. She seemed to be reliable as to what she herself saw or knew when she was talking about things she experienced first hand. But I never saw anything she ever wrote professionally about this case, tabloid or otherwise, that was in any way informative. It was said that her reporter name was "Donna Kaufman", if memory serves. There was a reporter in the Globe, I think, by that name, but like I said, nothing much in the way of breaking news on this case. She wrote much better on this forum than in the Globe, if that was even her.

    I do believe Fed did see and hear things we didn't in her professional capacity. The problem was, like most of the "I know but can't tell" posters through the years, she wouldn't be specific nor burn a source.

    So...take it for what it's worth: possibly true--and I believe the autopsy is clear on this, as well, in the context of the molestation the night of the murder. But there is no way to know what that "more evidence" might be, is there, from Fed's post? Maddening, isn't it? :cb:

    And this is one of those pet peeves I have...maybe I should put this on the thread for that: so many people who know/knew the truth, or pieces of it, but for professional reasons, have never told it, and probably never will. I know reputation and integrity are all as a reporter, lawyer, etc., but if it was someone they love who was murdered, they'd expect those who know to find a way to get the truth revealed. Not in this case. That's how much power and greed is behind the Ramseys. I'm sure the killer LOVES that.
  18. Little

    Little Member

    This is an older article I came across (in my way too cluttered filing system).
  19. Paradox

    Paradox Banned for Stupidity by RiverRat

    In the picture.
  20. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you for posting this very interesting article, Little. I never read anything about this situation where Holly Smith was abruptly removed from the investigation. Isn't this just typical of this case? Brushed under the rug. Holly Smith was getting too close for comfort. I don't remember reading about JonBenét's soiled panties being found in a drawer.

    Patsy Ramsey never looked after her young daughter at all. She concentrated too much on crowns from beauty pageants for her head, rather than seek assistance to help JonBenét with something more important - her toilet training. She brushed it all aside when questioned by the detectives as something of no importance. Sad state of affairs.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice