“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#160 Nov 6, 2013
In the case of Casey Anthony they went after her for murder.

In the case of the Ramseys, the GJ INDICTED them on child abuse resulting in the death of their child.

There can be, as we all know, many definitions of child abuse. Doctors/school nurses and the like would most likely see bruising and/or broken bones. If they saw this on a repeated basis, or if they were told the child tripped and fell – and the injuries to the child were not consistent with the story given of how the accident happened – it is then that the medical professional would be bound to report the “suspected” abuse to the police for further investigation.
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Dr S,
SO, somehow, these child deaths are cases that are either one time things? Or are cases that go undetected by the doctors for the duration? We see these deaths due to child abuse mostly when the child is the offspring of someone who is known, such as a professional athlete, but there are MANY more that don't even get into the news. How about the "Casey Anthony Case"?
Many doctors should have their licenses taken from them? OR, there is no definitive proof that JBR was ever sexually assaulted?
CC

Since: Feb 12

Pearl City, HI

#161 Nov 6, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
In the case of Casey Anthony they went after her for murder.
In the case of the Ramseys, the GJ INDICTED them on child abuse resulting in the death of their child.
There can be, as we all know, many definitions of child abuse. Doctors/school nurses and the like would most likely see bruising and/or broken bones. If they saw this on a repeated basis, or if they were told the child tripped and fell – and the injuries to the child were not consistent with the story given of how the accident happened – it is then that the medical professional would be bound to report the “suspected” abuse to the police for further investigation.
<quoted text>
Hi Dr S,
I know of a case right in the state where I live, where a child "disappeared" after having some reports of abuse. The child or the remains of that child were never found. No previous arrests, nothing, but reports.

In the JBR case, we have a wealthy family. I would think that the doctors may have been afraid of some type of "legal reprisals".
CC

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#162 Nov 6, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Good morning AK,
If we were sitting as jurors in a court of law I would absolutely agree with you
However, we are on the internet on a discussion board where the rules are not quite so stringent and are free to assume/speculate in this court of public opinion :) and come to what results in our theories and beliefs
I as talking about your personal conviction, because that is what it seems like – that you are convinced in your own speculation.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#163 Nov 6, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that there was no fear of Beuf discovering any of the abuse. They do not do, as a general rule, those types of vaginal exams on small children and IF Patsy brings her in with the complaint of i.e. urinary tract issues, as a bedwetter, the doctor will treat the urinary tract problem If Patsy brings her in with the complaint of asthmatic issues, that is what he treats and only if a doctor is provided with a reason to delve further into the psychological causes of the ailments will they look further
In the case of doctor/patient relationships where they were also admittedly "friends", those suspicions are put on the back burner if he had any
His antics with all the records being somehow tampered with, stolen, etc., etc. puts a greater reason to assume that there was something not quite right in those records. Yes, they are assumptions, but based on logical conclusions IMO
Well, as you know, here on topix I just go with prior molestation as fact so I would have to think that Beuf did not see any signs of it during any of the visits.

I tend to think that persons who are abusing their child and/or are trying to hide that abuse to protect the abuser try to avoid situations where that abuse might be discovered – for example, visits to the Dr. so many visits sort of suggests that Mrs Ramsey was not concerned about any such discovery.

If Beuf missed the signs, then others could have missed the signs. I think that this is what happens in most cases. People miss the signs. Far too many children have been abused by a family member or friend of family and in many of those cases no one had any idea what was going on except the victim and the abuser.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#164 Nov 6, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Dr S,
I am not sure about that. IF it is the law, we still have a LOT of child deaths due to abuse, that have not been reported. We also have a LOT of incest that seems to go "undetected" by these doctors.
CC
Abusers tend to avoid taking their child/victims to the doctor; but, you’re right: a lot of abuse goes undetected.


AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#166 Nov 7, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I as talking about your personal conviction, because that is what it seems like – that you are convinced in your own speculation.

AK
My personal conviction is no different than most others. I have concluded what I believe to be the truth. However, I will admit that this is the court of public opinion and an internet discussion site and if I were sitting in a court of law on a jury, I'm happy to say that I would ONLY go by the facts presented and leave my opinions at the doorway. I have been a juror several times and no matter what one's "beliefs" are, the legalities of evidence are primary so I have no problem doing what is legal and I pride myself on that.

I am BDI, but am open to the reality that it may have been any one of the RAMSEYS. While my personal theory and belief, based on the same speculations that everyone else has in their interpretations of what happened is that Burke was involved, if I found out that it wasn't Burke but Patsy or John, I wouldn't be shocked.

The only real conviction that I have that is currently not open for debate is that all three Ramseys know exactly what happened that night and by whom.

Until new evidence is revealed that can show otherwise, and I highly doubt that is going to happen with exculpatory evidence, I remain convinced. It appears that the only information still secret is very damaging to the Ramseys

I am convinced that my theories are correct, just based on the myriad of lies, deception, misdirection, etc. that the Ramseys and their handlers/team/lawyers/etc. have put forth over and over again over these many years

Innocent people don't have to do that JMO

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#167 Nov 7, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, as you know, here on topix I just go with prior molestation as fact so I would have to think that Beuf did not see any signs of it during any of the visits.
I tend to think that persons who are abusing their child and/or are trying to hide that abuse to protect the abuser try to avoid situations where that abuse might be discovered – for example, visits to the Dr. so many visits sort of suggests that Mrs Ramsey was not concerned about any such discovery.
If Beuf missed the signs, then others could have missed the signs. I think that this is what happens in most cases. People miss the signs. Far too many children have been abused by a family member or friend of family and in many of those cases no one had any idea what was going on except the victim and the abuser.

AK
I agree totally about signs going unnoticed very often and I have no argument for that. I just "feel" ;) that in this case, due to the information available and the very suspicious back and forth about JBR's records, both in school and with Dr. Beuf that SOMEONE knew about the prior and I believe the parents knew (in my scenario) and quite possibly Patsy discussed the issue with Beuf. They called him "friend", he was someone who actually came to the house that morning and then prescribed for Patsy, so I believe they were probably friends on a social level as well

That said, it is quite possible that Patsy discussed any possible "experimentation" with Dr. Beuf in an effort to get advice and to confide in someone who won't repeat it. I think Patsy was bright enough not to rely solely on advice from Nedra (which would be a GOOD thing) and went to a professional. I believe he either had notes about it or somehow was in her record and that is why there was so much hubbub about where they were, etc

A six year old girl with "normal" childhood ailments doesn't need her medical records sent to Fort Knox!! There shouldn't be anything in there requiring HIDING. I'm not saying that it should be made PUBLIC, but surely didn't need to be treated like national security

These are just how I see things AK; it doesn't make me right but I am just explaining why I come to the conclusions I have. Everyone interprets the facts in their own way and when you take the totality of all these little things, it just keeps pointing back at the family IMO

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#168 Nov 7, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
LOL, but that won't stop her!
Comments posted recently are pretty much the same as 2-3 years ago and her first postings. It seems none of the "facts" presented over that period of time have sunk in at all. It is blind allegiance.
<quoted text>
You mean the "facts" as presented by you? No thanks. That would be like the blind leading the blind. I've done my own research and my case knowledge has far overtaken yours. The hare and the tortoise.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#169 Nov 7, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth is, you don't know what you believe. You have no clue about anything regarding this case. It shows in every post you make.
Look who's talking!!!

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#170 Nov 7, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Code Section 19-3-301, et seq., 19-1-103
What Constitutes Abuse Act or omission where child subject to sexual assault, molestation, exploitation, emotional abuse or prostitution; where child is in need of food, clothing, shelter, medical care or supervision because parent or guardian fails to do so; where child exhibits evidence of skin bruising, bleeding, malnutrition, burns, fractures, etc.; or circumstances indicate a condition that may not be the product of an accidental occurrence
Mandatory Reporting Required By Physicians, child health associate, dentist, chiropractor, nurse, hospital personnel, school employee, social worker, mental health professional, veterinarian, peace officer, pharmacist, psychologist, fireman, victim's advocate, commercial film and photographic print processor, clergyman
Basis of Report of Abuse/neglect Reasonable cause to know or suspect that a child is subject to circumstances or conditions which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect
To Whom Reported Country or district department of social services or local law enforcement agency
Penalty for Failure to Report or False Reporting Willful violation: Class 3 misdemeanor plus liability for proximately caused damages -
<quoted text>
Thanks Seuss

Unfortunately, and I know first hand, the LEGALITIES involved with reporting, especially when it is SUSPECTED abuse can put a real damper on those willing to report.

Under the best of circumstances, children and all who are under others' care, go through a myriad of red tape to make the situation better. IF there is no evidence that can justify any action, it just makes it worse in many cases and the REPORTER becomes the bad guy

No matter how many laws are made and no matter how specific the laws are, there will be those who are afraid to report anything that is suspected.

I'm not excusing it by any means, but this is real life and in real life, people are hesitant if not terrified to make that call when they only have suspicions
The Truth Hurts

Madison Heights, MI

#171 Nov 7, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> Look who's talking!!!
To the contrary. I know exactly what I believe in and I have a theory. You just jump on any train leaving the station.
You have a reputation for palling up with nutters like Moon Jack (not the current one) and the big douche who trashed this forum for almost a year.(You know who I'm talking about). You have no credibility whatsoever. Now, be gone before someone drops a house on your head.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#172 Nov 7, 2013
Patsy killed Jonbenet deliberately.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#173 Nov 7, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
My personal conviction is no different than most others. I have concluded what I believe to be the truth. However, I will admit that this is the court of public opinion and an internet discussion site and if I were sitting in a court of law on a jury, I'm happy to say that I would ONLY go by the facts presented and leave my opinions at the doorway. I have been a juror several times and no matter what one's "beliefs" are, the legalities of evidence are primary so I have no problem doing what is legal and I pride myself on that.
I am BDI, but am open to the reality that it may have been any one of the RAMSEYS. While my personal theory and belief, based on the same speculations that everyone else has in their interpretations of what happened is that Burke was involved, if I found out that it wasn't Burke but Patsy or John, I wouldn't be shocked.
The only real conviction that I have that is currently not open for debate is that all three Ramseys know exactly what happened that night and by whom.
Until new evidence is revealed that can show otherwise, and I highly doubt that is going to happen with exculpatory evidence, I remain convinced. It appears that the only information still secret is very damaging to the Ramseys
I am convinced that my theories are correct, just based on the myriad of lies, deception, misdirection, etc. that the Ramseys and their handlers/team/lawyers/etc. have put forth over and over again over these many years
Innocent people don't have to do that JMO
Yes, I understand and you’ve explained yourself very well. I don’t mean to single you out. The conviction that some (many?) have bothers me, sometimes. At least, you acknowledge reasonable doubt in a trial. That’s a brave and intellectually honest thing to do.
Thank you for your response.
...

AK
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

#174 Nov 7, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Abusers tend to avoid taking their child/victims to the doctor; but, you’re right: a lot of abuse goes undetected.

AK
Who says up until the night of the murder that Patsy was even aware of the sexual molestation? Yeast infections can have innocent origins. Or not.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#175 Nov 8, 2013
John killed Jonbenet deliberately with help from no one. Nothing was staged or covered-up. Everything was done purposely by John for John as part of a psychotic fantasy in his imagined relationship with Huckleberry Finn and fears of sinking the raft. What people mistakingly take as staging for police has secret symbolic meaning known only to John and Sandy Strangler’s lunatic brother. There were two aspects of what was done to the body, the ligatures made Jonbenet into a life size marionette and after John danced with her, the body was wrapped like salmon from a fish monger and left to decay. The event was full of ideas that drowned John’s mind that night and plagued him since Beth’s death. The goal was not to kill JonBenet but to send Patsy down the river.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#176 Nov 8, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I understand and you’ve explained yourself very well. I don’t mean to single you out. The conviction that some (many?) have bothers me, sometimes. At least, you acknowledge reasonable doubt in a trial. That’s a brave and intellectually honest thing to do.
Thank you for your response.
...
AK
Good morning AK

I fully understood that you weren't singling me out and I didn't take it that way so no problem

I understand and acknowledge reasonable doubt when I am in a court of law as do most people when called to serve on a jury.

I served on a jury in Federal Court many years ago and the trial lasted 22 days. There were some serious charges, including gun possession. We heard tapes, saw video, etc. but the video was grainy enough that the prosecutor could not PROVE that the defendants were carrying guns. You could easily ASSUME that the objects were guns but unless someone told you what it was in their hands, you could NOT discern from the video that it was in fact, a gun.

While every juror KNEW that these were bad guys and the likelihood that they were carrying guns was probably obvious, the burden of proof to PROVE that they were guns did not come through with the evidence and we acquitted them on the gun charge.

It hurt to do that because everyone just KNEW that those were likely guns, but we still had to follow the law and acquitted them on the weapons charge

Thanks for the acknowledgement and you can be sure that what I am stating about the difference of a court of law and a discussion board are much the same for all the RDI posters I am in contact with.

This is just an opinion board and not a court of law so when I am on topix or any other forum, they are GUILTY LOL

BTW, my answers will always be honest, if not agreeable :)

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#177 Nov 8, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
To the contrary. I know exactly what I believe in and I have a theory. You just jump on any train leaving the station.
You have a reputation for palling up with nutters like Moon Jack (not the current one) and the big douche who trashed this forum for almost a year.(You know who I'm talking about). You have no credibility whatsoever. Now, be gone before someone drops a house on your head.
This is my fourth year posting on the case. Most of you started posting on the forums years before I did. Very few newcomers arrive here ready to make a grand presentation with a theory and suspect all nicely wrapped up in a neat package. The case is confusing and it takes time to try and make sense of it all. It's impossible to do that without looking at different suspects and exploring different theories. You can nastily call that "jumping on any train leaving the station" but even real-life investigators do it and then they start the elimination process from there. If you've "settled" on your theory and feel confident you've solved the case, good for you, but some of us take a broader view and for us it's not quite that simple. I will "be gone" for now but will see you again next week!:)

Since: Feb 12

Pearl City, HI

#178 Nov 8, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> This is my fourth year posting on the case. Most of you started posting on the forums years before I did. Very few newcomers arrive here ready to make a grand presentation with a theory and suspect all nicely wrapped up in a neat package. The case is confusing and it takes time to try and make sense of it all. It's impossible to do that without looking at different suspects and exploring different theories. You can nastily call that "jumping on any train leaving the station" but even real-life investigators do it and then they start the elimination process from there. If you've "settled" on your theory and feel confident you've solved the case, good for you, but some of us take a broader view and for us it's not quite that simple. I will "be gone" for now but will see you again next week!:)
Hi Lynette 22,
You have been posting on this forum even before me, and knowing that you have been on it for about 4 years, makes me realize that if you were new then, that is about how long I have been here, starting as "Charlie Chan".

The GJ indictment really means nothing, because there was no arrest or charges filed by the DA. Being immune to suit for his actions or lack of action, we can only speculate his reasoning. I think he was a coward, or he could have been paid off.
CC
The Truth Hurts

Livonia, MI

#180 Nov 8, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> This is my fourth year posting on the case. Most of you started posting on the forums years before I did. Very few newcomers arrive here ready to make a grand presentation with a theory and suspect all nicely wrapped up in a neat package. The case is confusing and it takes time to try and make sense of it all. It's impossible to do that without looking at different suspects and exploring different theories. You can nastily call that "jumping on any train leaving the station" but even real-life investigators do it and then they start the elimination process from there. If you've "settled" on your theory and feel confident you've solved the case, good for you, but some of us take a broader view and for us it's not quite that simple. I will "be gone" for now but will see you again next week!:)
Thanks for acknowledging that you know squat about this case. That's a start anyway.
You can call it a "broader view" if you'd like or you can call it what it really is...."You have no freaking clue." I prefer the latter.
4 years? And in all that time you have NOTHING except to regurgitate your claim that the Ramseys are innocent based on WHAT?

I repeat - you have no credibility at all. Take another couple of years to study the case and then come back and post. Or not.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#181 Nov 8, 2013
The ligatures were not stage props they were functional, they were used to pose the body. The reason there is 17" of cord from the loop around the neck to the handle is the handle had to clear the head as it was brought up behind the head and placed into a holder or one end of the stick was placed into a hole with the other end protruding out. This raised the torso to a vertical position, either seated, kneeling or on the feet. I don't think there was a free hanging suspension. The reason there was 15" of cord between the loops on the wrists is that cord was brought up over the head and placed over whatever held the handle or over the protruding end of the stick. This raised the arms to an upright postition, the same position they were found in in rigor. The 15" of cord between the wrist loops would not have restricted movement of the arms much at all and could not have fooled investigators as being a binding. The ligatures were not constructed to decieve police. They were functional as posing devices. This is a classic posing of a body after death for reasons known only to the perpetrator. The raising of arms has well known symbolism, surrender, praise, beseeching and others. Whatever it meant to Patsy can only guessed, mine is it had something to do with Victory!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Karr's Christmas Message 29 min Legal__Eagle 12
The TV Room and the Blanket 5 hr mud honey 28
Snaps on Patsy's jacket? 6 hr mud honey 9
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 12 hr ICU2 156
James Kolar book: Foreign Faction: Who really... (Jul '12) 13 hr Just Wondering 1,049
John Ramsey Role 13 hr Legal__Eagle 23
News GLOBE: JonBenet Ramsey Murder Was Inside Job - ... 13 hr Legal__Eagle 4
More from around the web