JonBenet Ramsey's brother to break near 20 year silence and speak publicly for the first time about his sisters murder

For anyone who may be interested there is a new 3 part series starting on Monday night called  'JonBenet: An American Murder Mystery' which claims to include new evidence on the case.
It's on the Investigating Discovery channel starting at 10pm. Channel 522 for those who have access to Sky TV or Virgin Channel 253.

The article that I have read about this series includes the following paragraph about John and Patsy Ramsey.

'The couple refused to co-operate with the police. Yet within a week they were appearing on TV. It looked too controlled'
Reminds me of a certain other couple.

Silverspeed wrote:For anyone who may be interested there is a new 3 part series starting on Monday night called  'JonBenet: An American Murder Mystery' which claims to include new evidence on the case.
It's on the Investigating Discovery channel starting at 10pm. Channel 522 for those who have access to Sky TV or Virgin Channel 253.

The article that I have read about this series includes the following paragraph about John and Patsy Ramsey.
he
'The couple refused to co-operate with the police. Yet within a week they were appearing on TV. It looked too controlled'
Reminds me of a certain other couple.

Unfortunately I ain't got access to Sky TV or Virgin - perish the thought .

I was in the process of comparing the two cases earlier (not the crime scene of course) but as per the norm my beloved laptop deleted the entire text.  Not in the mood to try again, suffice to say the aftermath of Madeleine McCann's disappearance mirrors the aftermath of the death of JonBenet Ramsay in many respects.

One could almost be led to believe the latter was using the former as a test case.  They seemed to have an affinity with the US of A.

The staging in the Ramsey case was panicked and crude. They only got away with it because their influence and connections reached right into the DA's office. {http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09161997vanityfair.htm}


1. The ransom note.

Never mind the ludicrous notion of a 'foreign faction' gang of kidnappers neglecting to come prepared with a ransom note. Any third rate investigator would dismiss such a note on it's face.  But the very idea that kidnappers would halt their getaway, sexually assault, torture, and murder their target, spirit her body away in a remote corner of the basement, and yet STILL leave a ransom note is patently absurd. A ransom note for what?? They didn't have anything to trade because they left their bargaining chip behind!! It's all so transparently absurd. Obviously the Stagers did not have the time or mental capacity to think it through.

2. The Pineapple tableau.

The Stagers knew JonBenet had eaten fresh pineapple very shortly before her death. In fact, an open minded investigator might be inclined to connect the dots: WHERE she ate the pineapple might pinpoint WHERE she was murdered--the basement room was clearly not the actual scene of the crime, merely the 'dump site', yet nobody has ever asked exactly where JBR was when she died. In my opinion, the staged pineapple was meant to strongly suggest that JonBenet ate the fruit at home so it follows she died in the house. This means it was CRUCIAL to the Stagers to hide the actual location of her death.

However, the Stagers still muffed it.



JonBenet's fingerprints weren't on any of the items found on the table--not the glass, bowl, or spoon.

This internet poster believes JBR ate the pineapple no more than 30 minutes before her death. [her stomach was otherwise empty, yet she was at a party where she supposedly ate cracked crab at the very least?]

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TQ01C2AUAVTNAV02M

So where was JonBenet when she ate the pineapple? Well, before coming home the Ramsey's were at a Christmas party hosted by their friends the Whites. Mrs. White couldn't remember if she served pineapple at the party. [White friend detective Steve Thomas wrote in his book that pineapple was not served.] Mr. White has managed to cover up a deposition he gave in a related case by having it placed under a PROTECTIVE ORDER.

Nancy Krebs, who alleged her family and the Whites [along with J. Ramsey] were engaged in an elite pedophile ring, was from California. The White's admittedly had 'California guests' that night but only 2 or 3 have been named. For certain none of them were asked to give DNA samples. Nancy alleges her mother and 5 year old niece were present and witnessed JBR's death. No photos taken at the party of these guests have ever been released.

No one has ever been able to ascertain whether Fleet White JUNIOR or his father FW SENIOR [whose presence at his son's party was alleged but not proven] was asked to give DNA samples.

~~~

On another note, lawyers must have gotten to the CBS network. Tonight the first two hours of a four hour documentary on the murder is to begin airing on the network. Just last week, it was a SIX hour doc and CBS promised to 'reveal the killer'. Now that two hours have been cut so has the promise to 'reveal the killer'.

I watched the Jonbenet An American Murder story, in that Patsy denied giving Jonbenet pineapple she said she would never serve it that way however her fingerprints were on the bowl and Burkes fingerprints were on the glass or cup beside it. I am no expert but when the pineapple was not digested in her system I presume she had to have been killed very shortly after eating it. I am not sure how accurate the programme was but I would presume very. So they had to have lied about Jonbenet being carried in asleep as picture is as clear as day and I don't believe any kidnapper is going to sit at the table in the victims house & feed her pineapple! Also strange Patsy had same clothes on as day before, police think she never went to bed that night.
Does any members know why Patsy came down the stairs that early in the morning 5.30am I believe, and was there much alcohol consumed by parents?

DENNISSALLY wrote:I watched the Jonbenet An American Murder story, in that Patsy denied giving Jonbenet pineapple she said she would never serve it that way however her fingerprints were on the bowl and Burkes fingerprints were on the glass or cup beside it. I am no expert but when the pineapple was not digested in her system I presume she had to have been killed very shortly after eating it. I am not sure how accurate the programme was but I would presume very. So they had to have lied about Jonbenet being carried in asleep as picture is as clear as day and I don't believe any kidnapper is going to sit at the table in the victims house & feed her pineapple!  Also strange Patsy had same clothes on as day before, police think she never went to bed that night.  
Does any members know why Patsy came down the stairs that early in the morning 5.30am I believe, and was there much alcohol consumed by parents?

I've just finished watching all 3 parts this evening, there is really nothing new and feel some aspects misleading. 
They were up early as they were all going away for the holidays. It was Patsys birthday celebration I think.
I'm not sure how much or if they consumed any alcohol but believe they were not big drinkers. 
That Carr guy is one eerie and weird deluded dude. 
He wasn't even arrested on child pornography, frightening!

Pineapple theories 
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682517/The%20Pineapple%20Evidence

All of these programs in the recent spate are insistent that the head wound came first. This is an intentional falsehood (no way some of these experts are simply mistaken) In my opinion, the reason for this deliberate campaign  of disinformation on cause of death is to avoid a discussion of erotic asphyxiation and thus distract people from understanding the true nature of this murder. (Please read Krebs interview on this point particularly ). Here is renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht explaining in simple terms how impossible it is that the head wound came first, and WHY JonBenet  was struck on the head AFTER she was dead or near death: (warning:graphic description of post-mortem findings)

DENNISSALLY wrote:...and I don't believe any kidnapper is going to sit at the table in the victims house & feed her pineapple!

As a sufferer of an early riser in the family I can say how loud and irritating the chink of spoon on bowl is in the early hours of the morning.

whodunit wrote:All of these programmes in the recent spate are insistent that the head wound came first. This is an intentional falsehood (no way some of these experts are simply mistaken). In my opinion, the reason for this deliberate campaign of disinformation on cause of death is to avoid a discussion of erotic asphyxiation and thus distract people from understanding the true nature of this murder. (Please read Krebs interview on this point particularly ). Here is renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht explaining in simple terms how impossible it is that the head wound came first, and WHY JonBenet  was struck on the head AFTER she was dead or near death...

@ whodunit     Yes, I think what you say is very likely. Clearly we have quite a few experts on the death of JonBenet amongst us. It is awful to think what might have really happened to this little girl.

Incidentally, Wendy Murphy (she who said 'I'm not buying it' as DCI Redwood produced his two different e-fits of 'Smithman' on BBC on 14 October 2013) has written extensively about how she was sure that very sensitive evidence about the death of Caylee Anthony was withheld by the authorities because, she says, there was evidence that he had been most horribly abused before being killed. I cannot find the reference just now. It does seem that the sexual abuse of children can be practised by some very powerful and wealthy individuals, sometimes operating in networks, with the means to cover their tracks.

I was also reminded of the cause of death of Stuart Lubbock. The first of four top pathologists to examine the death of Stuart Lubbock, the now wholly discredited Dr Michael John Heath, simply pronounced him 'drowned'. Today, the news media still refer to him as the man 'who drowned in Barrymore's swimming pool'. My book on the case gives convincing evidence, I think, that Stuart was killed in a vicious sexual attack, and that a drowning was faked thereafter. Stuart was never in the pool, but was placed there at the side of the pool, water shoved down his throat as he lay there dead, and a few buckets of water thrown over him just before the ambulance arrived.

On the pathology evidence that proved that Stuart was asphyxiayted in a sexual attack and not drowned, here is an extract from my book, where I discuss the medical evidence:


QUOTE

Dr Calder, like Professor Crane, was quite clear that the lungs did not show typical features associated with drowning. Here is his explanation: “In my opinion, the lungs are not typical of drowning. They have not got the characteristic description: the bulging; they have not got the crossing over the midline, they have not got the dilatation. The other thing is, they are very heavy, which is another point worth considering, because they each weigh over a kilogram, 1.1 kilograms [2 lbs. 5 oz.], which is not a feature of drowning”.

Indeed, Dr Calder added to what Professor Crane had said: “I agree with Professor Crane about the ballooning. The other point which is not in Professor Crane’s evidence was in fact that it was witnessed that a lot of water came out of his mouth. I wondered whether that was actually not lung water, but actually stomach contents…the thing was, we did not have the typical froth within the airways…I am rather wondering whether the liquid, blackcurrant-coloured water was stomach contents, because you would not get a vast amount of water”.

He explains this point in more detail: “The trachea is a fairly small area, and he would certainly have been resuscitated along the lines [sic], by the poolside. So I think that if there had been water in the lungs, in the airways, at that time, that would have been expelled. I think that [blackcurrant-coloured liquid] has probably got to be stomach contents…”

Dr Calder quickly dismisses the idea that a rectal thermometer could have caused Stuart’s anal injuries by noting that he is not aware of such rectal thermometers ever having caused any damage.

Perhaps significantly, Dr Calder raised the possibility of heart failure, emphasising once again the unusually heavy weight of the lungs. He told the Coroner: “Another confounding fact is that there was heart failure, because those lungs are very, very heavy for any for drowning. They are much too heavy for drowning. I think it probably reflects some degree of heart failure”.

Dr Calder also raises another possibility: “He had got quite significant cerebral oedema, which may have been due to anoxia. And of course you can often get pulmonary oedema due to that”.

As for the petechiae, Dr Crane is emphatic: “Petechiae are not a feature of drowning…if one finds them, one looks for other factors, especially in people like scuba divers, where they get petechiae. But that is usually because their air supply has been compromised and they drown. So, [petechiae] are a useful indication of something else that has probably happened…”

Asked if there are petechiae present, he says: “I am sure there are petechiae present”. On that specific point, then, Dr Heath is outnumbered by the other pathologists three 3 to one. The more that comes out from the other pathologists, the clearer it becomes how vital it was that the Coroner insisted on getting a second opinion and that the police - whatever else they may have done wrong - brought in a third and fourth opinion. 

Calder notes that the petechiae could be a reflection of an asphyxial death...

Thankyou Maymuse, hopefully her killer will be brought to justice for this heinous crime some day.

[As it happens I am also something of an expert on the Caylee Anthony case. I became peripherally involved though I'd rather not say how. Many lies were told by the media and many shocking facts were ignored, such as: 1. Affidavits [quickly whooshed by threats of legal action] from 2 searchers who volunteered for Texas Equusearch declared that the area in which the remains were eventually found were thoroughly searched WITH cadaver dogs in the early days after little Caylee was reported missing and nothing was found. Claims that the area was under water at the time were patently false. TES was allowed by the court to withhold documents from the defense pertaining to the search. On a related note, 2. The court allowed the prosecution to suppress a report from 'bug experts' which showed that the remains could not been in the area for more than 3 months. Caylee had been missing for more than 6. Casey had been in jail for 5, with a brief media saturated reprieve, when the remains were found. 3. A 'wealthy benefactor' paid for Casey's defense. This benefactor was allowed by the court to remain anonymous. 4. The father of Casey's ex-boyfriend JG admitted to being 'in the occult' for over 30 years. The elder Mr. G's 'ministry' was or is called Solomon's Porch. In occult mythology, it is said that King Solomon commanded demons to build his porch. Elder Mr. G seemed to have ties to military intelligence. An anonymous internet poster claimed Mr. G once led a 'cult' and that George and Cindy Anthony were members. This poster claimed to be the child illegitimate child, given up for adoption to family members, of Cindy and Mr. G. Elder Mr. G bullied and threatened researchers who refused to back down from questioning his involvement. 5. In the immediate aftermath of Caylee being reported missing, the Jr. Mr. G was at the Anthony house on the family computer 'for hours'. 6. During this time period, Jr. Mr. G called a wealthy Florida businessman and asked for 'help'. 7. Caylee's biological father has never been identified. There were rumors of incest and Casey's father and brother were both suspected at various times. They were both tested and the results were negative. 7. The most likely candidate for Caylee's father is the son of a very wealthy Latino shipping magnate. The young man  was never questioned by police nor was his name ever mentioned by the media in spite of the fact that he was part of Casey's 'inner circle' of friends. 8.The hair found with the remains was 'not suitable for DNA testing' and the remains were quickly cremated--against Casey's wishes..... All of this barely scratches the surface. ]


All of the theories put forth by these Ramsey docs completely ignore the evidence of sexual assault. Patsy did it in a fit of rage because JonBenet soiled herself. Burke did it because he was jealous. An intruder did it because he hated John Ramsey/he wanted money. None of this takes the autopsy findings of sexual abuse into account. This is a fact that simply cannot be ignored and has to be taken into account with any theory. You are right Nina, how can a nine year old child be the cause of such abuse, which many experts declared 'ongoing'.

I tend to think that Burke killed her but wasn't responsible for the sexual abuse. But faced with an autopsy, and faced with evidence of sexual abuse, I think the "cover up" was required to explain what the autopsy was going to discover.

whodunit wrote:[As it happens I am also something of an expert on the Caylee Anthony case. I became peripherally involved though I'd rather not say how. Many lies were told by the media and many shocking facts were ignored, such as: 1. Affidavits [quickly whooshed by threats of legal action] from 2 searchers who volunteered for Texas Equusearch declared that the area in which the remains were eventually found were thoroughly searched WITH cadaver dogs in the early days after little Caylee was reported missing and nothing was found. Claims that the area was under water at the time were patently false. TES was allowed by the court to withhold documents from the defense pertaining to the search. On a related note, 2. The court allowed the prosecution to suppress a report from 'bug experts' which showed that the remains could not been in the area for more than 3 months. Caylee had been missing for more than 6. Casey had been in jail for 5, with a brief media saturated reprieve, when the remains were found. 3. A 'wealthy benefactor' paid for Casey's defense. This benefactor was allowed by the court to remain anonymous. 4. The father of Casey's ex-boyfriend JG admitted to being 'in the occult' for over 30 years. The elder Mr. G's 'ministry' was or is called Solomon's Porch. In occult mythology, it is said that King Solomon commanded demons to build his porch. Elder Mr. G seemed to have ties to military intelligence. An anonymous internet poster claimed Mr. G once led a 'cult' and that George and Cindy Anthony were members. This poster claimed to be the child illegitimate child, given up for adoption to family members, of Cindy and Mr. G. Elder Mr. G bullied and threatened researchers who refused to back down from questioning his involvement. 5. In the immediate aftermath of Caylee being reported missing, the Jr. Mr. G was at the Anthony house on the family computer 'for hours'. 6. During this time period, Jr. Mr. G called a wealthy Florida businessman and asked for 'help'. 7. Caylee's biological father has never been identified. There were rumors of incest and Casey's father and brother were both suspected at various times. They were both tested and the results were negative. 7. The most likely candidate for Caylee's father is the son of a very wealthy Latino shipping magnate. The young man  was never questioned by police nor was his name ever mentioned by the media in spite of the fact that he was part of Casey's 'inner circle' of friends. 8.The hair found with the remains was 'not suitable for DNA testing' and the remains were quickly cremated--against Casey's wishes..... All of this barely scratches the surface. ]


All of the theories put forth by these Ramsey docs completely ignore the evidence of sexual assault. Patsy did it in a fit of rage because JonBenet soiled herself. Burke did it because he was jealous. An intruder did it because he hated John Ramsey/he wanted money. None of this takes the autopsy findings of sexual abuse into account. This is a fact that simply cannot be ignored and has to be taken into account with any theory. You are right Nina, how can a nine year old child be the cause of such abuse, which many experts declared 'ongoing'.

@ whodunit     I realise that we have taken the thread off-topic by introducing the murder of Caylee Anthony. However, I suspect that anyone interested in the killing of JonBenet Ramsey will be interested also in the killing of Caylee.

I only have a nodding acquaintance with the case of Caylee Anthony, which I think came up on the forum years ago simply because of the involvement of cadaver dogs in the case.

I have now found the Wundy Murphy article I mentioned, though I have an idea there is a longer one somewhere else. I expect, by the sopund of it, you are fully aware of her analysis.

Here is what she wrote about the case in 2011 for those who've not seen it before:

==================================


WENDY J. MURPHY: Casey Anthony trial an exercise in absurdity 

Wednesday
Posted Jun 22, 2011 at 12:01 AM Updated Jun 22, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Share

Recently dubbed the "Trial of the Century", the prosecution of Florida mom Casey Anthony for the murder of her toddler daughter, Caylee, could more aptly be called the Trial of the Absurd. The prosecution seems desperate to prove Anthony's innocence while the defense can't manage a single reference to the evidence that actually proves Casey did not kill her child.

By Wendy J. Murphy

Casey knows more than she’s saying about who and why Caylee is dead, which is why she was offered immunity early on. The prosecution squeezed her very hard - even putting the death penalty on the table - but Casey resisted and the prosecution all but conceded defeat last week when they rested their case after presenting a woefully small pile of evidence.

There’s no doubt Casey neglected her child, lied a lot, and failed to report Caylee missing for a month, but there's good evidence Casey wasn't even with Caylee when she died. Caylee was last seen with Casey leaving George and Cindy’s home on June 16, 2008.

The public thinks Casey drugged Caylee, put her in her car trunk and taped her mouth shut so she could go out partying. But Casey and her boyfriend rented movies the night of the 16th and stayed home. Videotape from Blockbuster showed that Caylee was nowhere in sight.

Wherever Caylee was, she didn’t die on the 16th because her remains were found with pink and white shorts and a T-shirt, not the jeans skirt and solid pink top she'd been wearing when she was last seen.

Whoever killed Caylee apparently had Casey’s car, too, because Casey didn’t have her child or her car on the 17^th. A witness told police Casey was driving a borrowed Jeep that day and a neighbor saw Casey's car, but not Casey, backing into Cindy and George's garage on the 17th. Why?

Did someone take heart-shaped stickers from Casey’s room to bury with the body to implicate Casey in the killing? Casey’s brother Lee testified that Caylee was killed to teach Casey a lesson. Why?

Casey had her car again on June 22. She told a friend on the 25^th that she’d been smelling a dead animal in the car. She abandoned the car in a public parking lot on the 27^th and asked a witness to pick her up. All this is additional proof Casey did not kill her child because even the dimmest murderer knows better than to invite a witness to the crime scene and talk openly about the victim’s rotting flesh.

The prosecution’s case raised more questions than it answered, and it failed address the following important issues:

1.  Photographs of Caylee seized from the Anthony home have been sealed from public view by court order as “too prejudicial”. The images are apparently so awful, Casey's attorney made a very big fuss about Cindy Anthony answering deposition questions about the FACT that the photos exist. Why?

2.  A search warrant executed on Casey's computer is also under seal. Why? The warrant for the Anthony home is available to the public. Why not the one for the computer?

3.  In May and June of 08, when Caylee was sleeping with Casey at a friend’s apartment, Casey got a phone call in the middle of the night, in response to which, she roused Caylee from sleep and delivered her to some unknown location. Then she returned to her friend’s apartment and went to sleep. Casey also delivered Caylee to unknown locations on other occasions when she claimed to be bringing Caylee to a "nanny." Where did she bring her? Why?

4. Why is the docket sheet in the case under seal? It would show what motions were filed to “seal” certain evidence. It would also show that the case has been designated a sex crime prosecution – which is important given that a sex crimes detective was involved in the early stages of the investigation. Why?

5. Casey searched the internet to learn how to make chloroform; a substance commonly used to sedate children in the making of child porn. The public thinks Casey used chloroform to kill her child, but the drug is popular among parents who pimp their kids because it’s cheap and it causes amnesia so that victims can’t remember being abused.

Pimping kids is dangerous business and Casey apparently made someone very angry. Maybe she cut out an earlier “business” partner or ripped someone off. A “Zenaida Gonzales” reported her laptop stolen in early June.

The distortion of truth in this strange case will lead to Casey’s acquittal, which begs the real question: will the prosecution then have the guts, and the political will, to file new charges against Casey for what she REALLY did to that poor little girl.

Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu. Read more of her columns at The Daily Beast.

I have since found this further article about the death of Caylee Anthony. It is not altogether off-topic because the authors bring the death of JonBenet Ramsey into their article near the end. Indeed it adds some horrendous details about her that fully confirm that JonBenet suffered prolonged, repeated, sexual abuse. It truly makes one weep for the overpowering einse of great evil having been inflicted on an innocent child.

Anyway, here is the article. To someone who is not too familiar with the case, it seems to me well reasoned and calmly explained:

--------------------------------------------------     

  
Casey Anthony: Was It Satanic Ritual Abuse?

Posted on July 20, 2011 | 39 Comments

I can’t quite figure it out and that’s no surprise since the prosecution couldn’t either. Everything I may say about Casey and what might have really happened is speculation, but I speculate that her parents were very much involved- right from the start.
Some basic facts to the story include:

– Casey tried to give Caylee up at birth but her mother, Cindy, wouldn’t let her. Normally, if a woman wants to adopt her child out, that is up to her. This tells me that Cindy had a lot of control over her daughter.

– On the original 9-1-1 call, Cindy calls to report that Casey has stolen her car and needs to be arrested. Then, when the call is transferred, one can hear Cindy saying to Casey that she will next bring up the ‘child thing’. Casey asks for ‘one more day’ but Cindy tells her ‘I’ve given you a month’. This sounds to me like it indicates that Cindy has known all along that the child has been missing. Also, the fact that Cindy first calmly reports an auto theft, then brings up the dead body smell in her daughter’s car, and finally discloses the fact that the child is missing and breaks into hysterics on cue, tells me that this was planned, staged and theatric. Again, it leads me to suspect that Cindy was heavily involved and was the one to decide how and when they would bring this to the authorities. If your granddaughter was missing, would you first bring up other issues before reporting this on a call? And why would you break into tears only at the end of the call? If this was the first Cindy had heard of it, I would imagine she would have called in tears and immediately reported the most important part first: Caylee’s disappearance.

– During the 9-1-1 call, Cindy also states to Casey that Caylee is ‘with Zanny’, the nanny, although it later turned out that there was no Zanny the Nanny. The name Zenaida Gonzales had been chosen by Casey, or more likely Cindy, for some unknown reason, and the only woman in the area with that name is now suing Casey for defamation of character. I can’t help but notice that ‘Zanny the Nanny’ is very catchy, the kind of thing one would remember easily. The kind of name a suspect would have in a movie. Was it Cindy who came up with this? Cindy clearly knew there was no ‘Zanny’, yet she mentioned this fabrication to Casey while waiting for their call to be transferred, as if going over their invented story to make sure Casey had it straight. Why do I think Cindy knew there was no ‘Zanny’? Because she spoke about her as if she knew this woman, calling her by her nickname and not ‘her (Caylee’s) nanny’. If Zanny didn’t exist and Cindy talked about her like she knew her, my guess is it would be because she was involved in creating the lie about her. The alternative would have been that Casey had been lying to her mother for months about a fictitious nanny. What purpose would this serve? The only purpose Zanny served was to divert the cops’ attention, so I think she was made up during the month Caylee was missing.

– During the month that Caylee was missing, Casey partied, went shopping and got a tattoo that said ‘Bella Vita’ : beautiful life. This is bizarre behaviour for someone whose kid is missing or has just died.

– During the recorded conversations between Cindy and Casey while Casey was in prison, it’s obvious that Cindy is the one in control. One can clearly see Casey’s frustration at barely being able to get a word in edgewise. Cindy looks to me like the brains of the operation.

– A couple of years into the trial, Casey suddenly states that her daughter died as the result of a drowning accident. Obviously, this is very bizarre.

– The coroner had found duct tape on the child’s skull. She concluded that Caylee was the victim of a homicide and that drowning was unlikely.

– Traces of chloroform were found in Casey’s car along with undetermined DNA that was either human or animal- they couldn’t tell for sure.

– A search for ‘how to make chloroform’ was found on Casey’s computer. Cindy said she was responsible for it, but that it happened accidentally with autocomplete while she was looking up chlorophyll. It turned out that Cindy was at work while this Google search was done, so she had to be lying about it. Why did she lie?

– Right near the end of the trial, Casey’s lawyer stated that Casey had been sexually abused by her father from the time she was eight and that this is why she was in the habit of lying about everything.

– While in prison, Casey did not act like someone who had just lost her child. She came across very self-centered, saying that this whole affair was ‘ruining her life’, and referred to Caylee as ‘that little girl’. Later, in prison, she had a change of behaviour and started acting like she didn’t have a care in the world.

My speculations are that not only were the grandparents heavily involved in whatever happened, but this might have involved ritual abuse. Possibly Casey had been ritually abused from the time she was a child. The accusations of molestation woudl fit in with that and it would explain Casey’s bizarre behaviour, as people who undergo this kind of trauma often become very dissociated, sometimes to the point of splitting into two personalities. This could explain her sudden change in demeanor while in prison and her apparent lack of emotions with regards to the death of her child. I would even consider the possibility that Casey tried to give Caylee up to spare her whatever she had gone through herself. As for motive, when it comes to Casey the only motive I could imagine would be wanting to spare her daughter from the same abuse she had endured. This would explain why everyone she knew attested that she was a good mother. maybe she was. Either that or she saw the child as a burden, but the testimonies don’t point to this.
It is also possible that Casey actually had nothing to do with the murder, but that her own parents were directly or indirectly responsible for it.

Cindy comes across as a very strong figure, a mastermind, the one in control. I would suspect that she was the one who all along planned how they would turn Casey, who was not responsible, in. They would do this once the body was decomposed and would conspire in elaborate lies that would lead the police on more than one wild goose chase. Did Cindy or her husband kill Caylee as a ritual sacrifice, or did they allow someone else to sacrifice her? What did they stand to gain from it? I cannot make any accusations, I can only wonder.

But I do wonder, because this case reminds me so much of the JonBenet Ramsey case, in which mountains of circumstantial evidence pointed to the parents, yet they were exonerated. As it turned out, they were involved in a Satanic coven that included judges as well as others in high places. JonBenet had started to speak to teachers about people in robes abusing her, and she had been taken to the doctor 60 times in one year for repeated yeast infections. Her vagina was twice the size of a normal 6-year-olds.

Sexual abuse in both families, plenty of circumstantial evidence, obvious lies involving the entire family, and a verdict of ‘not guilty’ based on insufficient evidence: it is clear both cases have that much in common. But do they also have something even more sinister in common including involvement in Satanic ritual abuse? I can only speculate.

canada12 wrote: But faced with an autopsy, and faced with evidence of sexual abuse, I think the "cover up" was required to explain what the autopsy was going to discover.

Quite likely I would say. And how often have we seen something similar said of the McCanns.

There was No conclusive evidence of sexual abuse- subjective.

MayMuse wrote:There was No conclusive evidence of sexual abuse- subjective.

There were however signs of sexual abuse.

DR. MCCANN
In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nationÂ’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.
There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.
McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

McCann also noted that there appeared to be a bruise on the inner right thigh which he though might represent a thumb imprint from forcing the legs apart.
Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.
...

Dr. Andrew Sirotnack from ChildrenÂ’s Hospital in Denver was also asked to review the medical findings and autopsy photographs. He confirmed McCann's determination of acute vaginal trauma during the assault on JonBenet, but He had not yet concluded that there was chronic abuse. Sirotnack had examined over 2,500 abused children during his career at Children's Hospital and had testified in approximately 50 - 100 criminal trials regarding sexual abuse on children.
...

n September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.Â’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. 

...

All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation."

...http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-sexual-abuse.htm

Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét.
He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.
Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.
Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.

James Kolar, Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 61

Yes I noticed the name (McCann) some time ago from the book. I think it is just a coincidence.

Tony Bennett wrote:
@ whodunit     I realise that we have taken the thread off-topic by introducing the murder of Caylee Anthony. However, I suspect that anyone interested in the killing of JonBenet Ramsey will be interested also in the killing of Caylee.

I only have a nodding acquaintance with the case of Caylee Anthony, which I think came up on the forum years ago simply because of the involvement of cadaver dogs in the case.

I have now found the Wundy Murphy article I mentioned, though I have an idea there is a longer one somewhere else. I expect, by the sopund of it, you are fully aware of her analysis.

Here is what she wrote about the case in 2011 for those who've not seen it before:

==================================


WENDY J. MURPHY: Casey Anthony trial an exercise in absurdity 

Wednesday
Posted Jun 22, 2011 at 12:01 AM Updated Jun 22, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Share

Recently dubbed the "Trial of the Century", the prosecution of Florida mom Casey Anthony for the murder of her toddler daughter, Caylee, could more aptly be called the Trial of the Absurd. The prosecution seems desperate to prove Anthony's innocence while the defense can't manage a single reference to the evidence that actually proves Casey did not kill her child.

By Wendy J. Murphy

Casey knows more than she’s saying about who and why Caylee is dead, which is why she was offered immunity early on. The prosecution squeezed her very hard - even putting the death penalty on the table - but Casey resisted and the prosecution all but conceded defeat last week when they rested their case after presenting a woefully small pile of evidence.

There’s no doubt Casey neglected her child, lied a lot, and failed to report Caylee missing for a month, but there's good evidence Casey wasn't even with Caylee when she died. Caylee was last seen with Casey leaving George and Cindy’s home on June 16, 2008.

The public thinks Casey drugged Caylee, put her in her car trunk and taped her mouth shut so she could go out partying. But Casey and her boyfriend rented movies the night of the 16th and stayed home. Videotape from Blockbuster showed that Caylee was nowhere in sight.

Wherever Caylee was, she didn’t die on the 16th because her remains were found with pink and white shorts and a T-shirt, not the jeans skirt and solid pink top she'd been wearing when she was last seen.

Whoever killed Caylee apparently had Casey’s car, too, because Casey didn’t have her child or her car on the 17^th. A witness told police Casey was driving a borrowed Jeep that day and a neighbor saw Casey's car, but not Casey, backing into Cindy and George's garage on the 17th. Why?

Did someone take heart-shaped stickers from Casey’s room to bury with the body to implicate Casey in the killing? Casey’s brother Lee testified that Caylee was killed to teach Casey a lesson. Why?

Casey had her car again on June 22. She told a friend on the 25^th that she’d been smelling a dead animal in the car. She abandoned the car in a public parking lot on the 27^th and asked a witness to pick her up. All this is additional proof Casey did not kill her child because even the dimmest murderer knows better than to invite a witness to the crime scene and talk openly about the victim’s rotting flesh.

The prosecution’s case raised more questions than it answered, and it failed address the following important issues:

1.  Photographs of Caylee seized from the Anthony home have been sealed from public view by court order as “too prejudicial”. The images are apparently so awful, Casey's attorney made a very big fuss about Cindy Anthony answering deposition questions about the FACT that the photos exist. Why?

2.  A search warrant executed on Casey's computer is also under seal. Why? The warrant for the Anthony home is available to the public. Why not the one for the computer?

3.  In May and June of 08, when Caylee was sleeping with Casey at a friend’s apartment, Casey got a phone call in the middle of the night, in response to which, she roused Caylee from sleep and delivered her to some unknown location. Then she returned to her friend’s apartment and went to sleep. Casey also delivered Caylee to unknown locations on other occasions when she claimed to be bringing Caylee to a "nanny." Where did she bring her? Why?

4. Why is the docket sheet in the case under seal? It would show what motions were filed to “seal” certain evidence. It would also show that the case has been designated a sex crime prosecution – which is important given that a sex crimes detective was involved in the early stages of the investigation. Why?

5. Casey searched the internet to learn how to make chloroform; a substance commonly used to sedate children in the making of child porn. The public thinks Casey used chloroform to kill her child, but the drug is popular among parents who pimp their kids because it’s cheap and it causes amnesia so that victims can’t remember being abused.

Pimping kids is dangerous business and Casey apparently made someone very angry. Maybe she cut out an earlier “business” partner or ripped someone off. A “Zenaida Gonzales” reported her laptop stolen in early June.

The distortion of truth in this strange case will lead to Casey’s acquittal, which begs the real question: will the prosecution then have the guts, and the political will, to file new charges against Casey for what she REALLY did to that poor little girl.

Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu. Read more of her columns at The Daily Beast.

I am always interested in any analysis from Wendy Murphy. I had not previously read this article--thank you!-- and of course I find it very interesting. I'm glad she noticed how Casey's defense team seemed determined to steer the trial AWAY from the actual evidence that proved Casey's innocence, and of course I've always wondered if this behavior from her lawyers could be blamed on the anonymous wealthy benefactor who paid for the defense. I can no longer find it, but there was once video showing  an 'old friend' visiting Casey in jail, within a day or so of her arrest mind you, issuing veiled but unmistakable threats about telling the police what she knew. The same day little Caylee supposedly went missing, a female jogger by the name of Nicole Ganguzza was murdered in the very same park where Casey supposedly last saw Caylee leaving with 'Zenaida Gonzalez'. A witness gave a description of a suspect and the resulting composite sketch strikingly resembled a major player in the Caylee case.

Who were the only people who corroborated the existence of Zanny the Nanny? None other Jr. and Sr. Mr. G, the ex-boyfriend of Casey and his former 'occult leader' father

Was Casey pimping out her daughter? Possibly, but you can bet she didn't do this without a lot of help from her 'friends'. She was getting her money from somewhere..

Casey's very first visitor after her arrest, Patrick Bourgeois. She does not remember this 'high school, middle school' "friend" who promises support from their mutual friend Mike Walker and advises Casey 'if there's anything you want to talk about...just let it go'.

Watched the docu. I can go with their theory. Older brother jealous of younger sibling. Smears shit on her stuff. Loses his mind for a second and smashes in her skull with one hard whack. Not an intentional murder. A brutal devastating act of violence.

The parents covered it up. Yes to save the older kid. The kind of future he would have but also to save their future. Not many people would want to do business with a man whose kid killed his sister. 
You'd lose your standing in the community as well and appearances were important to this family.

I can see why they would cover it up and have the ability to stage the scene. I presume once you've realised your oldest child has just murdered your youngest child, then the gruesome stuff after that realisation is easier to handle.
The ransom note was beyond ridiculous. It was 100% a cover up. I don't believe the mum or dad had anything to do with the murder. There was no child abuse here. Older children to JR who at he was a loving and caring father. I don't buy them as  paedophiles Either. 
I can see an older sibling with anger and jealousy issues losing his mind for a moment. 

That poor little girl though. my heart breaks for her.

Where do the chronic and acute sexual assaults fit in with that theory?

Dead child, sexually assaulted,  asphyxiated, head bashed in but it was the NINE YEAR OLD CHILD whodunit because he was jealous? I don't think so.

I'm glad he's suing, both for his own sake and for the possibility of some truth leaking out.

I sometimes question whether it was Patsy herself who was responsible for the sexual abuse. Everyone is assuming it was a male who caused JonBenet's injuries however there are many documented cases of mothers sexually abusing young daughters. Has this question ever been asked?

whodunit wrote:Casey's very first visitor after her arrest, Patrick Bourgeois. She does not remember this 'high school, middle school' "friend" who promises support from their mutual friend Mike Walker and advises Casey 'if there's anything you want to talk about...just let it go'.

My goodness, that Michael Walker gets around doesn't he!?

whodunit wrote:Dead child, sexually assaulted,  asphyxiated, head bashed in but it was the NINE YEAR OLD CHILD whodunit because he was jealous? I don't think so.

No one is putting forward such a simplistic theory.

Jealously may have been a factor, maybe not. Short fuse and anger certainly. I've seen kids explode with anger at the drop of a hat.

A nine-year old is certainly capable of hitting a six year old with a blunt instrument.

A nine-year old is certainly capable constructing a ligature with a handle - for whatever purpose - he was in the scouts.

I'm strongly of the opinion that Burke struck her.

After that I think possibilities... that Burke tried to deal with the situation himself and his parents eventually became involved and had decisions to make.

Although I think Patsy probably wrote the note, but it does have a child-like movie world invention about it and there was one practice attempt and perhaps another - maybe one was Burkes?

Burke may have heard about the $118,000 bonus in conversations.

There are a whole load of possibilities, but I think Burke was involved at least at the start.

Apparently there was no definitive evidence of sexual assault. Little  JonBenet had vaginitis and had visited the doctor with that. This is a common issue in little girls. There was no intruder that is a fact. Zero proof of. Why would JR suddenly decide to abuse this one child out of all of his children. Someone in that house struck that little girl once on the head and a cover up ensued. The lad did it.

whodunit wrote:Where do the chronic and acute sexual assaults fit in with that theory?

Dead child, sexually assaulted,  asphyxiated, head bashed in but it was the NINE YEAR OLD CHILD whodunit because he was jealous? I don't think so.

I'm glad he's suing, both for his own sake and for the possibility of some truth leaking out.

Thompson and Venables were not much older when they abducted James Bulger and did all those horrendous things to him then denied it, lied about it, blamed each other etc.

Some kids are just born evil and are capable of more than we think is possible.

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

whodunit wrote:Where do the chronic and acute sexual assaults fit in with that theory?

Dead child, sexually assaulted,  asphyxiated, head bashed in but it was the NINE YEAR OLD CHILD whodunit because he was jealous? I don't think so.

I'm glad he's suing, both for his own sake and for the possibility of some truth leaking out.

Thompson and Venables were not much older when they abducted James Bulger and did all those horrendous things to him then denied it, lied about it, blamed each other etc.

Some kids are just born evil and are capable of more than we think is possible.

Mary Bell.

Although to be fair with child "evil", I think it is often a case of they haven't figured out what "wrong" really means yet, it's slipped them by or they weren't told or weren't "burned" enough. "Consequences" isn't in their thinking.

Mary Bell is a case in point, she's out and about now has been for years living a normal life under another name.