Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Who do you believe killed JonBenet?

  • Patsy

    Votes: 168 25.0%
  • John

    Votes: 44 6.6%
  • Burke

    Votes: 107 15.9%
  • an unknown intruder

    Votes: 86 12.8%
  • BR (head bash), then JR

    Votes: 4 0.6%
  • BR (head bash); then JR & PR (strangled/coverup)

    Votes: 113 16.8%
  • Knowing all I know, still on the fence.

    Votes: 55 8.2%
  • John, with an 'inside' accomplice

    Votes: 11 1.6%
  • I think John and Patsy caught him and he made her cover up

    Votes: 17 2.5%
  • I still have no idea

    Votes: 57 8.5%
  • patsy and john helped cover it up

    Votes: 9 1.3%

  • Total voters
    671
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just because it is off topic:


When her aunt found her running barefoot on the Charlevoix dock and asked, “Why don’t you put your shoes on?” JonBenét answered, “Aunt Pam, I want to feel the rhythm of the earth under my feet.” She was a free spirit.

Thomas, Steve; Davis, Donald A. (2011-04-01). JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation (pp. 4-5). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.
 
Hey I was just listening to last weeks true crime show and something he said made me think well him and a caller . The caller talked about the phone records and how they have never been released well then Kolar said that the coronor docter said that there was approx 2 hours of digestion before the end and they think she was hit on the head but the garotte strangulation ended it 2 hours later well the problem I have had and maybe im wrong but i think alot of us have had is that scene being played in your head where a mom or dad uses a garotee and strangles her to death i dont see how any parent could do that part of it so this is just a thought but if burke hit her with the flashlight because there was a fight over her taking a piece and he cracks her with the flashlight .now we know theres a 2 hour period untill the garotte is used to end things right since they wont release phone records maybe there really is a reason do you think it is possible that after burke hit her and they thought she was dead maybe they called someone to come over and finish the job maybe thats who used the garotte it took those too hours to call him and get him there .they wanted to save burke and couldnt risk that she maybe was in a coma and pulled through. they couldn't garotte her them selves they used those too hours to get help with taking care of her and the plan to set it up .it exsplains the ransome note in a way maybe at first they told him she was dead or not sure so he /she came over to take her outta the home but when he got there he realized she was still alive ...anyways just a thought mostly as i heard that 2 hour gap and it's just so hard for me to imagine someone putting that around her neck and twisting so dont jump all over me ok just some thoughts is all.
 
Im confused. What does this have to do with medication?

Maybe its right in front of my face but Ive read over my post several times and Im not seeing it?

I realize i dont add much to the discussions here-- mostly i ask non-important questions-- but in my defense, i am a very new nubie. I get these little distractions that cause me to ask, but until i get the answers or opinions, i stall out and cant proceed in my studying of the case.

Mainly i wondered about how much blood because i know its said that JRs shirt was used to clean it up. If there was alot of it then it should have been easy to confirm this.

They matched fibers on JB to the shirt, but Ive never seen mention of whether LE actually had it in their possession. It seems that they must have, though...

Everyone adds to the discussion! We were all newbies at one point, so don't apologize.

WRT your question, I'm not sure what you're asking. My first comment was stating that my experience was that there was a lot of blood.

My second comment, as I said, was not directed at you. I wanted to say that using the paint brush (or whatever) on her was only necessary if the person was trying to cover up abuse. There would be no reason to cover innocent medication use. I just didn't want to add another post, so I tacked it onto my answer to you about how much blood there could be from a loss of virginity or the start of menstruation.
 
Hey I was just listening to last weeks true crime show and something he said made me think well him and a caller . The caller talked about the phone records and how they have never been released well then Kolar said that the coronor docter said that there was approx 2 hours of digestion before the end and they think she was hit on the head but the garotte strangulation ended it 2 hours later well the problem I have had and maybe im wrong but i think alot of us have had is that scene being played in your head where a mom or dad uses a garotee and strangles her to death i dont see how any parent could do that part of it so this is just a thought but if burke hit her with the flashlight because there was a fight over her taking a piece and he cracks her with the flashlight .now we know theres a 2 hour period untill the garotte is used to end things right since they wont release phone records maybe there really is a reason do you think it is possible that after burke hit her and they thought she was dead maybe they called someone to come over and finish the job maybe thats who used the garotte it took those too hours to call him and get him there .they wanted to save burke and couldnt risk that she maybe was in a coma and pulled through. they couldn't garotte her them selves they used those too hours to get help with taking care of her and the plan to set it up .it exsplains the ransome note in a way maybe at first they told him she was dead or not sure so he /she came over to take her outta the home but when he got there he realized she was still alive ...anyways just a thought mostly as i heard that 2 hour gap and it's just so hard for me to imagine someone putting that around her neck and twisting so dont jump all over me ok just some thoughts is all.

Quite a thought. And not so absurd or worthy of being jumped upon! A distinct possibility in my mind. Also, there's that unmatched male DNA on her underpants and clothing, as well as the unexplained brown fibers.

If the R's called for assistance from a male person they could trust, they would have been very careful to cover any tracks that person made, and the person would not have had to be in the house very long.

Hmmmm................
 
It was never proven that the fibers from JR's shirt were used to wipe her pubic area and thighs of blood. it WAS proved that his shirt fibers were found INSIDE the crotch of her panties (which were new, right out of the package and unlaundered). The coroner found dark fibers on her pubic area and thighs and noted that this was "consistent with the area being wiped down with a cloth". After taking swabs of the area, JB's own blood was found. No one would be able to tell the amount of blood because it had been wiped away, but obviously there had to be enough to make wiping necessary.

Somehow I always associated the cleanup/wiping with JR's shirt, so I am very glad you posted this DeeDee. It clarifies how there could be a different interpretation about the dark fibers found on her, and also JR's shirt fibers in her underwear, which I assume then could have also transferred to her vaginal area, or vice-versa.

We should clarify for the previous poster that JR's shirt was sent to LE from the R's in Atlanta about a year after JB's death, IIRC, as was the red sweater Patsy was supposedly wearing. Both appeared to be in pristine condition - either having been professionally cleaned, or as has been speculated, Patsy's sweater even duplicated by new merchandise.

There is little doubt in my mind now, that JR most likely handled that pair of size 12's found on JB at her time of death. He could have taken them off her or put them on her. Thinking about it, if a child removes a pair of underwear, or even if an adult removes a pair from a child, they often get turned inside out. Which might account for his shirt fibers coming in contact with the INSIDE of the crotch of those undies, but not the outside. I suppose JB could have taken the undies off herself, but wouldn't she have had to be very near his shirt for the fibers to have gotten inside? If he had handled a brand new pair of underwear from the package while wearing his shirt, and put them directly on her, it seems to me it might have been more difficult for the fibers to get INSIDE the underwear, especially found in the crotch area.

Then again, could his shirt fibers have transferred to JB's vaginal area through direct contact with her skin or close proximity contact, and then transferred from her vaginal area to the crotch of the size 12's?? Could they have gotten there from JB touching his shirt, and then herself?

Would the cleansing that left the dark fibers behind have also left some of JR's shirt fibers behind if they were there before the size 12's were put on? Were there also the other dark fibers found in the crotch of the size 12's or just the fibers consistent with JR's shirt? I guess I am thinking the wiping was done, cleansing the area of anything telltale that indicated injury to JB's vaginal area, and the size 12's were then put on (or back on) during the final redressing. And if that was the case, in all likelihood, IMO, JR was the one near enough to have his shirt fibers end up INSIDE the underwear.
 
Somehow I always associated the cleanup/wiping with JR's shirt, so I am very glad you posted this DeeDee. It clarifies how there could be a different interpretation about the dark fibers found on her, and also JR's shirt fibers in her underwear, which I assume then could have also transferred to her vaginal area, or vice-versa.

We should clarify for the previous poster that JR's shirt was sent to LE from the R's in Atlanta about a year after JB's death, IIRC, as was the red sweater Patsy was supposedly wearing. Both appeared to be in pristine condition - either having been professionally cleaned, or as has been speculated, Patsy's sweater even duplicated by new merchandise.

There is little doubt in my mind now, that JR most likely handled that pair of size 12's found on JB at her time of death. He could have taken them off her or put them on her. Thinking about it, if a child removes a pair of underwear, or even if an adult removes a pair from a child, they often get turned inside out. Which might account for his shirt fibers coming in contact with the INSIDE of the crotch of those undies, but not the outside. I suppose JB could have taken the undies off herself, but wouldn't she have had to be very near his shirt for the fibers to have gotten inside? If he had handled a brand new pair of underwear from the package while wearing his shirt, and put them directly on her, it seems to me it might have been more difficult for the fibers to get INSIDE the underwear, especially found in the crotch area.

Then again, could his shirt fibers have transferred to JB's vaginal area through direct contact with her skin or close proximity contact, and then transferred from her vaginal area to the crotch of the size 12's?? Could they have gotten there from JB touching his shirt, and then herself?

Would the cleansing that left the dark fibers behind have also left some of JR's shirt fibers behind if they were there before the size 12's were put on? Were there also the other dark fibers found in the crotch of the size 12's or just the fibers consistent with JR's shirt? I guess I am thinking the wiping was done, cleansing the area of anything telltale that indicated injury to JB's vaginal area, and the size 12's were then put on (or back on) during the final redressing. And if that was the case, in all likelihood, IMO, JR was the one near enough to have his shirt fibers end up INSIDE the underwear.

midwest mama,
This one has been debated forever, with some suggesting you should expect to see JR's fibers since JonBenet is his daughter, duh!

Well forensics 101 suggests a point of contact and with the lower body area, note no remarks or evidence relating to the upper body, this is important, particularly for the DocG speculators.

The lack of proof simply relates to the possibility of ten or more other people wearing the same shirt on the same night that JR wore his.

Although JonBenet aficionados should note that JR's shirt was not any old shirt purchased at somewhere as common as Bloomingdale's, it was an Israeli manfactured woolen shirt so the fibers were, lets say identifiable!


So you have two assertions:

1. Fibers consistent with JR's shirt were found on JonBenet's lower body area.

2. Someone wiped down JonBenet's lower body area, resulting in leaving a residue of dark fibers.

I personally think its safe to infer that JR wiped JonBenet down using his shirt!

Lin Wood would never have contested this interpretation if it lacked substance.

Thats what we know. Now what did Patsy know, not a lot according to her interview with BPD when she said the size-12's were in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

JR knew better and never told her, even ahead of her interview, tacit proof of a Ramsey conspiracy.

JR and BR obviously had a plan, one that involved secrets, those of an intimate nature, no wonder BR was spirited away early that morning.


.
 
Hey I was just listening to last weeks true crime show and something he said made me think well him and a caller . The caller talked about the phone records and how they have never been released well then Kolar said that the coronor docter said that there was approx 2 hours of digestion before the end and they think she was hit on the head but the garotte strangulation ended it 2 hours later well the problem I have had and maybe im wrong but i think alot of us have had is that scene being played in your head where a mom or dad uses a garotee and strangles her to death i dont see how any parent could do that part of it so this is just a thought but if burke hit her with the flashlight because there was a fight over her taking a piece and he cracks her with the flashlight .now we know theres a 2 hour period untill the garotte is used to end things right since they wont release phone records maybe there really is a reason do you think it is possible that after burke hit her and they thought she was dead maybe they called someone to come over and finish the job maybe thats who used the garotte it took those too hours to call him and get him there .they wanted to save burke and couldnt risk that she maybe was in a coma and pulled through. they couldn't garotte her them selves they used those too hours to get help with taking care of her and the plan to set it up .it exsplains the ransome note in a way maybe at first they told him she was dead or not sure so he /she came over to take her outta the home but when he got there he realized she was still alive ...anyways just a thought mostly as i heard that 2 hour gap and it's just so hard for me to imagine someone putting that around her neck and twisting so dont jump all over me ok just some thoughts is all.

Several weeks ago a poster (I'm sorry, I can't remember who to give credit to) suggested something along similar lines. His particular take was that the helper was to dispose of the body, but lost his nerve and failed to complete the task. This failure was not known by the Rs. That would explain calling 911 with the body still in the house.
 
Of course Ive read this before but today it's caused a double take. Im not clear on where all that blood came from: When a woman loses her virginity, yes there is blood but not enough to flow out of the vagina, onto the pubic area, and then down the thighs! Ditto for flow at the start of menstruation, especially when she is lying prone, either on her back or on her stomach.

I am presuming that JBR was prone when the assault and the bleeding from it occured, as this (to me) is the overwelming probability. I know there's been speculation that JB -- or her body -- was posed in a sitting position for a time. There's also been discussion that she'd been hung from her wrists (god I hate writing that) but I reject that idea since there's zip evidence to back it up.

Whatever position she was in, I dont see how there was so much blood that it flowed out of her vagina, to her thighs, so much so that it required wiping. If there were cuts to the vaginal wall (or anywhere else for that matter) I might reconsider, but Ive seen nothing about this in any report. Has anyone?

Renah, I’m really glad you mentioned this. It triggered a memory of something else I’d read. While JB had shown prior abuse, and there isn’t anything that I’ve read which states how often or how much prior, it’s safe to assume someone in her circle had violated the child previously. In Kolar’s book, when he is listing the coroner’s finding, Kolar lists the paintbrush insertion as one of the latter injuries, since it did not bleed much, so they felt it happened close to death, while she was unconscious, though before she was strangled.

What your question evoked, and I hated reading this let alone bringing it over, but I think it may be a key piece to contribute to understanding, was an excerpt on ACR. It’s from the Bonita Papers by Dr. John McCann, a national leader and expert on child sexual abuse. His opinion was that 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 also 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.

The blood was wiped up. We don’t really know how much blood. But it leads to another question, was it wiped up after someone discovered her, then jabbed her with the paintbrush to disguise an assault. Or was it wiped up by one person who struck her in a blind rage, so angry they then jabbed a paintbrush in her. That kind of rage, IMO, only fits the scene of PR finding JR and JB together in a compromised situation. To give ST and his theory credit, it could also have been an over the top response to toilet issues.

Or the person responsible for the attack assaulted her with the paintbrush while she was awake and she screamed in pain, at which point she was struck. This would fit more the BDI scenario. Someone else rushes to discover her and wipes up the blood, leading an investigator to assume the paintbrush happened near her death because of the absence of blood, which of course had been wiped up. Now I need a brain transplant trying to understand this All JMHO.
 
I don't buy the BDI theory at all, and his behaviours, smearing feceas, bed wetting etc suggest he may have been abused sexually too. I just don't see why, if BDI, the parents would leave the body in the house. In the middle of the night John could have transported the body away and no-one would be any the wiser, any questions asked he had an urgent business thing come up, then come back an hour or so later with the ransom note and pretend to find JB gone.
 
Just b/c we know she bled, and that there was evidence she was wiped down does not necessarily mean there was a large amount of blood. That's my feeling anyway, especially when you consider the manner in which she was staged.

The MEs report notes "abrasion" and hyperemia inside her.

Idk if it was staging or undoing, but the wiping down and redressing gave the appearance of a death by strangulation. The "sexual assault" was not obvious when she was found, and therefore, wasn't revealed until the autopsy.

Lots of info can be found here, and is my source re: ME report

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682513/The Body#AutopsyFindings

There was also small amounts of blood on the forchette (a part of the vagina) and other areas of the vagina. The hymen was eroded, not broken, and all that was left was a thin rim of tissue. There need not have been a great deal of blood, but there WAS blood and it WAS wiped away. I do not think this came from a broken hymen, because it wasn't torn. It had been worn away over time. If it did bleed, it happened at a previous time. The blood that was wiped away likely came from the penetration that night (there was bruising in the vagina and on the labia). Some people believe that she was penetrated with the paintbrush- pieces of the wood were found in her vagina, though they could have been carried in on the finger from breaking the paintbrush. Some believe that Patsy used a douche wand on her when she soiled her pants. I am not sure which I believe, but I KNOW someone jabbed her hard enough to cause that bleeding. Now...dead bodies do not bleed or bruise, but jabbing her after death could have caused some blood to ooze out, though I don't know whether it would have been enough to run down her thighs. Possibly.
I know some people are freaked out at the thought of reading her autopsy report. But it really is a valuable source of information and I recommend it to everyone here who hasn't seen it to read it. There are no photos in the written report and there are people here who can explain it to anyone who asks.
 
There was also small amounts of blood on the forchette (a part of the vagina) and other areas of the vagina. The hymen was eroded, not broken, and all that was left was a thin rim of tissue. There need not have been a great deal of blood, but there WAS blood and it WAS wiped away. I do not think this came from a broken hymen, because it wasn't torn. It had been worn away over time. If it did bleed, it happened at a previous time. The blood that was wiped away likely came from the penetration that night (there was bruising in the vagina and on the labia). Some people believe that she was penetrated with the paintbrush- pieces of the wood were found in her vagina, though they could have been carried in on the finger from breaking the paintbrush. Some believe that Patsy used a douche wand on her when she soiled her pants. I am not sure which I believe, but I KNOW someone jabbed her hard enough to cause that bleeding. Now...dead bodies do not bleed or bruise, but jabbing her after death could have caused some blood to ooze out, though I don't know whether it would have been enough to run down her thighs. Possibly.
I know some people are freaked out at the thought of reading her autopsy report. But it really is a valuable source of information and I recommend it to everyone here who hasn't seen it to read it. There are no photos in the written report and there are people here who can explain it to anyone who asks.


Any way to estimate how long it took for this erosion to occur? Days, weeks, months?
 
Any way to estimate how long it took for this erosion to occur? Days, weeks, months?

IIRC this is a point that the experts could not define. Nor could they tell how often the sexual contact occurred. Given that there were no other signs of abuse, excluding the bed wetting and such, I'd say it was fairly recent. but then again, we don't know if there were other red flags as the Rs have never been too forthcoming.......about anything!!!!

Also the never explained multiple after hours phone calls to Dr. B a few days prior to the murder have always caused me to raise an eyebrow.

My daughter is 16, and I can recount in detail the few times I had to call the pediatrician multiple times after hours. But then again, maybe that's just me ;)
 
IIRC this is a point that the experts could not define. Nor could they tell how often the sexual contact occurred. Given that there were no other signs of abuse, excluding the bed wetting and such, I'd say it was fairly recent. but then again, we don't know if there were other red flags as the Rs have never been too forthcoming.......about anything!!!!

Also the never explained multiple after hours phone calls to Dr. B a few days prior to the murder have always caused me to raise an eyebrow.

My daughter is 16, and I can recount in detail the few times I had to call the pediatrician multiple times after hours. But then again, maybe that's just me ;)
That's true they couldn't tell how many times of abuse. But Dr. McCann did indicate the following: Of course, he explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. 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.

If I read this correctly it was 1 prior, and possibly other injuries more than 10 days earlier, but no way to tell, since there was healing of the 1 prior. 8/ 9 days earlier to her death was Dec. 17th, which you mentioned were the calls to Dr. B.

There was also this behavior indicator: JB had visited the school nurse twice in December on Mondays prior to the Christmas vacation. No big flag. However, she was reportedly clingier to PR in this time period. Seems like something was up in the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas. moo
 
Since there is so much confusion over these terms, a better understanding of exactly what they mean would be helpful. When most of us (myself included) think of these two terms, we think of a single incident of something sudden and severe (acute) versus a condition which recurs from time to time (chronic). But when a doctor refers to something as either acute or chronic, they mean something entirely different. Doctors use the terms to describe the length of time between the injury and healing. And in order to be even more specific, they sometimes use the term subacute. As used by doctors in relating to an injury, these terms refer simply to the stage of healing at which an injury is. The terms used to describe pain, OTOH, are exactly as most of us think: sudden and severe versus something that comes back repeatedly.

Any time period placed on the stage of an injury is going to depend on the area that is injured and the length of time required to heal completely. This website provides one of the simplest explanations I could find. But keep in mind as you read it that it is describing the terms in reference to sports injuries, so any length of time given is no indication of how long before her death that JonBenet’s genital injuries occurred. IOW, the point is that the terms are used to describe how far along the healing process has developed for any particular injury. The stages of the healing process is determined by the amount of bleeding/coagulation at the surface, inflammation of affected surrounding tissue, swelling, hyperemia, bruising, and the development of scar tissue -- and the length of time will depend on what was injured and just how severely.

So when Dr. Meyer described the inside walls of her vagina as having “interstitial chronic inflammation”, he was saying that the stage of inflammation (our bodies’ response to injury) indicated that it had been injured long enough ago that it was beginning to heal, but was not completely healed (keeping in mind too that re-injury can slow the healing process). There is nothing to say exactly how long before that night some of the vaginal injuries occurred, or how many times. The “acute inflammatory infiltrate” he noted in the AR that was not seen is an indication that she probably died before her body could react to the injuries that had occurred just prior to her death. That is why (IMO) he made specific mention of it -- to record that some of the vaginal injuries he had already documented happened just prior to her death -- not hours before, not days before, not weeks -- it happened right before she died, before her body could respond to the injury.
 
Since there is so much confusion over these terms, a better understanding of exactly what they mean would be helpful. When most of us (myself included) think of these two terms, we think of a single incident of something sudden and severe (acute) versus a condition which recurs from time to time (chronic). But when a doctor refers to something as either acute or chronic, they mean something entirely different. Doctors use the terms to describe the length of time between the injury and healing. And in order to be even more specific, they sometimes use the term subacute. As used by doctors in relating to an injury, these terms refer simply to the stage of healing at which an injury is. The terms used to describe pain, OTOH, are exactly as most of us think: sudden and severe versus something that comes back repeatedly.

Any time period placed on the stage of an injury is going to depend on the area that is injured and the length of time required to heal completely. This website provides one of the simplest explanations I could find. But keep in mind as you read it that it is describing the terms in reference to sports injuries, so any length of time given is no indication of how long before her death that JonBenet’s genital injuries occurred. IOW, the point is that the terms are used to describe how far along the healing process has developed for any particular injury. The stages of the healing process is determined by the amount of bleeding/coagulation at the surface, inflammation of affected surrounding tissue, swelling, hyperemia, bruising, and the development of scar tissue -- and the length of time will depend on what was injured and just how severely.

So when Dr. Meyer described the inside walls of her vagina as having “interstitial chronic inflammation”, he was saying that the stage of inflammation (our bodies’ response to injury) indicated that it had been injured long enough ago that it was beginning to heal, but was not completely healed (keeping in mind too that re-injury can slow the healing process). There is nothing to say exactly how long before that night some of the vaginal injuries occurred, or how many times. The “acute inflammatory infiltrate” he noted in the AR that was not seen is an indication that she probably died before her body could react to the injuries that had occurred just prior to her death. That is why (IMO) he made specific mention of it -- to record that some of the vaginal injuries he had already documented happened just prior to her death -- not hours before, not days before, not weeks -- it happened right before she died, before her body could respond to the injury.

otg,
There are so many font references I am frightened to make any changes.

Anyway again just to agree particularly on the acute inflammatory infiltrate I reckon Meyer was determined to leave the ground open for prior abuse?

My point being its not the staging or the chronic abuse that matters, they are important. Its Coroner Meyers explicit reference to acute asault and its evidence?

.
 
Since there is so much confusion over these terms, a better understanding of exactly what they mean would be helpful. When most of us (myself included) think of these two terms, we think of a single incident of something sudden and severe (acute) versus a condition which recurs from time to time (chronic). But when a doctor refers to something as either acute or chronic, they mean something entirely different. Doctors use the terms to describe the length of time between the injury and healing. And in order to be even more specific, they sometimes use the term subacute. As used by doctors in relating to an injury, these terms refer simply to the stage of healing at which an injury is. The terms used to describe pain, OTOH, are exactly as most of us think: sudden and severe versus something that comes back repeatedly.

Any time period placed on the stage of an injury is going to depend on the area that is injured and the length of time required to heal completely. This website provides one of the simplest explanations I could find. But keep in mind as you read it that it is describing the terms in reference to sports injuries, so any length of time given is no indication of how long before her death that JonBenet’s genital injuries occurred. IOW, the point is that the terms are used to describe how far along the healing process has developed for any particular injury. The stages of the healing process is determined by the amount of bleeding/coagulation at the surface, inflammation of affected surrounding tissue, swelling, hyperemia, bruising, and the development of scar tissue -- and the length of time will depend on what was injured and just how severely.

So when Dr. Meyer described the inside walls of her vagina as having “interstitial chronic inflammation”, he was saying that the stage of inflammation (our bodies’ response to injury) indicated that it had been injured long enough ago that it was beginning to heal, but was not completely healed (keeping in mind too that re-injury can slow the healing process). There is nothing to say exactly how long before that night some of the vaginal injuries occurred, or how many times. The “acute inflammatory infiltrate” he noted in the AR that was not seen is an indication that she probably died before her body could react to the injuries that had occurred just prior to her death. That is why (IMO) he made specific mention of it -- to record that some of the vaginal injuries he had already documented happened just prior to her death -- not hours before, not days before, not weeks -- it happened right before she died, before her body could respond to the injury.

I disagree with you. From a medical standpoint (and not entirely related to sports injuries), acute means sudden and severe. Chronic means ongoing.
It's as simple as that.
 
I disagree with you. From a medical standpoint (and not entirely related to sports injuries), acute means sudden and severe. Chronic means ongoing.
It's as simple as that.
That’s fine if you disagree, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the words.

Chronic comes from the Greek word for time: chronos. As acute and chronic are used to describe different conditions or ailments, so are they used in different ways depending on their contexts. The terms are used to describe pain, illness, disease, and injury. And in each use there are subtle differences in how it is applied to the condition being described.

If you are describing a type of pain, then indeed an acute pain would mean one that came on suddenly and most likely was severe in nature. The term chronic pain is often used to describe a pain that comes and goes from time to time, but never really goes away completely. While this is generally accepted, and its meaning is certainly understood, a more correct description for this would be to call it a recurrent pain.

Chronic simply refers to the length of time a certain condition has existed, and because of the way doctors use the term to describe the state of these conditions, the general public has come to misunderstand what is meant by the doctor. From Wikipedia:
“The term 'acute' may often be confused by the general public to mean 'severe'. However, not all acute injuries are severe, and vice versa. For example, a mild stubbed toe is an acute injury. Similarly, many acute upper respiratory infections and acute gastroenteritis cases in adults are mild and usually resolve within a few days.”

“In medicine, the distinction between acute and chronic pain has traditionally been determined by an arbitrary interval of time since onset; the two most commonly used markers being 3 months and 6 months since onset, though some theorists and researchers have placed the transition from acute to chronic pain at 12 months. Others apply acute to pain that lasts less than 30 days, chronic to pain of more than six months duration, and subacute to pain that lasts from one to six months. A popular alternative definition of chronic pain, involving no arbitrarily fixed durations is "pain that extends beyond the expected period of healing".

But don’t let the time lengths given above referring to pain throw you off. That is why I didn’t include any in my previous post. The time intervals will vary depending on whether you are referring to a type of pain, an illness, a disease, or an injury (and it will vary even further depending on the organ or part that might be injured). The only thing in common between the different ways in which the words acute and chronic are used in different contexts is time, and how time allows the body to heal.

So it isn't really quite as simple as you seem to think.

 
That’s fine if you disagree, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the words.

Chronic comes from the Greek word for time: chronos. As acute and chronic are used to describe different conditions or ailments, so are they used in different ways depending on their contexts. The terms are used to describe pain, illness, disease, and injury. And in each use there are subtle differences in how it is applied to the condition being described.

If you are describing a type of pain, then indeed an acute pain would mean one that came on suddenly and most likely was severe in nature. The term chronic pain is often used to describe a pain that comes and goes from time to time, but never really goes away completely. While this is generally accepted, and its meaning is certainly understood, a more correct description for this would be to call it a recurrent pain.

Chronic simply refers to the length of time a certain condition has existed, and because of the way doctors use the term to describe the state of these conditions, the general public has come to misunderstand what is meant by the doctor. From Wikipedia:
“The term 'acute' may often be confused by the general public to mean 'severe'. However, not all acute injuries are severe, and vice versa. For example, a mild stubbed toe is an acute injury. Similarly, many acute upper respiratory infections and acute gastroenteritis cases in adults are mild and usually resolve within a few days.”

“In medicine, the distinction between acute and chronic pain has traditionally been determined by an arbitrary interval of time since onset; the two most commonly used markers being 3 months and 6 months since onset, though some theorists and researchers have placed the transition from acute to chronic pain at 12 months. Others apply acute to pain that lasts less than 30 days, chronic to pain of more than six months duration, and subacute to pain that lasts from one to six months. A popular alternative definition of chronic pain, involving no arbitrarily fixed durations is "pain that extends beyond the expected period of healing".

But don’t let the time lengths given above referring to pain throw you off. That is why I didn’t include any in my previous post. The time intervals will vary depending on whether you are referring to a type of pain, an illness, a disease, or an injury (and it will vary even further depending on the organ or part that might be injured). The only thing in common between the different ways in which the words acute and chronic are used in different contexts is time, and how time allows the body to heal.

So it isn't really quite as simple as you seem to think.


The above is more accurate than your previous description of the words "acute" and "chronic", imo.
Specifically, the medical examiner's talk of "chronic" issues re: JBR's interstitial tissues speaks of ongoing abuse. It has nothing to do with what timeline her healing process would be. It has nothing to do with what hour the irritation to the tissues occured.
It simply means that there was a repetitive, ongoing, longterm trauma to that region.
Yep, that simple.
 
<modsnip>

Has anyone seen the TV show called Ray Donovan its on the movie channel and he is what you call a Fixer to the celebs kinda deal. My thought or question is for one do you even think someone like that exists in real life and also John was what the owner i believe of a multi million dollar company wasn't he .So i go back to the 2 hours missing from before or after the 911 call and remember how the phone records have never been checked they couldnt get access to them so theres the time the 2 hours what if because john was such a bigwig in his company could they have called someone like a Fixer this is prolly all fantasy but what the hay i thought i would throw it out there . If you have seen the tv show Ray Donovan you will understand this post better ...Ok thats it and be nice lol .
 
I have a question or a thought but i hate asking in any JBR thread because theres some not to nice people in the JBR threads so just bare with me its just a thought ok..

Has anyone seen the TV show called Ray Donovan its on the movie channel and he is what you call a Fixer to the celebs kinda deal. My thought or question is for one do you even think someone like that exists in real life and also John was what the owner i believe of a multi million dollar company wasn't he .So i go back to the 2 hours missing from before or after the 911 call and remember how the phone records have never been checked they couldnt get access to them so theres the time the 2 hours what if because john was such a bigwig in his company could they have called someone like a Fixer this is prolly all fantasy but what the hay i thought i would throw it out there . If you have seen the tv show Ray Donovan you will understand this post better ...Ok thats it and be nice lol .
The "Ray Donovan" service has been around forever. I believe JR would have been quite capable of getting someone in for that. Helgoth comes to mind for some reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
136
Guests online
1,642
Total visitors
1,778

Forum statistics

Threads
601,834
Messages
18,130,423
Members
231,156
Latest member
Oma-of-9
Back
Top