Prior Vaginal Trauma

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
It was the coroner who attended the body and performed the autopsy who thought there was chronic sexual abuse, not just the experts (and by the way, they were REAL experts, not armchair experts, they were doctors of forensic medicine and medical examiners, some nationally known. Their opinion counts for much more than that of anyone else.

He absolutely said to Det. Arndt that JB's injuries were consistent with digital penetration. I don't know what YOU call that, but I call that sexual assault. I have already SAID he didn't write it in the report. Arndt spoke about this in her deopsitions.

Its impossible to infer 'prior chronic sexual abuse' from 'digital penetration'. Was there something else the coroner stated that led you to believe he thought there was previous chronic sexual abuse? Because this remark to LA doesn't do it.
 
You know what,innocent or guilty,doesn't even matter,okay he got her a lawyer,great but I never saw him defending her with passion or even anger (which would have been understandable).ST was basically screaming on LKL in her face that she's a psycho murderer who killed her baby over a diaper issue and J only cared about ST slandering HIS relationship with HIS daughter.When ST basically never pointed fingers at him even if he should have.


PR innocent or guilty,I don't care,he shouldn't have exposed her like that over and over and over again .

He was actually handled it as tactfully as anyone could as he answered the question that the Ramseys kept hammering him for!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

"P. RAMSEY: What can you imagine? I can't imagine. I want to you look at me and tell me what you think happened.

THOMAS: Actually, I'll look you right in the eye. I think you're good for this. I think that's what the evidence suggests."

I encourage you to read the entire transcript as it also shows that John displayed plenty of anger over Patsy having the Finger pointed at her by ST as well as many questions directed to John by Steve while he was Blowing the Whistle to Alert everyone as to what was Really going on in Boulder while the Ramseys did what they had to do to add another lawsuit to their list...I Love knowing that I can still buy Steve's book without any retractions!:dance:
 
Thanks, Dave. You quote some really good statistics there, but let me say this: If it has ever happened to a child that you love, those statistics take on new meaning. It did happen to a child that I love very much. He was five years old and all the pervert that molested him had to tell him was that if he told, he would kill his mother. That might sound ridiculus to the adults who read here, but believe me, it's not ridiculus to a five year old. They are scared and permanently scarred and they keep their mouths shut out of fear. Please don't hand me socioeconomic bs. This family is not trailer trash, they are wealthy and well respected members of that community. This child finally told someone after his family brought him 500 miles away for a vacation. He told me because he trusted me to not let his mother get hurt. I'm sorry for the long post but this subject really gets to me in a big way. We always thought that something like this happened to other families. What a joke.

That's an awful story, beck. Worse since it's so typical.

If you really believe sexual abuse could not have happened to JonBenet because of who her family is, I don't know what would convince you.

Me neither, beck. And you know I've tried. It's one thing to say someone didn't do something. It's worlds apart to say they couldn't have done something.
 
Whether she was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder has not been proven, only suggested.

Suggested pretty hard, but you have a point. The only real way to prove sexual abuse is with a professional interview of the victim. Obviously, that can't happen, and you have to wonder if maybe that was the idea. Right now, unless a witness comes forward, all we can say is that JB had prior vaginal trauma, because we can't be sure if it was done for the gratification of someone else.

Regardless, this had nothing to do with her death.

You'll have to explain how you can say that, MF.
 
Maybe what that doctor meant when saying it was no staging was that the sexual assault that night was real.I believe it was as well and even ST confirms that it's what the dr.'s thought.She was alive when she was assaulted.

Your guess is as good as any, maddy. It would help if LW had worded his question a bit less vaguely. The way I interpreted it was that the Dr. believed there was prior pathology, thus the idea that someone could have done this without it was null and void.

Even if you're right, if JB was technically alive doesn't mean it's not staging. Staging is all about the mindset of the perp, which is why your original question is the right one: it's not the Dr.'s expertise. He can only list the physical aspects.

If you(they,LE) can prove this happened before.....voila,it's not the most complicated case in history at all.

Prior abuse,sexual assault,murder,it's NOT that hard to figure it out if you WANT to.

IMO

No kidding.
 
No kidding.

Well yeah and I agree here with Schiller:

this murder took place in a community that was embarrassed by it

Maybe it would have been solved by now if they(LE, but especially Hunter,Singular wanted to help but no one listened for ex) wouldn't have AVOIDED the sex related issues.
 
This is one of the saddest things that I have ever heard. I read your post yesterday, and woke up this morning thinking about it. I hope that you nephew is doing okay now, even though know...the scars will never be erased. Bless his heart!!

Thanks, Ames. We worried for so long that his life would never be the same. So many things can happen as a result of sexual abuse, but he has turned into a great young man and we are very proud of him and grateful that he didn't turn into an ugly statistic. Therapy can work wonders if it's gotten soon enough!
 
While I'm at it, I'd like to address this one specifically to HOTYH and LinasK.

HOTYH, you said that there was no prima facie evidence that JB suffered prior molestation. Well, I've asked for LinasK's help on this because I get the feeling that you won't take my word for what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway and then she can weigh in.

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. What you're overlooking is that one of the big problems with child sexual abuse--if not THE biggest single problem--is that so very often, there is no obvious evidence of it, even when it happens. Many forms of abuse leave no signs at all.

Moreover, child sexual abuse knows no ethnic, racial or societal bounds. It happens even in "good" families. We all know about the stereotypes of who preys on children: the dirty old man down the street, the creep in sunglasses with a bag of candy, etc. This prejudice may very well be one reason why so much sexual abuse of children goes undetected. We think we're all so hip to the problem and that these creeps are so easy to spot, but the sad fact is that literally EVERY SINGLE THING has to go completely right for one of these creeps to get caught. And as any cop will tell you, when they DO get caught, it's almost never with their first victim.

How much of it goes undetected, you ask? Well, that's hard to say. Let's try to put it in perspective:

According to at least one FBI statistic I read, as many as 60% of rape victims do not report their rapes. Of the ones that do, only about 40% of the rapists are arrested. Of those arrested, only about 15% ever see prison time. The reason for this is obvious: because rape is the only crime where the victim can be victimized twice, first by the act itself, then by having to relive it to the police and then in court, where slimy defense lawyers will drag them through hell and back. For most of them, it's just not worth the trauma.

And bear in mind: these are adult women, supposedly in complete control of their faculties. Imagine now how hard it must be for a small child to come forward. It's their innocence and inability to fight back that makes them such tempting targets. They don't always know it's wrong, and if the perp is a loved one, they may come to associate it with love. More than one child has said that they liked it. Others simply process it as part of life and move on. We keep being told what to look for in abused children: sexual acting out, compulsive masturbation, exaggerated startle reflex, etc. But something like 80% of abused children show NO behavioral symptoms.

And even if they DO know it's wrong, children are extremely easy to manipulate through bribery or intimidation. Couple that with the child's own fear that if they do tell an adult, the adult won't believe them and might punish them for telling "lies," especially if the perp is a loved one.

There, I've said my piece. You guys can weigh in now.

Okay,forget about the child and the child's behaviour.Take a look at the wives in this type of cases (incest,abuse).

Sometimes the wife's behaviour says even more.

I don't wanna comment re the R's now but ITA with LinasK when she says PR was the type of woman who always stands by her man,no matter what.I felt that right from the start.And this is all I am saying for now.
It's one of the reasons I don't think PDI(IF RDI).When I look at them,I see a husband controlling (it's not very visible,it's the gestures,the way they sit next to each other,they way he looks at her and she looks at him,etc)the wife not the other way around.
Okay I'm here:wave:...
Not sure where to start but to re-iterate, I am a grown woman who was molested when I was 13, and he used to rub up against me when I was about 4 or 5!!! I came from a middle-class family. My perp. was a beloved family member. He died without being prosecuted because I was afraid and knew I wouldn't be believed by my own family. Sure enough, when I finally did get brave enough years later to tell them, I wasn't believed. It is being re-victimized all over again. I've also worked with teenage girls who have been abused. They act out. I guessed early on why. The scars are psychological, even when they aren't physical.
Re: Madeline- I never said I thought Patsy did it, as a matter of fact, I am in the John Did It camp, with Patsy helping with the cover-up and Ransom Note. I think John pushed his sick little sexual games too far with JB and she ended up dead. Not sure which killed her, the garrote or the head bash, but the second one was for overkill/cover-up.
 
Okay I'm here:wave:...
Not sure where to start but to re-iterate, I am a grown woman who was molested when I was 13, and he used to rub up against me when I was about 4 or 5!!! I came from a middle-class family. My perp. was a beloved family member. He died without being prosecuted because I was afraid and knew I wouldn't be believed by my own family. Sure enough, when I finally did get brave enough years later to tell them, I wasn't believed. It is being re-victimized all over again. I've also worked with teenage girls who have been abused. They act out. I guessed early on why. The scars are psychological, even when they aren't physical.
Re: Madeline- I never said I thought Patsy did it, as a matter of fact, I am in the John Did It camp, with Patsy helping with the cover-up and Ransom Note. I think John pushed his sick little sexual games too far with JB and she ended up dead. Not sure which killed her, the garrote or the head bash, but the second one was for overkill/cover-up.

LinasK, I'm very sorry this happened to you and even more sorry that your family didn't believe you. I'm afraid it's that way in a lot of families. In our case it would have been very hard not to believe a five year old boy with injuries such as he sustained. I know one thing, if his parents had acted for one second like it had to be something else going on, I would be in prison today because I would have hurt someone really bad. Thank God they believed and I kinda think they suspected something was going on but didn't want to face this kind of reality.
From your posts it seems that you have overcome this and made a life for yourself. That's wonderful. You have my blessings and appreciation for sharing your story with us in order to help JonBenet. Thank You!
Becky
 
Maybe what that doctor meant when saying it was no staging was that the sexual assault that night was real.I believe it was as well and even ST confirms that it's what the dr.'s thought.She was alive when she was assaulted.
If you(they,LE) can prove this happened before.....voila,it's not the most complicated case in history at all.

Prior abuse,sexual assault,murder,it's NOT that hard to figure it out if you WANT to.

IMO

She had to be alive when she was assaulted. Dead people don't bruise or bleed, and evidence of both were seen in her vagina.
 
I still would like to know more about dec 23.The 911 call and them not even opening the door when the officer showed up,JB not feeling pretty.I always thought something happened that evening....

So would we all. (BTW, Madeline, you are on a roll tonight! ITA with everything you've said on this thread).
I've always understood that when a 911 call is placed and police arrive, they HAVE to be admitted to the home, even if the call was accidentally placed and there is no emergency. Think of cases where it is a domestic assault and the husband tells the wife he'll kill her if she opens that door. The police would only have to take one look at the wife to see she's been beaten, or worse.
I had a phone that had an "instant 911" button that I accidentally pressed on more than one occasion. Each time the police came, I had to let them in.
If someone answered the R's door when police came on the 23rd, (I think it was SS) and told police they weren't needed, the police should still have gone in and looked around and talked to people. They didn't. This tells me that even before this incident, the Rs wealth and position in the community allowed them special treatment at the hands of LE.
 
Its impossible to infer 'prior chronic sexual abuse' from 'digital penetration'. Was there something else the coroner stated that led you to believe he thought there was previous chronic sexual abuse? Because this remark to LA doesn't do it.

Yes. There was hymenal erosion, which was not acute. In medical terms, acute means happened at the time the injury is seen (that day, that hour, that minute) chronic need not mean over along period of time, is simply means that it happened at least once before. Chronic also needn't mean that happened many times. We tend to think of chronic in the terms of a chronic illness, like emphysema, or something that a person has for a long time. But it doesn't always mean that. Bruising also takes some time- and it doesn't happen after death. So any bruising seen happened as a result of an injury that happened earlier than the events surrounding her death. Let's suppose that she was abused on the night of the party on the 23rd. The bruising would be apparent in the autopsy. Even if it didn't happen before the 23rd, it would still be described as "chronic" rather than "acute" (meaning JUST happened).
 
Yes. There was hymenal erosion, which was not acute. In medical terms, acute means happened at the time the injury is seen (that day, that hour, that minute) chronic need not mean over along period of time, is simply means that it happened at least once before. Chronic also needn't mean that happened many times. We tend to think of chronic in the terms of a chronic illness, like emphysema, or something that a person has for a long time. But it doesn't always mean that. Bruising also takes some time- and it doesn't happen after death. So any bruising seen happened as a result of an injury that happened earlier than the events surrounding her death. Let's suppose that she was abused on the night of the party on the 23rd. The bruising would be apparent in the autopsy. Even if it didn't happen before the 23rd, it would still be described as "chronic" rather than "acute" (meaning JUST happened).

Autopsy says "Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa". Please point out where it says "hymenal erosion".
 
Autopsy says "Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa". Please point out where it says "hymenal erosion".

On page 4, right where you were reading, Mayer describes the hymen as being represented by a rim of mucosal tissue, etc. The hymen is supposed to cover certain vaginal structures that can be seen, yet the hymen was not broken, ripped or torn. It was rubbed away. Though Mayer describes this as an abrasion rather than an erosion, an abrasion is also a rubbing away, like an erosion. There is no way to cause an abrasion of the hymen unless is is rubbed away. Any other type of penetration would tear it. While I know you discount the opinion of other forensic experts who read the autopsy report, they all concluded there was erosion. Erosion, abrasion. Same thing. A section of it was rubbed away.
 
Whether she was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder has not been proven, only suggested. Regardless, this had nothing to do with her death.

MY BOLD

How can you say prior molestation has nothing to do with her death? This was either a sexually motivated crime-turned-murder, or a murder where molestation was staged after the fact. Not to consider prior molestation is, IMHO, tantamount to giving the molester and possible murderer a free pass. It always comes down to motive and opportunity, and a molester within the family would have both a reason to silence a victim and the golden opportunity to do so.
 
Yes. There was hymenal erosion, which was not acute. In medical terms, acute means happened at the time the injury is seen (that day, that hour, that minute) chronic need not mean over along period of time, is simply means that it happened at least once before. Chronic also needn't mean that happened many times. We tend to think of chronic in the terms of a chronic illness, like emphysema, or something that a person has for a long time. But it doesn't always mean that. Bruising also takes some time- and it doesn't happen after death. So any bruising seen happened as a result of an injury that happened earlier than the events surrounding her death. Let's suppose that she was abused on the night of the party on the 23rd. The bruising would be apparent in the autopsy. Even if it didn't happen before the 23rd, it would still be described as "chronic" rather than "acute" (meaning JUST happened).

I believe these are your definitions and not clinical definitions. Do you really know the clinical definition for chronic, as it was used by the coroner?

I have seen many times where the term 'chronic' in the autopsy report was instantly construed as meaning JBR had previous chronic sexual abuse by a family member who was involved in the murder. This is where fiction is outrunning fact.

From what I've read, chronic could mean 10 minutes. That is, an injury JBR sustained that night can be described has having 'chronic inflammation'.
 
Its impossible to infer 'prior chronic sexual abuse' from 'digital penetration'. Was there something else the coroner stated that led you to believe he thought there was previous chronic sexual abuse? Because this remark to LA doesn't do it.

But wouldn't evidence of digital penetration in a 6 y/o be sexual abuse by any standard? Re "chronic," unless JonBenet was in the habit of sticking her fingers in herself (which raises a lot of other red flags), I would think that the swelling, scarring or other markers would show that this occurred prior to the Christmas night injuries and thus prove itself.

I mean, there is no good reason for a 6 y/o to have evidence of any vaginal trauma whatsoever.
 
On page 4, right where you were reading, Mayer describes the hymen as being represented by a rim of mucosal tissue, etc. The hymen is supposed to cover certain vaginal structures that can be seen, yet the hymen was not broken, ripped or torn. It was rubbed away. Though Mayer describes this as an abrasion rather than an erosion, an abrasion is also a rubbing away, like an erosion. There is no way to cause an abrasion of the hymen unless is is rubbed away. Any other type of penetration would tear it. While I know you discount the opinion of other forensic experts who read the autopsy report, they all concluded there was erosion. Erosion, abrasion. Same thing. A section of it was rubbed away.

So you admit there was no 'hymenal erosion' written in the autopsy!!

An abrasion and an erosion are not the same thing, the two words are not interchangeable in an autopsy situation. Hymen would have sustained an abrasion by the insertion of something (finger etc?) that rubbed.


It does NOT imply this happened at any time prior to the assault immediately preceding her murder. You have just interpreted what you read to fit with your RDI theory.
 
MY BOLD

How can you say prior molestation has nothing to do with her death? This was either a sexually motivated crime-turned-murder, or a murder where molestation was staged after the fact. Not to consider prior molestation is, IMHO, tantamount to giving the molester and possible murderer a free pass. It always comes down to motive and opportunity, and a molester within the family would have both a reason to silence a victim and the golden opportunity to do so.


Since PR gave right and left handed word-for-word exemplars of the actual ransom note, I'd say that PR wasn't given a free pass. Since there are zero foreign suspects, they are the ones getting the free pass. Not to consider a foreign culprit is probably understandable when the RN doesn't come out and specifically say so. I think it looks dopey to blank out the possibility.

MY BOLD

This was either a sexually motivated crime-turned-murder, or a murder where molestation was staged after the fact.

Its apparently neither one of these.

Prima facie tells us it was a pedophile crime AND a murder with some revenge thrown in. The ransom note was too much like a diatribe letter and too much unlike a ransom note.
 
I don't think Patsy was necessarily given a free pass, but she certainly wasn't treated like your average Jane accused of a crime either. The cops let her sister traipse freely through the crime scene and remove items from the home. Most of us can't catch a break on a simple traffic stop. I think the Ramsey money and influence spoke loudly, even in a wealthy community like Boulder.

And blaming an anonymous "small foreign faction" is akin to the "bushy-haired stranger" defense in my opinion. I also find it odd that this group has never been heard from before or since. Most groups like that thrive on the publicity their atrocities generate and will continue to commit heinous acts to extend their 15 minutes of fame a few seconds longer. Think of the Symbionese Liberation Army and Patty Hearst, and the long string of bank robberies they carried out to further their cause and fill their coffers. this faction seemed to exist and act only on one night towards one target.

And I find that really hard to believe.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
304
Total visitors
461

Forum statistics

Threads
609,695
Messages
18,256,908
Members
234,725
Latest member
phud
Back
Top