And I agree with you on all that,
Mama. Forgive me if I misunderstood the point you questioned. If it is the
prior abuse only, that is not as well defined in the AR, but it is there -- albeit, not quite as “glaringly obvious” as
UKGuy noted.
I am not a medical type person, so a lot of this was all new to me when I started looking into it. But use of the word
chronic versus
acute in medical terms is not as you and I understand it (I’m assuming you’re not in the medical field either). Understanding this first helps to understand exactly what was being addressed in the AR. Rather than repeat it all, I’ll refer to posts where I tried to explain what I had come to understand about it
here and
here. The bottom line is that the terms refer to the stage of healing that an injury is at.
Chronic does not necessarily mean that something has to be repeated multiple times, but rather that an injury is at a certain stage in healing and therefore it is distinguishable from a recent injury. The length of time in that healing process is dependent on several factors, but mostly the severity of the injury and where it occurs. The changes that happen during the healing process are not as grossly obvious (
macroscopically) as they are under microscopic examination, which is why the coroner did this type of examination with the cells stained.
1. His findings were that the entire inside surface of JonBenet’s vagina (
all sections of the vaginal mucosa) had
vascular congestion (engorgement of blood at that level)
2. and the type of inflammation which indicated prior injury/injuries that had begun to heal (
focal interstitial chronic inflammation).