A rather "personal" question about female part

[Sophie]

I know this example has been discussed before. But read the autopsy of the vaginal injury, then read this from the search warrant:


Snip



Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.


Snip


From: http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm (PLEASE NOTE, THIS LINK CONTAINS AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS).


And then IDI claim that we are making this up about Meyer's deliberate vagueness in the autopsy report.

 

[DeeDee249]

I know this example has been discussed before. But read the autopsy of the vaginal injury, then read this from the search warrant:


Snip



Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.


Snip


From: http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm


And then IDI claim that we are making this up about Meyer's deliberate vagueness in the autopsy report.

Thank you for finding that. It is one of the tragedies of this case- that Mayer put NOTHING in the report about the injuries coming from sexual contact. While IDI may say that this would strongly suggest an intruder, actually it also favors RDI because it implies a possible motive (she was going to tell someone) or a reason to stage an accidental death as a murder.
It is another tragedy that Det. Arndt chose to develop "amnesia" in this case, because of her lawsuit against the BPD. She would have been invaluable, because she witnessed the autopsy and was privy to whatever Mayer said (and didn't write).

 

[Sophie]

Thank you for finding that. It is one of the tragedies of this case- that Mayer put NOTHING in the report about the injuries coming from sexual contact. While IDI may say that this would strongly suggest an intruder, actually it also favors RDI because it implies a possible motive (she was going to tell someone) or a reason to stage an accidental death as a murder.
It is another tragedy that Det. Arndt chose to develop "amnesia" in this case, because of her lawsuit against the BPD. She would have been invaluable, because she witnessed the autopsy and was privy to whatever Mayer said (and didn't write).

ITA, DeeDee. So many people used poor judgement in this case that justice was never a possibility for JBR.

The coroner's remarks to Arndt to me suggest staging or an attempt to cover up the earlier injuries, since, if this was the sadistic paedophile/'sick puppy,' I'd expect the attack to involve more extensive contact and more DNA being left behind. It is incredible that Meyer was so vague about this in the actual report

 

[DeeDee249]

Forgive me for being graphic, but true pedophiles usually rape their victims. Sexual contact is rarely limited to digital penetration. There would be semen. There would be more tearing and internal damage with so young a victim. Though some might use a condom (for the purposes of thwarting any DNA recovery, the coating on the condom can be found in the victim. I can't think of any publicized case where a pedophile used a condom.
JBR's being (to use Nedra's own words) "only a little bit molested" is more an indication of her molestation by someone in the family, who may not have been willing to have full-on sexual intercourse with her. The digital penetration would have been a "safer" way to have sexual contact with her, and this type of abuse is far more common when the child has a relationship with the abuser (parent, sibling, relative or caretaker, teacher). Someone in a position of trust or authority.

 

[Hails]

My knowledge and grasp of DNA is limited, but would it only be present if the perpetrator ejaculated, or would simple penile penetration leave DNA traces?
I only bring this up because my husband had a client who sexually molested a victim with his finger only. The client's reason? His penis did not fit. The victim was a young teen. Is it possible that penetration was not possible for the perpetrator? Or too risky while others were in the house?

 

[cynic]

My knowledge and grasp of DNA is limited, but would it only be present if the perpetrator ejaculated, or would simple penile penetration leave DNA traces?
I only bring this up because my husband had a client who sexually molested a victim with his finger only. The client's reason? His penis did not fit. The victim was a young teen. Is it possible that penetration was not possible for the perpetrator? Or too risky while others were in the house?

Hi Hails, DNA would be present in large quantities when ejaculate is present, however, DNA would also be found from sloughed off skin cells during penetration with a penis (primary transfer), finger (primary and possibly secondary transfer) or even some other (inanimate) object that was touched (secondary transfer).
What the difference is between these scenarios is the amount of DNA that will be left behind.
A vaginal swab will produce an overwhelming sample of the victims DNA. If semen (also very “rich” in DNA) is present it will also produce a second full DNA profile which will be relatively easy to “see”, be usable for identification, and be admissible in court .
DNA from an assault that does not leave semen behind, but rather skin cells only, will be much more difficult to separate and identify by a lab, and might produce only a partial profile that may or may not be usable for identification. The reason for this is that the victims DNA is so overpowering that it can “hide” some of the assailants DNA. Just to clarify this a bit, a vaginal swab may produce >100,000 of the victims cells. Ejaculate in a post rape vaginal swab may also yield >100,000 of the assailants cells. Skin cells from the assailant are likely to be in the 100 - 5000 range. In order to find a minor secondary profile during DNA testing, the ratio between major(victim) and minor(assailant) DNA donors should be less than 10-1 (idealy 4-1 or less)
My DNA thread may help you further, or perhaps not.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999"]DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[DeeDee249]

My knowledge and grasp of DNA is limited, but would it only be present if the perpetrator ejaculated, or would simple penile penetration leave DNA traces?
I only bring this up because my husband had a client who sexually molested a victim with his finger only. The client's reason? His penis did not fit. The victim was a young teen. Is it possible that penetration was not possible for the perpetrator? Or too risky while others were in the house?

Both could be possible. If the molester was a family member (as I believe) full sexual intercourse/penile penetration might have been too risky. Painful, to be sure, for a child that age (whereas a finger would probably not be as painful). Also the risk of much more injury to the area with penile penetration. As far as being risky with others in the house, that is also correct. Digital penetration can be accomplished while both the abuser and the victim remain clothed. It is easier to slip a hand down someone pants or under a skirt, and an easier situation to get out of quickly should someone approach. It can be accomplished in a sitting or standing position. It is definitely something that can be done surreptitiously and quickly. It is also easier to abuse that way and have the young victim not be as alarmed as they would be with penile penetration.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi, folks. I haven't been too active here lately. Lot of reasons for that; I won't bore you.

But I'm back now.

Okay, before he was forced to ride off into the sunset (and I'm STILL trying to convince the mods to let him back in), voynich started this thread with something of the implication (as I saw it) that if an adult had molested JB, it would have been so obvious.

Well, as any law enforcement agent can tell you, not only is it not that simple, but literally every single thing has to go right for a child molester to be caught. Let me break it down:

Depending on which statistic you read, the number of rapes that go unreported are anywhere from 50-80%. The reasons for this are many, but mostly have to do with the intense shame felt by the victims. Many rape victims feel that they caused it to happen, and even when they don't, the trauma is often too horrible to relive, and rape victims have to relive it several times: during the police questioning, line-ups, and mostly in court, where devious defense attorneys will drag them through the mud. Now think about this: those victims are mostly adults theoretically in full control of their faculties. Imagine what that must be like for a small child. A small child doesn't have the same fully-developed mental faculties of an adult. They don't always know it's wrong, especially when it's someone they trust and love. Add to that how easy it is to control and manipulate children through fear and bribery.

Oh, and to put it to rest once and for all: not only is it POSSIBLE for an adult to molest a child without causing massive damage, it's COMMON for that to happen.

 

[DeeDee249]

Good to see you back, SD.
When molestation takes the form of digital penetration, or even just stroking, or oral sexual contact, there is sometimes NO physical damage or visible evidence. Lots of emotional and psychological damage, though.
I believe the erosion seen in JB's hymen and the bruising and blood found wiped from her thighs and pubic area, and in small amounts internally, DO indicate there was digital penetration, possibly even forcefully. If this was a repeat offender (as I believe) - someone with regular opportunity to molest her, there could have been other types of molestation, all falling short of sexual intercourse.
What we do know is that SOMETHING caused bleeding from the vagina, enough blood to necessitate wiping off. AND she had to have been alive when it happened. This event, whatever it was, happened that night, after the return from the White's and before her death. So right there, we have proof that was awake at some point before she died.

 

[gngr~snap]

Hi, folks. I haven't been too active here lately. Lot of reasons for that; I won't bore you.

But I'm back now.

Okay, before he was forced to ride off into the sunset (and I'm STILL trying to convince the mods to let him back in), voynich started this thread with something of the implication (as I saw it) that if an adult had molested JB, it would have been so obvious.

Well, as any law enforcement agent can tell you, not only is it not that simple, but literally every single thing has to go right for a child molester to be caught. Let me break it down:

Depending on which statistic you read, the number of rapes that go unreported are anywhere from 50-80%. The reasons for this are many, but mostly have to do with the intense shame felt by the victims. Many rape victims feel that they caused it to happen, and even when they don't, the trauma is often too horrible to relive, and rape victims have to relive it several times: during the police questioning, line-ups, and mostly in court, where devious defense attorneys will drag them through the mud. Now think about this: those victims are mostly adults theoretically in full control of their faculties. Imagine what that must be like for a small child. A small child doesn't have the same fully-developed mental faculties of an adult. They don't always know it's wrong, especially when it's someone they trust and love. Add to that how easy it is to control and manipulate children through fear and bribery.

Oh, and to put it to rest once and for all: not only is it POSSIBLE for an adult to molest a child without causing massive damage, it's COMMON for that to happen.

BBM~
Correct! The vagina is made up of elastic tissue. Elastic enough to allow for the passage of full term babies... (in women) Only to repair itself and shrink back down to it's normal size. Children heal much quicker than adults. A child's vaginal area can heal from moderate trauma in about a week. Even seasoned pediatricians can not always tell if the child has ever been penetrated. That is why most children's hospitals have a molestaion support team for the children to further access what type of trauma they have endured at the hands of their abuser. The only 100% is semen, saliva, fresh vaginal tears, healing vaginal tears (or scarring) STD's and possibly new or frequent urinary tract infections.
Very sad I know! :furious:

 

[BBB167893]

BBM~
Correct! The vagina is made up of elastic tissue. Elastic enough to allow for the passage of full term babies... (in women) Only to repair itself and shrink back down to it's normal size. Children heal much quicker than adults. A child's vaginal area can heal from moderate trauma in about a week. Even seasoned pediatricians can not always tell if the child has ever been penetrated. That is why most children's hospitals have a molestaion support team for the children to further access what type of trauma they have endured at the hands of their abuser. The only 100% is semen, saliva, fresh vaginal tears, healing vaginal tears (or scarring) STD's and possibly new or frequent urinary tract infections.
Very sad I know! :furious:

gngr~snap, I'm glad you're here. It's nice to know that someone understands what I'm saying.

 

[Dragonfly1971]

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/hymen.html

A hymen is the thin piece of tissue that partially blocks the entrance to the vagina. It is sometimes called the maidenhead or cherry. It is named after the Greek god of marriage and has no known biological function.

http://www.scarleteen.com/article/p...t_virginity_scarleteen_interviews_hanne_blank


What the hymen is is whatever remains of that body wall cling to the inside of the opening of the vagina after the opening forms. It is the "leftovers" of the sheet of flesh that used to separate the internal genitals from the external ones before the vagina had an opening. The opening(s) in the center of the hymen are the entrance to the vagina.

I like to think of the hymen as a door frame mounted in a doorway that stands on the spot where "external" stops and "internal" starts. You can't go in or out of that doorway without passing through the door frame. The hymen is exactly the same. It is part of the entrance to the vagina. Nothing can enter or exit the vagina without going through it.

Scarleteen: Do all women have one?

HB: Medical science thinks that pretty much everyone does. Researchers have estimated that about 0.03% of women are born without enough leftover tissue at the vaginal entrance that it is visible as a hymen, which would just mean that the process of the formation of the opening of the vagina was a bit more thorough than normal.



http://www.healthystrokes.com/hymengallery.html

"covers the opening of the vagina"

As you see, my JIDI powers are far beyond yours, now, back down

This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of a claim of Deedee, and it will soon see the end of the Spin's "JB can't reach her hymen b/c it's near the cervix"

Sigh... how can so many females still know so little about their own bodies???? The hymen near her cervix? Seriously? Good grief. It's a membrane partially closing off the vaginal OPENING. Very much reachable by your own hand. It annoys me that when a female knows so little about her anatomy, then posts it.

 

[jessigirl]

For everyone who believes it impossible (i.e. JB knowing and/or possibly trying tampons, etc)it not only is possible, but I know firsthand that IT DOES HAPPEN and it happening is NOT always indicative of some sort of abuse, or even being overtly subjected to some type of inappropriate behaviors by an adult or older person. A very close friend of mine whom I have known since pre school, very close all thru hi school&college yrs&still are close acquaintances as both our firstborn(they're both now 12yrs old) are only 5days apart so also shared the ups&downs of first pregnancies in our early twenties. All that said I know this person extremely well and she was never subjected(nor was I) to ANY type of sexual abuse or even inappropriate events occured to us. All that said, when we both we no older than 7-8yrs old and the 2 of us along with another girl whom we cheered&went to school with, were all 3 at my friends home in their main bathroom off of the living room and my friend pulls out from one of the bathroom drawers what I much later would learn was a tampon. The 3 of us knew it was something a woman used when in the bathroom but not the entire process by any means. My friend proceeded to "use" the tampon as she thought it was supposed to be used. I will not go into detail(as I've seen that several posters were angry&offended by what they thought were too graphic of posts) so I will try my best to politely insinuate what she "attempted" to do with the tampon. She attempted to insert it in both areas and with both tried(and by look on her face was NOT comfortable) she gave up and quickly hid it in the bottom of the bathroom wastebasket... We all 3 years later(many years later)discussed what was attempted in that bathroom that day and 2 0f us agreed that even way back then at that young of an age pretty much knew what they were used for(of course not the full aspect of knowing it happened monthly, etc, etc) but we did know the main idea of it& knew where the tampon was to be used on a woman. But as for 1 out of us 3 that did not agree that she "knew", she not only didn't know but admitted she thought it was to be used by women for diarrhea(I feel there's no need for me to elaborate as to what/how she explained she thought it worked, I think that should be quite OBVIOUS. LOL). The 3 Of us laughed for a very long time that day we reminisced of what occurred so very many years ago.(it still makes me laugh). So you see, it indeed is all together extremely possible for someone this young to know(or atleast have a pretty good idea)of how they're used and I'm quite certain the 3 of us are not alone in being little and "trying out" something such as a tampon. But most importantly I think it shows it does not automatically mean someone's been abused or subjected to older inappropriate behaviors, it can be, just as it was in this case 3 silly little girls that were curious and wanted to figure out things that we'd later learn to be nothing but a personal aid in A MISERABLE ONCE A MONTH OCCURANCE that we have to endure for many, many(too many if u ask me. lol)years to come..
This is just my personal experience and my personal opinion on that experience...

 

[DeeDee249]

Many little kids are privy to how mommy (or sister, etc) cares for herself during her monthly periods. However, Patsy was a cancer victim and had had a hysterectomy. With the removal of her uterus, there was no longer any menstruation. JB was around 3 at the time. I doubt a younger child, 1-2 years old, would be aware of what to do with a tampon.
If reports that Patsy douched JB (because she soiled herself with feces and that may have contributed to JB's infections in vaginal area), then obviously JB was aware of douching and what it was meant to do.
As to menstruation and tampons- in THIS case, probably not as her mother did not menstruate.
But either way, don't see what this knowledge has to do with her murder. Her being aware of these things is not an indication whether she was sexually abused or not. I understand the premise of the question is to indicate that the vaginal injuries may have been caused by something other than sexual abuse (like a douche wand). That is possible, especially as JB's own blood was found to have been wiped from her pubic area and thighs. Vigorous douching could cause it, as well as causing the scream that was heard. This scenario is part of some PDI theories, as it does explain SOME injuries as well as the blood and scream. But all these things could be the result of a sexual assault as well.

 

[sharkeyes]

Of course it's possible that JB knew of tampons and menstruation, although her knowledge most likely would have been rudimentary at best; with Patsy being "out of the loop" so to speak when it came to having a period, it's not as if JB would have seen the typical "feminine hygiene" items in the bathroom, and therefore would not have the typical questions for a child of that age. However, kids talk, even 6 year olds, so who really knows? :waitasec:

 

[MurriFlower]

Many little kids are privy to how mommy (or sister, etc) cares for herself during her monthly periods. However, Patsy was a cancer victim and had had a hysterectomy. With the removal of her uterus, there was no longer any menstruation. JB was around 3 at the time. I doubt a younger child, 1-2 years old, would be aware of what to do with a tampon.
If reports that Patsy douched JB (because she soiled herself with feces and that may have contributed to JB's infections in vaginal area), then obviously JB was aware of douching and what it was meant to do.
As to menstruation and tampons- in THIS case, probably not as her mother did not menstruate.
But either way, don't see what this knowledge has to do with her murder. Her being aware of these things is not an indication whether she was sexually abused or not. I understand the premise of the question is to indicate that the vaginal injuries may have been caused by something other than sexual abuse (like a douche wand). That is possible, especially as JB's own blood was found to have been wiped from her pubic area and thighs. Vigorous douching could cause it, as well as causing the scream that was heard. This scenario is part of some PDI theories, as it does explain SOME injuries as well as the blood and scream. But all these things could be the result of a sexual assault as well.

Where did you get the idea that PR douched JBR? Is there some source for this or is it just 'supposition'? I'd be surprised if many 6 yo's would know much about 'feminine' issues, they're too busy with 'kid' issues at that age.

 

[DeeDee249]

Where did you get the idea that PR douched JBR? Is there some source for this or is it just 'supposition'? I'd be surprised if many 6 yo's would know much about 'feminine' issues, they're too busy with 'kid' issues at that age.

I believe it was LHP who said this. I'll try to find it.

 

[CathyR]

When my daughter was small my mother cautioned me about Bubble Baths as being a irritant to young girls "private areas". I didn't give her bubble baths and she didn't have UTI's. However a friend whose daughter had constant UTI's by the age of 5 did not know this. Her doctor never asked about bubble baths and she didn't know to ask. The UTI's went away when the bubble baths were ceased ( much to the dismay of the 5 year old).
The lack of bathing for 3 days might have been associated with her vaginitis. Cleaning only externally as even the use of bar soap in the tub was found to be irritating. Many kids are terrified of the shower as they don't like the water pressure spray. When irritated JBR might have been "scratching" at the area. This is very common behavior for young girls who experience irritation. How else does a mother know her child has a problem with that area. I never "examined" my daughter in that area as she never exhibited symptoms like itching. I would have had she shown the symptoms. My friends daughter another story she walked around grabbing herself and rearranging her underwear constantly. She found even the touching of her underwear to her crotch was itchy. I wonder if that is why JBR WANTED big girl panties.
The use of all cotton for underwear is also suggested for helping to heal. Nylon underwear doesn't "breathe" and traps moisture. Adult women with yeast infections that won't clear up are told to get rid of any non all cotton underwear, shower and not bathe etc.
I wonder if JBR had to borrow a pair of underwear from a larger girl at some point as she had soiled herself and had no other option. This is when she discovered her underwear didn't irritate her as much as when she wore her own size.

It is just a thought I have no proof.

 

[DeeDee249]

When my daughter was small my mother cautioned me about Bubble Baths as being a irritant to young girls "private areas". I didn't give her bubble baths and she didn't have UTI's. However a friend whose daughter had constant UTI's by the age of 5 did not know this. Her doctor never asked about bubble baths and she didn't know to ask. The UTI's went away when the bubble baths were ceased ( much to the dismay of the 5 year old).
The lack of bathing for 3 days might have been associated with her vaginitis. Cleaning only externally as even the use of bar soap in the tub was found to be irritating. Many kids are terrified of the shower as they don't like the water pressure spray. When irritated JBR might have been "scratching" at the area. This is very common behavior for young girls who experience irritation. How else does a mother know her child has a problem with that area. I never "examined" my daughter in that area as she never exhibited symptoms like itching. I would have had she shown the symptoms. My friends daughter another story she walked around grabbing herself and rearranging her underwear constantly. She found even the touching of her underwear to her crotch was itchy. I wonder if that is why JBR WANTED big girl panties.
The use of all cotton for underwear is also suggested for helping to heal. Nylon underwear doesn't "breathe" and traps moisture. Adult women with yeast infections that won't clear up are told to get rid of any non all cotton underwear, shower and not bathe etc.
I wonder if JBR had to borrow a pair of underwear from a larger girl at some point as she had soiled herself and had no other option. This is when she discovered her underwear didn't irritate her as much as when she wore her own size.

It is just a thought I have no proof.

Patsy ADMITTED in her interviews that the panties found on her daughter were the ones she bought for her niece, who was several years older than JB.
Yes, bubble baths can cause irritation in children, particularly. But Patsy brought JB SEVERAL times to the pediatrician for her infections. How many timed does a mother have to be told to stop giving her kid bubble baths?
If JB was itchy and getting infections, her poor hygiene (infrequent baths, not wiping well after bowel movements) were a likely cause.
Another likely cause? Sexual abuse and inserting anything foreign (a finger, for example) into her. At that age, a little girl's labia are "sealed" in a way, the opening almost fused closed. To insert anything, the labia would have to be manually opened.
Patsy was also reported by some sources to use a douche on JB because she thought JB's constant soiling herself were causing the infections. Possibly they were, but the answer wasn't douching. That can upset the PH balance in the vagina and make infections more likely.

 

[EastCoast]

Just wanted to comment on something that has been on my mind. You all are so dedicated to this case and I don't really know all the facts as you do, but no, a six yr. old does not know about such things as what is brought up in the poll. There would not be a need for a six yr. old to know, or even be able to comprehend that IMO. I have read PTPM but just now getting around to reading ST book. But wanted to say that putting a size 12 panties on a six yr. old is such a guy thing to do. If a mom wanted to put new panties on her child, she would go to her drawer, get out the correct ones, but IMO, a dad would be clueless. He would assume that a new pack of girls panties would be for his daughter? I am making some assumptions here, and no offense to men, but I can see JR doing that.