I still have an open mind as to how this happened and who did it

[CherCher]

Okay...

First, we must understand that the term 'chronic', used to describe the inflammation observed by Dr. Meyer, indicates a stage of healing, and is not intended to diagnose an ongoing/recurrent state of the vaginal wall. It simply indicates the membrane was observed to be healing. Next, we must consider why. It seems logical to surmise JonBenet's recent round of antibiotics caused a shift in fungal & bacterial levels present in a healthy child's vagina. Vaginal inflammation is a normal side effect & an expected result of a round of antibiotics.

I'll move on to the hymen next...

Oh my. M2JML, please look up the word " chronic". The primary definition of "chronic" is not a stage of healing, but a stage of the disease process.

 

[Mama2JML]

Okay, Mama, let’s hash this thing out, because it’s important (not because of your asserted lack of generosity :smile: which I don’t believe). You are a reasonable person, so there’s no reason we can’t discuss it logically. As I’ve said, I’m convinced there was prior abuse. It doesn’t matter how many posters (or experts) agree or disagree with that -- majority agreement is not proof one way or the other. Without trying to offer explanations about how many times, over exactly how long a period of time it occurred, or by whom, I feel the AR spells out the existence of prior abuse. The so-called “experts” who acknowledged the prior abuse either said those things couldn’t be determined, or if they offered an estimate, they said there was really no way of determining these exact details with any certainty. From what I’ve learned, I understand (and agree with) their inability to determine that.

I offered an explanation of what the details of the AR mean; but if someone can offer another explanation, I’d like to hear it. I know some have suggested other reasons for the injuries (I don’t need to bother repeating them), but most of those reasons seem (to me) to be flimsy excuses and justifications for something that should simply not be found in a six-year-old little girl. But then these other reasons don’t deny the evidence of prior abuse -- they just offer other explanations for it.

So back to your above quoted response... I wouldn’t ask anyone to entertain the assumption of an absolute when it is obviously open for debate. But I’ve stated my belief and what it is based on, so please give me an argument against it based on what you understand in the AR.

otg, I replied to your post here:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10137585#post10137585"]Why was JB killed? - Page 5 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Mama2JML]

Oh my. M2JML, please look up the word " chronic". The primary definition of "chronic" is not a stage of healing, but a stage of the disease process.

I am not referring to a primary/common, layman's definition. otg defines the term 'chronic' (quite nicely) as it applies to our discussion of the medical examiner's report @ the link below:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10022675&postcount=72"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Why was JB killed?[/ame]


From a link provided by otg:

"Chronic: From the second or third week onward until healing is complete. The tissues that have come together in the earlier stages are now beginning to strengthen up. It shouldn’t hurt as much anymore. How long this takes can vary widely, 6 months to a year… Sounds long, but within this time you are usually strong enough to do most things, as long as you don’t do anything stupid. Be realistic, and progress yourself back step by step."

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9746303&postcount=1654"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?[/ame]

 

[bettybaby00]

e IDI?

You asked how the police could have not talked to the Ramseys and yet questioned them extensively. It seems to me that they were saying that the police questioned them extensively but did not tell them anything during that questioning – or at any time.

As to the crime, I think the Ramseys are “clueless.”
...

AK

Snipped:

But this is a prime example of the evasiveness and obsuficaion that the Rs are continually being accused of--with good reason.

Whether or not you believe in some of the RDI theories presented by people like Kolar or not, what can't be disputed is that the Rs were supplied with the ENTIRE case file prior to being "questioned" by investigators. Moreover there is evidence that the computers used by the investigative team were hacked/compromised by people in the DAs office. This is not an example of a "far-reaching" theory, which is what many IDIs like to label Kolar's book.

I'm sorry I don't have the book on hand to give the exact quotes, I borrowed it from the library. Perhaps someone here can provide it

 

[Tawny]

It honestly blows my tiny mind that they were given the ENTIRE case file before being questioned. They couldn't have been cleared yet because they hadn't been questioned.

They may not have been suspects, but if someone is not cleared, how is it OK to let them see the whole investigation?? Then again, how is it OK to let ANYONE not on the investigative team see the entire case file, regardless who they are?? At that point, it wasn't a cold case, it was an active investigation.

Unbelievable that the DA would allow that.

 

[Mama2JML]

It honestly blows my tiny mind that they were given the ENTIRE case file before being questioned. They couldn't have been cleared yet because they hadn't been questioned.

They may not have been suspects, but if someone is not cleared, how is it OK to let them see the whole investigation?? Then again, how is it OK to let ANYONE not on the investigative team see the entire case file, regardless who they are?? At that point, it wasn't a cold case, it was an active investigation.

Unbelievable that the DA would allow that.

BBM

I agree, unbelievable. In fact, I don't believe it. What has led you to determine the Ramseys were given access to "the ENTIRE case file before being questioned"?

 

[Mama2JML]

The autopsy that describes healing vaginal injuries isn't absolute regarding prior sexual abuse?

Not to SOME people, Tawny!

The autopsy report contains no description of healing vaginal injuries, indicative of sexual abuse. ...no observation of 'healing' abrasions, cuts, tears, etc. noted in the AR.

The medical examiner did observe inflammation (vaginitis) & classified it as 'chronic' (healing, not so recent, etc.). As I've mentioned previously, vaginitis is most often attributed to infection.

In this case, the state of inflammation observed is very likely attributable to antibiotic treatment prescribed for a sinus infection diagnosed in November &/or a result of the transference of the bacteria associated with the sinus infection itself.

 

[Venom]

So you're saying that she was inflamed from taking medication a month before her death?

I presume she was done taking the antibiotic at Christmas?

ETA - Do you have a link to the fact that she was on antibiotics? I cannot find it. I looked in the autopsy report to see if she had any in her system, but the report doesn't have a toxicology report with it.

 

[Mama2JML]

According to Dr. Beuf's Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer in September of 1997:

"Dr. Beuf says he last saw JonBenet Ramsey in November 1996, and that was a checkup for a sinus infection. A couple of other things. Dr. Beuf says he has turned in people he has suspected of physical and sexual abuse in his career, and that he not only looks for physical evidence, but personality changes in the children involved. And he says he saw none of that with JonBenet Ramsey. And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's records, and they agreed with Dr. Beuf's analysis that there was nothing unusual there for a girl her age. When we come back, we will take you to the Ramsey home."
Source: http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm

So you're saying that she was inflamed from taking medication a month before her death?

I am saying it is possible as follow-up visits are administered subsequent to treatment. In the case of a sinus infection, antibiotics are commonly prescribed.

Another possibility is the transference of respiratory bacteria:

"Respiratory pathogens are the bacteria isolated most often. Group A beta-hemolytic Streptococcus is the pathogen identified most commonly in all cases of vulvovaginitis and may cause, in addition to a nonspecific discharge, a dramatic scarlet, well-demarcated dermatitis of the vulva or perianal tissues. (7) Haemophilus influenzae (nonen- capsulated) is another common pathogen. These bacterial infections are likely to be caused by self-inoculation as a child carries bacteria from her nose and mouth via her hand to her vulva."

Source: http://depts.washington.edu/hcsats/...lems in Prepubertal Gyn Sugar Graham 2006.pdf

The inflammation may be the result of something else (sexual abuse), however, research indicates infection (fungal, bacterial, etc.) is the primary cause of vaginitis:

"Vaginitis is an inflammation of the vagina that can result in discharge, itching and pain. The cause is usually a change in the normal balance of vaginal bacteria or an infection."

Source: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/vaginitis/basics/definition/con-20022645

"Bacteria, yeast, viruses, chemicals in creams or sprays, or even clothing can cause vaginitis....the vaginal environment is influenced by a number of different factors including a woman’s health, her personal hygiene, medications, hormones...A disturbance in any of these factors can trigger vaginitis."

Source: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Encyclopedia/Content.aspx?ContentTypeID=85&ContentID=P00595

I presume she was done taking the antibiotic at Christmas?

I don't know when she had last taken antibiotics, but she may have been taking them in the days/weeks leading up to Christmas.

ETA - Do you have a link to the fact that she was on antibiotics? I cannot find it.

I'm not sure JonBenet had taken antibiotics for the sinus infection. It's possible, maybe even probable.

I looked in the autopsy report to see if she had any in her system, but the report doesn't have a toxicology report with it.

I don't believe the test results would reveal the presence of antibiotics in her system.

 

[DeeDee249]

No drugs were found in JB.

No antibiotic caused her vaginal injuries. They certainly do not cause bruising and hymenal erosion. These were INJURIES. Not simply inflammation. When an antibiotic causes vaginal irritation, as can happen, it is it the form of a urinary tract infection or yeast infection because the normal chemical balance is disturbed by the antibiotic. But it never causes an eroded hymen or bruising. Or bleeding.

It never ceased to amaze me that several forensic experts all agree that there was sexual contact. It is insulting to JB's memory - that poor little girl WAS abused and to try to blame it on antibiotics just offends reason.

 

[Chelly]

No drugs were found in JB.

No antibiotic caused her vaginal injuries. They certainly do not cause bruising and hymenal erosion. These were INJURIES. Not simply inflammation. When an antibiotic causes vaginal irritation, as can happen, it is it the form of a urinary tract infection or yeast infection because the normal chemical balance is disturbed by the antibiotic. But it never causes an eroded hymen or bruising. Or bleeding.

It never ceased to amaze me that several forensic experts all agree that there was sexual contact. It is insulting to JB's memory - that poor little girl WAS abused and to try to blame it on antibiotics just offends reason.

Is it denial, or are some people just selective about the reality they accept?

 

[Mama2JML]

No drugs were found in JB.

No antibiotic caused her vaginal injuries. They certainly do not cause bruising and hymenal erosion. These were INJURIES. Not simply inflammation. When an antibiotic causes vaginal irritation, as can happen, it is it the form of a urinary tract infection or yeast infection because the normal chemical balance is disturbed by the antibiotic. But it never causes an eroded hymen or bruising. Or bleeding.

It never ceased to amaze me that several forensic experts all agree that there was sexual contact. It is insulting to JB's memory - that poor little girl WAS abused and to try to blame it on antibiotics just offends reason.

BBM

Clearly, there was 'sexual contact' the night of the murder, but I see no indication JB was victimized PRIOR to the 25th/26th.

 

[midwest mama]

BBM

Clearly, there was 'sexual contact' the night of the murder, but I see no indication JB was victimized PRIOR to the 25th/26th.

OK, so given you see it this way, can we assume you think the 12 people of the GJ, who did have all the case history to study along with testimony from case related individuals during an 18 month investigation, voted incorrectly in finding probable cause to indict the R's for responsibility in JB's death??

Bottom line here, regardless of whether there was any PRIOR molestation, is that a 6 year old girl was found brutally killed in a manner that involved sexual contact at or very near the time of death and the only identifiable forensic evidence left within the crime belongs to the R's. We can pick this case apart in off tangent discussion till Hell freezes over and it will not change the fact that we now know there was a GJ who decided they thought there was enough evidence to hold the Rs accountable for their daughters murder. I humbly acknowledge their informed decision as being deserving of full consideration.

And I hope JB knows there HAS BEEN an attempt to bring her some deserved justice.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

BBM

Clearly, there was 'sexual contact' the night of the murder, but I see no indication JB was victimized PRIOR to the 25th/26th.

The ME used the word "chronic" in his report to describe JBR's injuries in her vaginal area. That means repetitive injuries to her vaginal tissue sustained over time. Not an isolated one time event.

 

[Mysteeri]

From Kolar`s book concerning the vaginal injuries (p.63-64):

"Dr.Meyer was concerned about JonBenet`s vaginal injuries, and he, along with Boulder investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians in the days following her autopsy. Dr. Sirontak, a pediatrician with Denver Children`s hospital, had recognized signs of prior sexual trauma but neither he nor Dr. Meyer were able to say with certainty what period of time may have been involved in the abuse.

Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St.Louis, Missouri; Dade County, Florida; Wayne County, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that JonBenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertation of the foreign object that had created the injury at the time of her death.

It was their opinion that the type of injury present with the hymen suggested that several different contacts had been made in the past and that digital penetration was consistent with this type of injury. The physicians were unable to date the previous injury or specifically quantify the number of times JonBenet had been assaulted, but were confident in their opinions that she had been subjected to sexual contact prior to the day of her murder."

It`s not reasonable to ignore these opinions, while prior sexual abuse may not be an absolute certainty. Few things are.

 

[Anyhoo]

Is it denial, or are some people just selective about the reality they accept?

The answer to that question is obvious. Yes, they are. I would say that anyone who has thoroughly studied this case and is still IDI falls in that category. Why? Because there is enough evidence there to show that the parents knew what they should not know afterwards, and this blows IDI out of the water, but IDI proponents refuse to even see those things, or if they do see them refuse to admit they have any significance. Some of us actually want to solve this crime, which is why it is sad to see us arguing if even the most basic evidence exists simply because IDI proponents won't admit to anything that could point to RDI. I'm done trying to convince them.

 

[borndem]

Call me Captain Obvious, but...

Considering the word "chronic" and the multiple opinions that JB had been violated prior to the day her body was found: Someone used the paintbrush (or another object, but not likely) to injure her that night -- if it was an attempt to mask/hide prior abuse events, then it should be glaringly obvious that the person trying to hide the abuse by injuring her that night must have been the prior abuser. D'oh. If not that, then the injury was done by someone who merely wanted to lash-out at her in a most base and cruel way (sibling rivalry or a badly maladjusted individual?).

This, IMO, is not rocket science, folks. Grrrrr.

JMHO

 

[Mama2JML]

OK, so given you see it this way, can we assume you think the 12 people of the GJ, who did have all the case history to study along with testimony from case related individuals during an 18 month investigation, voted incorrectly in finding probable cause to indict the R's for responsibility in JB's death??

I'm not a fan of assumptions, but you don't need my permission. If you're wondering whether or not you've nailed my opinion, then my answer is NO.

Bottom line here, regardless of whether there was any PRIOR molestation, is that a 6 year old girl was found brutally killed in a manner that involved sexual contact at or very near the time of death and the only identifiable forensic evidence left within the crime belongs to the R's.

At the VERY LEAST, forensic (and 'other') evidence exists that is exculpatory to the Rs. Said evidence leaves room for MUCH reasonable doubt.

We can pick this case apart in off tangent discussion till Hell freezes over and it will not change the fact that we now know there was a GJ who decided they thought there was enough evidence to hold the Rs accountable for their daughters murder. I humbly acknowledge their informed decision as being deserving of full consideration.

BBM

As do I.

 

[Mama2JML]

The ME used the word "chronic" in his report to describe JBR's injuries in her vaginal area. That means repetitive injuries to her vaginal tissue sustained over time. Not an isolated one time event.

Not exactly...

 

[Mama2JML]

From Kolar`s book concerning the vaginal injuries (p.63-64):

"Dr.Meyer was concerned about JonBenet`s vaginal injuries, and he, along with Boulder investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians in the days following her autopsy. Dr. Sirontak, a pediatrician with Denver Children`s hospital, had recognized signs of prior sexual trauma but neither he nor Dr. Meyer were able to say with certainty what period of time may have been involved in the abuse.

Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St.Louis, Missouri; Dade County, Florida; Wayne County, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that JonBenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertation of the foreign object that had created the injury at the time of her death.

It was their opinion that the type of injury present with the hymen suggested that several different contacts had been made in the past and that digital penetration was consistent with this type of injury. The physicians were unable to date the previous injury or specifically quantify the number of times JonBenet had been assaulted, but were confident in their opinions that she had been subjected to sexual contact prior to the day of her murder."

It`s not reasonable to ignore these opinions, while prior sexual abuse may not be an absolute certainty. Few things are.

Agreed, but one should also consider the ME's observations, the opinions of other experts, the FBI assessment, the child's/family's history, witness testimony, etc.