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

[lawstudent]

Patsy denying the molestation is one of the most interesting things in this case. I mean, it is a bizarre situation - your young child was just found murdered, and they say there is evidence of sexual assault. I guess some mothers could shut down and deny it since they're saying it occurred over time prior to the murder and there was no semen present etc., so she would want to believe that she would have known if anything bad had happened to JonBenet and been able to stop it. I could see the denial, I guess. But then many parents would immediately assume a sex offender did it and set their sights on that and pursue it with a vengeance, or that someone in their inner circle had been abusing her and be really freaked out about what they were capable of. The Ramseys seemed to just want to minimize it, like they already knew what happened regarding that aspect. That is certainly notable. However, it doesn't make me automatically think they are guilty, as given their concern with appearances and general issues, I can see being desperate to deny that she was assaulted.

 

[bettybaby00]

You’re absolutely right, KoldKase, about the significance of IDI and RST (and sometimes they are one in the same) denial of the sexual aspects of this. The details of the AR are undeniable. The conclusions can be argued, but not effectively. I don’t know if you read it, but I addressed the particulars of the evidence of prior abuse in a post here. The reason past abuse has to be denied is that it suggests it was someone who had regular access to JonBenet (which contradicts the idea that it was an intruder who acted only on the night she died). IOW, past abuse almost completely disproves the IDI theory. The only way around this paradox for an IDI (IMO) is to qualify the “intruder” as someone known to the Ramseys who had regular access to JonBenet.

This concept presents the Ramseys with a dilemma. Do they act outraged that someone would violate and kill their daughter, or do they deny the possibility that she was sexually abused? This delicate balancing act was demonstrated on Larry King Live on March 3, 2000 (bbm and my comments in blue):

KING: Did you ever think -- of course, what can you think at a time like this -- why would someone send a ransom note to kidnap someone and then kill them and leave them in the same house if the purpose is to get money?
J. RAMSEY: Well, Larry, this person is a madman, is a monster, they don't think logically.
KING: Pedophile?
J. RAMSEY: We think it was a pedophile, we think it was a male. There are several key pieces of evidence that we think will lead us to the killer, male, pedophile.
[otg: What are the “several key pieces of evidence” that makes him think it was a pedophile? Was it the fact that she was molested?]
We think a stun gun was involved, so this person either had a stun gun or had access to one. The number 118 has significance to this person, $118,000 was the amount in the ransom note. That was picked for a purpose, we don't know what the purpose is.
SBTC meant something to this killer. That was how the ransom note was signed. And this person was in Boulder, Colorado on December 25th. We're not looking for a needle in the haystack.
KING: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?
P. RAMSEY: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.
J. RAMSEY: We don't know.
KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?
J. RAMSEY: No, no.
P. RAMSEY: No.
J. RAMSEY: We've -- the police have not talked to us at all. We don't know what's been done.
KING: Well, they have questioned you, right?
J. RAMSEY: They have questioned us extensively.
[otg: “(T)he police have not talked to us at all,” but yet somehow, “They have questioned us extensively.” How does that happen?]
KING: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?
J. RAMSEY: No.
P. RAMSEY: No.
KING: You don't know how your daughter died?
P. RAMSEY: Well, we do.
J. RAMSEY: We do.
P. RAMSEY: From what we...
J. RAMSEY: She was strangled.
[otg: Seems to me John was pretty quick to cut Patsy off before she said something he had no control over.]
KING: That's the cause of death, strangulation?
J. RAMSEY: That's the cause of death.
KING: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?
J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.
​

(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html)

Okay, why do they think it was a pedophile if they “don’t know if any sexual activity took place” -- and even further, they “don’t want to know the answer”? This interview was better than three years after JonBenet’s death, and yet they are still trying to discount that she was even sexually assaulted. Unbelievable (IMO).

Thanks for posting...your comments further solidify what BS they were spewing back in the day. I'm not sure I ever realized that this interview took plce 3 years after JRBs death, and given that, their answers are even more absurd. How they could sit there and say with a straight face that 3 years later they hadn't ever been informed about the case specifics is absurd. I could be wrong, bit I think even as people labeled as "under an umbrella of suspicion" they would be made aware of many details. Especially the details about the autopsy report. we can't forget that one of the concessions the police department had to make to get the Rs to "agree" to be interviewed (4 months into the investigation I might add) was to be given access to ALL the files/records of the case.

 

[borndem]

What's interesting is that JR says that 118 has to have some significance to to "killer" because of the amount in the ransom note, of course not mentioning that it also just "happened" to the the amount of his bonus.

bbm
Indeed, TroyinTX -- It does have something to do with the killer... Freudian slip? Or was he trying to point to someone in, or someone who had been in, his corporation? Dunno...

 

[Anti-K]

IDI know this. And if I may, I've posted with, and read the posts of, Anti-K for many years and he/she also knows this.

But IDI always either dismiss the evidence of prior molestation with various arguments that conclude either the child did it to herself, it was the result of some innocent circumstances like a bubble bath or riding a bike, or they even argue just because someone else molested her doesn't mean the killer is the same person and can't be a different person.

The reason for this determined denial is that accepting that the autopsy evidence, along with other evidence many of us can see is related to the prior sexual assault and violent death of the child, would mean acknowledging the third prong of the 3 elements of the case all lead back to someone very close in the inner circle: the Ramsey family.

Motive.

The three people in the home had means and opportunity, by their own admission and indicated with circumstantial, physical evidence, as well.

Give them "motive"--the one thing so many can't figure out and which keep them from the inevitable conclusion--and it's a done deal.

If you don't want the Ramseys to be guilty, you have to deny the prior sexual abuse. IDI know this.

Just so you know you're applying reason in a case in which some simply do not want to see reason.

I never deny prior abuse, I have never argued that prior abuse did not occur. In fact, when posting I almost always do so as if prior abuse DID occur.

I want to see evidence that connects prior abuse to the murder. So far, all I’ve been offered is a disbelief in coincidence and that’s not evidence.

As to motive: are you talking specifically about motive for the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death? Or, motive for everything?

As I understand it, RDI (in general) are saying that the sexual assault was supposed to cover up prior abuse which they feared would be revealed during the autopsy. Setting aside the fact that there is no evidentiary basis for this, the decision to commit the sexual assault (and asphyxiation!) had to have been made while Jonbenet was still alive. If she was still alive than why were they contemplating what an autopsy might reveal?

I suppose we could always say that they thought that she already was dead, and so decided to commit these acts on a dead body. In either case this motive is purely speculative and, so far, not much more.

Of course, I could be wrong. Show me.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You’re absolutely right, KoldKase, about the significance of IDI and RST (and sometimes they are one in the same) denial of the sexual aspects of this. The details of the AR are undeniable. The conclusions can be argued, but not effectively. I don’t know if you read it, but I addressed the particulars of the evidence of prior abuse in a post here. The reason past abuse has to be denied is that it suggests it was someone who had regular access to JonBenet (which contradicts the idea that it was an intruder who acted only on the night she died). IOW, past abuse almost completely disproves the IDI theory. The only way around this paradox for an IDI (IMO) is to qualify the “intruder” as someone known to the Ramseys who had regular access to JonBenet.

This concept presents the Ramseys with a dilemma. Do they act outraged that someone would violate and kill their daughter, or do they deny the possibility that she was sexually abused? This delicate balancing act was demonstrated on Larry King Live on March 3, 2000 (bbm and my comments in blue):

KING: Did you ever think -- of course, what can you think at a time like this -- why would someone send a ransom note to kidnap someone and then kill them and leave them in the same house if the purpose is to get money?
J. RAMSEY: Well, Larry, this person is a madman, is a monster, they don't think logically.
KING: Pedophile?
J. RAMSEY: We think it was a pedophile, we think it was a male. There are several key pieces of evidence that we think will lead us to the killer, male, pedophile.
[otg: What are the “several key pieces of evidence” that makes him think it was a pedophile? Was it the fact that she was molested?]
We think a stun gun was involved, so this person either had a stun gun or had access to one. The number 118 has significance to this person, $118,000 was the amount in the ransom note. That was picked for a purpose, we don't know what the purpose is.
SBTC meant something to this killer. That was how the ransom note was signed. And this person was in Boulder, Colorado on December 25th. We're not looking for a needle in the haystack.
KING: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?
P. RAMSEY: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.
J. RAMSEY: We don't know.
KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?
J. RAMSEY: No, no.
P. RAMSEY: No.
J. RAMSEY: We've -- the police have not talked to us at all. We don't know what's been done.
KING: Well, they have questioned you, right?
J. RAMSEY: They have questioned us extensively.
[otg: “(T)he police have not talked to us at all,” but yet somehow, “They have questioned us extensively.” How does that happen?]
KING: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?
J. RAMSEY: No.
P. RAMSEY: No.
KING: You don't know how your daughter died?
P. RAMSEY: Well, we do.
J. RAMSEY: We do.
P. RAMSEY: From what we...
J. RAMSEY: She was strangled.
[otg: Seems to me John was pretty quick to cut Patsy off before she said something he had no control over.]
KING: That's the cause of death, strangulation?
J. RAMSEY: That's the cause of death.
KING: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?
J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.
​

(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html)

Okay, why do they think it was a pedophile if they “don’t know if any sexual activity took place” -- and even further, they “don’t want to know the answer”? This interview was better than three years after JonBenet’s death, and yet they are still trying to discount that she was even sexually assaulted. Unbelievable (IMO).

Some IDI think there was prior abuse but that it is not connected to the murder; some IDI accept prior abuse and think it is related to the murder and that the murder was someone who had access to Jonbenet such as a family friend, or someone connected with the pageants or such; and, some IDI are skeptical about prior abuse while other IDI argue that there was no prior abuse...

How does prior abuse disprove 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

 

[ZBob]

Patsy denying the molestation is one of the most interesting things in this case. I mean, it is a bizarre situation - your young child was just found murdered, and they say there is evidence of sexual assault. I guess some mothers could shut down and deny it since they're saying it occurred over time prior to the murder and there was no semen present etc., so she would want to believe that she would have known if anything bad had happened to JonBenet and been able to stop it. I could see the denial, I guess. But then many parents would immediately assume a sex offender did it and set their sights on that and pursue it with a vengeance, or that someone in their inner circle had been abusing her and be really freaked out about what they were capable of. The Ramseys seemed to just want to minimize it, like they already knew what happened regarding that aspect. That is certainly notable. However, it doesn't make me automatically think they are guilty, as given their concern with appearances and general issues, I can see being desperate to deny that she was assaulted.

ZBob - In relation to prior abuse and/or signals of people suspecting abuse of some sort, I have seen several references to PR's friends intervening or planning to intervene or potentially going to do so based on some sort of suspicions. Is there a short summary or discussion of this somewhere? Obviously if true this would give weight to both the possibility of abuse as well as the avoidance or potential avoidance of it by PR.

 

[questfortrue]

You’re absolutely right, KoldKase, about the significance of IDI and RST (and sometimes they are one in the same) denial of the sexual aspects of this. The details of the AR are undeniable. The conclusions can be argued, but not effectively. I don’t know if you read it, but I addressed the particulars of the evidence of prior abuse in a post here. The reason past abuse has to be denied is that it suggests it was someone who had regular access to JonBenet (which contradicts the idea that it was an intruder who acted only on the night she died). IOW, past abuse almost completely disproves the IDI theory. The only way around this paradox for an IDI (IMO) is to qualify the “intruder” as someone known to the Ramseys who had regular access to JonBenet.

This concept presents the Ramseys with a dilemma. Do they act outraged that someone would violate and kill their daughter, or do they deny the possibility that she was sexually abused? This delicate balancing act was demonstrated on Larry King Live on March 3, 2000 (bbm and my comments in blue):

KING: Did you ever think -- of course, what can you think at a time like this -- why would someone send a ransom note to kidnap someone and then kill them and leave them in the same house if the purpose is to get money?
J. RAMSEY: Well, Larry, this person is a madman, is a monster, they don't think logically.
KING: Pedophile?
J. RAMSEY: We think it was a pedophile, we think it was a male. There are several key pieces of evidence that we think will lead us to the killer, male, pedophile.
[otg: What are the “several key pieces of evidence” that makes him think it was a pedophile? Was it the fact that she was molested?]
We think a stun gun was involved, so this person either had a stun gun or had access to one. The number 118 has significance to this person, $118,000 was the amount in the ransom note. That was picked for a purpose, we don't know what the purpose is.
SBTC meant something to this killer. That was how the ransom note was signed. And this person was in Boulder, Colorado on December 25th. We're not looking for a needle in the haystack.
KING: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?
P. RAMSEY: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.
J. RAMSEY: We don't know.
KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?
J. RAMSEY: No, no.
P. RAMSEY: No.
J. RAMSEY: We've -- the police have not talked to us at all. We don't know what's been done.
KING: Well, they have questioned you, right?
J. RAMSEY: They have questioned us extensively.
[otg: “(T)he police have not talked to us at all,” but yet somehow, “They have questioned us extensively.” How does that happen?]
KING: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?
J. RAMSEY: No.
P. RAMSEY: No.
KING: You don't know how your daughter died?
P. RAMSEY: Well, we do.
J. RAMSEY: We do.
P. RAMSEY: From what we...
J. RAMSEY: She was strangled.
[otg: Seems to me John was pretty quick to cut Patsy off before she said something he had no control over.]
KING: That's the cause of death, strangulation?
J. RAMSEY: That's the cause of death.
KING: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?
J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.
​

(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html)

Okay, why do they think it was a pedophile if they “don’t know if any sexual activity took place” -- and even further, they “don’t want to know the answer”? This interview was better than three years after JonBenet’s death, and yet they are still trying to discount that she was even sexually assaulted. Unbelievable (IMO).

Excellent post, OTG! And it triggered a memory for me. In PMPT was a quote from LHP regarding the Bible. When the prosecutor K interviewed LHP and had her go through photos, she identified the Bible on JR's desk and said that the Bible was always open to Psalm 118. (Most of WS long-time posters probably know this, but in case there are some others who don't recall this info.)

 

[otg]

Excellent post, OTG! And it triggered a memory for me. In PMPT was a quote from LHP regarding the Bible. When the prosecutor K interviewed LHP and had her go through photos, she identified the Bible on JR's desk and said that the Bible was always open to Psalm 118. (Most of WS long-time posters probably know this, but in case there are some others who don't recall this info.)

I don't remember that LHP said John's Bible was always open to that page, but it's not surprising. If you read Psalm 118, you can understand how it might give solace to someone still grieving over the loss of his first daughter. Others of course might see something (and have) sinister in Verse 27 (I don't). But then, I'm not suspicious either of his Bible being one of the things Pam took during her raid of the hellhole. (Other things, yes; but not that.)

 

[otg]

Some IDI think there was prior abuse but that it is not connected to the murder; some IDI accept prior abuse and think it is related to the murder and that the murder was someone who had access to Jonbenet such as a family friend, or someone connected with the pageants or such; and, some IDI are skeptical about prior abuse while other IDI argue that there was no prior abuse...

You're right of course, AK. There are probably as many different lines of thought amongst IDI as there are amongst RDI. I tried to allow for that with enough qualifying adjectives and adverbs in my post without enumerating them myself.

How does prior abuse disprove IDI?

There's where I used one of those qualifiers. I said, "past abuse almost completely disproves the IDI theory." You and I both know there are things that we don't know and therefore can't consider. I tried to allow for the unknown. But you must see that the prior abuse lends credence to the more likely probability that it was done by someone with continued access to her. And while your thought in another post that the prior abuse may not be connected to her death is a possibility, it certainly (IMO) is not very likely. Probability doesn't disprove it, but until I see something supporting it, I'll go with the probability in the totality of evidence. But we can disagree on that because I recognize the possibility of your theory (however slight).

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.

I understand what you're saying here, but that's not what they said. Perhaps that's indeed what John meant to say, but even that would be wrong. There was way too much information given them, considering they had never been cleared as suspects. Even if they were completely innocent, until they were actually cleared, they should not have been given all the information that was actually shared with them while they were under the proverbial umbrella.

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

AK

I know that's what you think, AK. I don't. But I do appreciate your posts. Even when I don't agree with them, you seem to try and be objective, and you offer responses in a logical and respectful way.

 

[Anti-K]

I’m not actually arguing, and never have, that the prior abuse is NOT connected to her death. I don’t see the evidence of that, but it COULD be. I am asking that those who say that it IS connected to show me (us, everyone) how it is connected.

In post 157, above, KK wrote how some “even argue just because someone else molested her doesn't mean the killer is the same person and can't be a different person.” Everyone can make this argument, because it is simply true. In fact, this is exactly what BDI argues: burke was experimenting with sister, mom and/or dad asphyxiated and sexually assaulted her to cover that up.

It is also possible that unbeknownst to the parents, brother and sister engaged in the occasional “experiment,” and the Ramseys could have murdered Jonbenet and they could have written the note, posed the body, molested, strangled her, etc without ever knowing anything about it. They could be guilty as sin and yet still be genuinely in disbelief or denial regarding any prior abuse.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You're right of course, AK. There are probably as many different lines of thought amongst IDI as there are amongst RDI. I tried to allow for that with enough qualifying adjectives and adverbs in my post without enumerating them myself.

There's where I used one of those qualifiers. I said, "past abuse almost completely disproves the IDI theory." You and I both know there are things that we don't know and therefore can't consider. I tried to allow for the unknown. But you must see that the prior abuse lends credence to the more likely probability that it was done by someone with continued access to her. And while your thought in another post that the prior abuse may not be connected to her death is a possibility, it certainly (IMO) is not very likely. Probability doesn't disprove it, but until I see something supporting it, I'll go with the probability in the totality of evidence. But we can disagree on that because I recognize the possibility of your theory (however slight).

I understand what you're saying here, but that's not what they said. Perhaps that's indeed what John meant to say, but even that would be wrong. There was way too much information given them, considering they had never been cleared as suspects. Even if they were completely innocent, until they were actually cleared, they should not have been given all the information that was actually shared with them while they were under the proverbial umbrella.

I know that's what you think, AK. I don't. But I do appreciate your posts. Even when I don't agree with them, you seem to try and be objective, and you offer responses in a logical and respectful way.

Prior abuse would most likely have been done by someone who had reasonable access to her, by which I mean someone who had a legitimate reason to be around her, and occasionally alone with her. I think we’d have to know something about frequency of occurrence before we could say “continued access;” but I can work with an assumption like that.

When I thinking about this aspect of the case, I tend to just go straight to, “let’s say burke, or mom or dad was responsible.” Which one? And, what was the form of abuse (Thomas theorized some form of corporal punishment by Patsy; Kolar seems to think some sort of “play” with Burke; some forum posters (and, wecht, iirc) think Mr Ramsey was having his way)? And, who knew about the abuse?

These are all unanswered questions with no evidence to guide us in one direction or the other. That’s how we end up with a Thomas and a Kolar and a Wecht and a – well, and us.

Regardless, I am still left to wonder why it is that the prior abuse must be, or is likely to be connected to the murder. Obviously, and I say this with some confidence, in this case, there is no evidence that connects the prior abuse to the crime, so, are people than saying that they are probabilistically connected, that there is some statistical basis for the claim? Because I’d like to see that. I could understand that.

Of course, probability only tells us what happens in most cases and never what did, or will, happen in any specific case. It’s a good starting point.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Did y'all know JonBenet had been on antibiotics for a sinus infection not long before her death?

 

[Nom de plume]

I’m not actually arguing, and never have, that the prior abuse is NOT connected to her death. I don’t see the evidence of that, but it COULD be. I am asking that those who say that it IS connected to show me (us, everyone) how it is connected.

In post 157, above, KK wrote how some “even argue just because someone else molested her doesn't mean the killer is the same person and can't be a different person.” Everyone can make this argument, because it is simply true. In fact, this is exactly what BDI argues: burke was experimenting with sister, mom and/or dad asphyxiated and sexually assaulted her to cover that up.

It is also possible that unbeknownst to the parents, brother and sister engaged in the occasional “experiment,” and the Ramseys could have murdered Jonbenet and they could have written the note, posed the body, molested, strangled her, etc without ever knowing anything about it. They could be guilty as sin and yet still be genuinely in disbelief or denial regarding any prior abuse.
...

AK

BBM
Not possible. They DID know about the kids "playing Dr.". LHP (or it might have been the housekeeper before her) caught the kids and they yelled at her to "Get out!" of the room.

In answer to your general question, what are the chances that some person was sexually abusing JB for a period of time prior to her death, then some other person also sexually assaults her, bashes her in the head, and strangles her to death? That's some of the worst luck in the world, and pretty far fetched IMO. KISS rule. It doesn't have to be complicated, mainly because it isn't. The one that had been abusing her prior did it again that night and something went wrong.

 

[Anyhoo]

BBM
Not possible. They DID know about the kids "playing Dr.". LHP (or it might have been the housekeeper before her) caught the kids and they yelled at her to "Get out!" of the room.

In answer to your general question, what are the chances that some person was sexually abusing JB for a period of time prior to her death, then some other person also sexually assaults her, bashes her in the head, and strangles her to death? That's some of the worst luck in the world, and pretty far fetched IMO. KISS rule. It doesn't have to be complicated, mainly because it isn't. The one that had been abusing her prior did it again that night and something went wrong.

I disagree. I think it is possible. Just because LHP says that it does not mean she knew exactly what was happening between the siblings (if anything) and it certainly does not indicate the parents knew.

Regarding the sexual abuse, I agree it existed but I do not know what it means in terms of the murder. For me it is not 100% certain that the sexual abuse was related to the murder. It may have been but not necessarily.

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM
Not possible. They DID know about the kids "playing Dr.". LHP (or it might have been the housekeeper before her) caught the kids and they yelled at her to "Get out!" of the room.

In answer to your general question, what are the chances that some person was sexually abusing JB for a period of time prior to her death, then some other person also sexually assaults her, bashes her in the head, and strangles her to death? That's some of the worst luck in the world, and pretty far fetched IMO. KISS rule. It doesn't have to be complicated, mainly because it isn't. The one that had been abusing her prior did it again that night and something went wrong.

BBM

I've seen this story shared @ WS before, but I don't recall reading about this in any of the books, interview transcripts, etc. Can you share your source, please?

 

[Mama2JML]

I'm not as generous as AK, so I'm not going to entertain the assumption that prior sexual abuse is an absolute. ...not until I see valid, reliable evidence indicating such. (otg, I respect you, and I appreciate your analysis, based on real research you've taken on, but I'm not convinced. Not even close.)

 

[Tawny]

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

 

[otg]

I'm not as generous as AK, so I'm not going to entertain the assumption that prior sexual abuse is an absolute. ...not until I see valid, reliable evidence indicating such. (otg, I respect you, and I appreciate your analysis, based on real research you've taken on, but I'm not convinced. Not even close.)

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.

 

[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.

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...

 

[BBB167893]

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

Not to SOME people, Tawny!