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

[Mama2JML]

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.

BBM

Good idea.

 

[dazeerae]

Here's the definition of chronic. Looked it up to see if my understanding of the term chronic is correct. Here's what I found from Merriam-Webster:

a : marked by long duration, by frequent recurrence over a long time, and often by slowly progressing seriousness : not acute <chronic indigestion> <her hallucinations became chronic>
b : suffering from a disease or ailment of long duration or frequent recurrence <a chronic arthritic> <chronic sufferers from asthma>
2
a : having a slow progressive course of indefinite duration—used especially of degenerative invasive diseases, some infections, psychoses, and inflammations <chronic heart disease> <chronic arthritis> <chronic tuberculosis>; compare acute 2b(1)
b : infected with a disease-causing agent (as a virus) and remaining infectious over a long period of time but not necessarily expressing symptoms <chronic carriers may remain healthy but still transmit the virus causing hepatitis B>

BBM

 

[Venom]

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.

I'm not understanding your reasoning. Here you say that the ME's observations, and other experts opinions should be considered; the ME and other experts all said that there was abuse.

 

[Mama2JML]

I'm not understanding your reasoning. Here you say that the ME's observations, and other experts opinions should be considered; the ME and other experts all said that there was abuse.

BBM

Prior to the night of the murder? All experts? The ME?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM

Prior to the night of the murder? All experts? The ME?

Who is the first one to call it chronic abuse? Because I don't see that in the ME report.

 

[Venom]

BBM

Prior to the night of the murder? All experts? The ME?

:sigh:

Expert Opinion. Cyril Wecht, along with 4 other doctors concurred that the injury to hymen "dated from an old injury," including Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at University of CO Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital); Dr. John McCann (see below); and Dr. Ronald Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois (Schiller 1999:437 according to Internet poster The Punisher). Forensic pathologist Robert Kirschner also said that the injuries to JonBenet were consistent with long-term sexual abuse. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida said she believed JonBenet had been sexually abused over time (Bonita Papers).

Cyril Wecht, MD. Wecht's detailed analysis of the autopsy report explains the forensic evidence supporting his view there had been prior sexual abuse.

Robert Kirschner, MD. University of Chicago, Department of Pathology.
1997 Statement. "The vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. "The genital injuries indicate penetration," he says, "but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation."
Alternative Version of Statement. www.stewwebb.com contains a different wording for what Dr. Kirschner is alleged to have said: "Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department went even further, pointing out that her vaginal opening was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. He stated, "The genital injuries indicate penetration, not only (previously) by a penis, but by another instrument and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation." "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested" [highlighting of word differences added].

John McCann, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics at University of California at Davis.
McCann Assisted BPD. "In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos (Bonita Papers).
General Findings. "According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet" (Bonita Papers).
Specific Evidence of Prior Abuse. "There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia" (Bonita Papers).

Expert Panel. "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused." (Thomas 2000a:253; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher).

"DR. MCCANN

In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

McCann also noted that there appeared to be a bruise on the inner right thigh which he though might represent a thumb imprint from forcing the legs apart.

Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.

In discussing perpetrators of sexual abuse on children, McCann stated that the majority of children this age are molested by someone with whom they have close contact most commonly family members. He explained that if the molester is a stranger or someone else with whom the child is not close, the child will usually tell someone or psychological problems appear which create behavior changes observed by their parents. Common symptoms would be eating disorders, nightmares or a variety of behaviors indicating that something is bothering them. Commencement or increased bedwetting is also commonly seen in sexually abused children. When asked about JonBenet's sexualized behavior during her pageant performances, McCann said that this was not necessarily a sign of abuse, since this was taught behavior for the pageants. Also, with children's exposure to sexually explicit television programs, sexualized behavior is no longer considered to be an indication of possible sexual abuse.

Dr. Andrew Sirotnack from Children’s Hospital in Denver was also asked to review the medical findings and autopsy photographs. He confirmed McCann's determination of acute vaginal trauma during the assault on JonBenet, but He had not yet concluded that there was chronic abuse. Sirotnack had examined over 2,500 abused children during his career at Children's Hospital and had testified in approximately 50 - 100 criminal trials regarding sexual abuse on children.

In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation."


These are from a candy rose and the pbworks sites. Both have experts stating the finding of chronic sexual abuse.
I'm not going to keep beating this dead horse.

 

[questfortrue]

:sigh:

-Snip-

Cyril Wecht, MD. Wecht's detailed analysis of the autopsy report explains the forensic evidence supporting his view there had been prior sexual abuse.

-Snip-

Even if the following finds no purchase with some of the folks here, one has to appreciate Cyril Wecht’s “Take no prisoners, tell it like he sees it” dialogue on youtube 2009: “Well guess what? The injuries are for the most part old, they're chronic. A good part of the hymen is, is absent, and that's an old, old phenomenon, it's been there for a while. Then the pathologist report, and I'm taking it right from the autopsy report. He reports, superficial erosion of the vaginal mucosa, that's the lining, the delicate lining of the vaginal canal, at the 7 o'clock position, and that's been there for a while, that's not acute. And then he finds microscopically, chronic inflammation, under the microscope. That means it's been there for days, and could be longer than days, but it's not fresh.”

 

[Mama2JML]

This excerpt, from PMPT, is also available @ ACR:

"Finally, the detectives turned to the microscopic splinter of cellulose found in JonBenet's vagina, which looked like wood. The broken paintbrush that had been tied to the stick was splintered into shards. Logic suggested that a splinter of wood might have stuck to the perpetrator's finger before he or she penetrated JonBenet vaginally. It could also have broken off the end of the paintbrush if the stick, rather than a finger, was used to penetrate her.

If the cellulose did, in fact, come from the paintbrush, then most probably the 'garrote' had been assembled before JonBenet was violated. Since there was some evidence of vaginal bleeding, it was also logical to assume that the child had already been strangled but was not yet dead when she was penetrated. Consistent with penetration of a female child of JonBenet's age, her hymen was torn. In such a case, the edges are pulled away and recede quickly, creating a visible difference between a torn and an intact hymen. Photographs of her injured hymen taken at the autopsy indicated to some experts a recent tear, fresh bleeding, and no healing. Logic suggested that JonBenet had been penetrated almost concurrently with her death.

There remained the question whether JonBenet had also been penetrated-that is, sexually abused-previously. Here the experts disagreed. Dr. David Jones said the child's vagina showed a history of abuse, since the cellulose dated from an old injury. Dr. Spitz, however, said there was no clear indication of prior penetration and that the cellulose dated from the injury that had taken place around her time of death." (Schiller, 1999)

 

[Mama2JML]

From PMPT: (p. 360)

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse." (Schiller, 1999)

 

[Anyhoo]

So, M2M, what do you say? No sexual abuse at all? Sexual abuse/rape on the night of the murder by an unknown intruder? Something else?

 

[Mama2JML]

So, M2M, what do you say? No sexual abuse at all? Sexual abuse/rape on the night of the murder by an unknown intruder? Something else?

I do not believe the autopsy report reveals evidence of prior sexual abuse. As well, the experts' analyses posted here, and those I've researched, are conflicting. Thus, I question the validity of theories based primarily upon assumptions of previous &/or recurrent sexual abuse.

 

[questfortrue]

From PMPT: (p. 360)

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse." (Schiller, 1999)

Agreed a tiny cellulose piece could have been transferred by a finger.
Also, agreed there are some conflicting expert opinions out there. It’s evident Spitz is a wild card in the prior abuse theory. But had this ever gone to trial, the defense might have needed to think twice about using him, in spite of his stance on prior abuse. Here’s info from his presentation at the Parkview Hospital 2006 Trauma Symposium at the Fort Wayne Marriott: Spitz pulled no punches in saying the 1996 death investigation of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was poorly handled. As a consultant to the Boulder, Colo., police, he specifically recalled a flashlight standing upside down on the table at JonBenet’s home – a flashlight that was never collected as evidence. (Caveat, not sure if that is correct). Based on numerous factors, he surmised the flashlight to be the weapon used in her death. He also theorized about her killer. “JonBenet Ramsey, in my view, was the victim of somebody in that house, I have difficulty seeing it otherwise,” he said.

And then: from what I understand about Schiller’s PMPT book, he wrote the facts as he saw them at the time. What I also have read is that except for some lab analyses, the FBI were not asked by the BPD to do a thorough review of case evidence, it was more in the line of using the FBI lab (which had more extensive capabilities than the CBI lab) to assist with such items as the fibers on the duct tape. So the FBI’s opinion on prior abuse mentioned in PMPT may or may not be based on any kind of review of pathologists’, coroner reports. And that puts the basis for that quote’s accuracy, imo, in question.

In the fall of ’97 a meeting took place between CASKU and the Boulder authorities. “Members of the FBI had been in fairly regular consultation with Boulder detectives throughout the course of the investigation, but this was the first opportunity they had had to participate in a detailed overview of the evidence collected thus far in the case.” (Kolar, A. James (2012-06-14). Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 1937-1938) However, this meeting resulted in nothing, primarily, again according to Kolar, because of heated disagreements between the investigators from BDA and the FBI, The FBI were encouraging them to look more closely at the parents. TD and LS would have none of that.

It’s also not known how much of the following behavioral clues the FBI were provided. Such issues as
Encopresis – no medical diagnosis from Dr. B. All of her underwear were stained.
Calling out to anyone to come wipe her.
Toiletting accidents (not just bed-wetting) way past the age when children usually had control. (And it seems that JonBenet wet herself during daytime too. “Pam Griffin said Patsy told her that JB's infections were hard to treat because her underpants were always wet” ('Journey Beyond Reason', p. 244/245).
Flirty behavior. She was six.
Clingy behavior in December ‘96 with her mother. Not like JB, according to her teacher.

All this has been documented so frequently, that RDI probably sound like a broken record here. Sorry for the repetitious info in this post.

Except for one last question. A pedophile/intruder/kidnapper who cleans JB’s vagina of blood (from autopsy indicated by red-tinged watery liquid) and wipes blood from her thigh rumored to have used some kind of cleaning liquid to clean her up, then redresses her and leaves fibers in her new panties crotch, consistent with JR’s Israeli shirt. What's with that, an intruder with OCD, didn’t want to leave a mess? Why hide her molestation? If not hiding prior abuse, why hide this? All jmho.

 

[UKGuy]

I do not believe the autopsy report reveals evidence of prior sexual abuse. As well, the experts' analyses posted here, and those I've researched, are conflicting. Thus, I question the validity of theories based primarily upon assumptions of previous &/or recurrent sexual abuse.

Mama2JML
The interpretations that you offer may conflict with expert opinion, yet that is no basis on which to assume chronic abuse was not taking place.

Not believing that the AR reveals evidence of prior abuse, is definitely not the same thing as saying no chronic abuse took place.

Absence of evidence is not absence of proof!

i.e. I do not believe any current publication suggests that there is a current King of France.

Therefore it is safe to conclude there was no prior King of France!


That is, what you believe and what you know are patently two different things, and neither of these things may coincide with what Coroner Myer has yet to make public, never mind his remarks in the AR!


.

 

[Darlene733510]

Frequently JB made visits to the school nurse, on Monday. What was going on over the weekend, that would have caused this?
If only PR's friends had even able to have an intervention with her, this may have been avoided, but when approached by PW, she refused, and said that nobody knew more about her daughter than she did, because she was the Mother

 

[Anti-K]

I do not believe the autopsy report reveals evidence of prior sexual abuse. As well, the experts' analyses posted here, and those I've researched, are conflicting. Thus, I question the validity of theories based primarily upon assumptions of previous &/or recurrent sexual abuse.

I, too, am skeptical about the claims of prior abuse for pretty much the same reasons you cite here. Of course, being skeptical doesn’t mean that I doubt it took place, it just means that I remain unconvinced about it either way. That’s why I like to just go with the assumption that it DID occur. It might have and if it did, then we might be dismissing a valuable “clue” by denying it.

I do scoff at the idea that one can conclude prior abuse from the AR. The man who wrote that report, the guy who actually performed the autopsy – he couldn’t make that determination. He called in “experts.”

I think what we see in the AR are some things that can be said to be consistent with prior abuse, but, these things are not, as Thomas (p. 228) put it, “conclusive.”

Still, what would it tell us if prior abuse did occur? I know some people say that it is THE KEY, but as far as I can tell that’s just something that some people say. Prior abuse is the sort of thing that can lead one in a certain investigative direction, and I think BPD went down that road some ways, but they arrived nowhere. Nothing to show what form that supposed prior abuse may have taken, nothing to show who may have been responsible for it, nothing to show who may have known about it and nothing to show that it was connected to the crime or any events that occurred that night.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

I, too, am skeptical about the claims of prior abuse for pretty much the same reasons you cite here. Of course, being skeptical doesn&#8217;t mean that I doubt it took place, it just means that I remain unconvinced about it either way. That&#8217;s why I like to just go with the assumption that it DID occur. It might have and if it did, then we might be dismissing a valuable &#8220;clue&#8221; by denying it.

BBM

Absolutely.

I do scoff at the idea that one can conclude prior abuse from the AR. The man who wrote that report, the guy who actually performed the autopsy &#8211; he couldn&#8217;t make that determination. He called in &#8220;experts.&#8221;

I think what we see in the AR are some things that can be said to be consistent with prior abuse, but, these things are not, as Thomas (p. 228) put it, &#8220;conclusive.&#8221;

Still, what would it tell us if prior abuse did occur? I know some people say that it is THE KEY, but as far as I can tell that&#8217;s just something that some people say. Prior abuse is the sort of thing that can lead one in a certain investigative direction, and I think BPD went down that road some ways, but they arrived nowhere. Nothing to show what form that supposed prior abuse may have taken, nothing to show who may have been responsible for it, nothing to show who may have known about it and nothing to show that it was connected to the crime or any events that occurred that night.
...

AK

Precisely. It's a question mark for me. So, while I do not assume JonBenet was victimized previously, I don't assume she wasn't. It's a non-factor for me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Frequently JB made visits to the school nurse, on Monday. What was going on over the weekend, that would have caused this?
If only PR's friends had even able to have an intervention with her, this may have been avoided, but when approached by PW, she refused, and said that nobody knew more about her daughter than she did, because she was the Mother

The fact that she did not want to be in school? [modsnip]. How many times did she go the nurse in total? How many times on Mondays? Why did she go? Claiming to be sick? Tired? What? She was young and could have been going because she did not want to be in class, Was tired, Who knows?

I need to see some kind of proof that this was anything more than a 6 yr old looking for attention. Real proof.

I believe that Patsy was right and I believe most mothers would say the same thing. Mothers do know their kids. We know when they are really hurting, or lonely or in pain or being dramatic or just want attention.

 

[MeanDonnaJean]

I still have an open mind concerning this case...

Even tho I am not as well versed in this case as most here are, at this point I am SO darn confused about everything - but I'm still tryin' to keep an open mind as well.

However, unlike you:

I really want to believe that JR, PR, and BR had nothing to do with it.

I, on the other hand, really want to believe that JR, PR and BR had EVERYTHING to do with it. But...

Due to the description of the crime scene, I cannot see how anyone could do that to a family member...

...I feel the exact same way. However, I am thoroughly aware that severe child abuse occurs regularly and that terrible, awful cruelties such as this happen damn near all the time in families throughout the world.

Yet, on the other hand...!!! I tend to flip flop back 'n forth more on this case than a fish outta water.

Hence my complete & utter confusion about this case.

Perhaps, having 4 children of my own, its just my loving & nurturing motherly mindset that won't allow me to firmly connect the atrocities that happened to this poor lil' girl with one of her family members....but Lord knows I want to SO very badly.

 

[Tawny]

I believe that Patsy was right and I believe most mothers would say the same thing. Mothers do know their kids. We know when they are really hurting, or lonely or in pain or being dramatic or just want attention.

Respectfully, this isn't true for every mother.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Respectfully, this isn't true for every mother.

Pretty much unless they don't live with them. This is a little girl, Not a teen. If she was a teen there is more in the mix but a 6 yr old, Yep. Mothers know their kids.