It’s time for the truth

[David Rogers]

The latest rehash of evidence of the intruder is all over the media. It has swayed public opinion on many social groups. It is time to drop the evidence instead of hiding it. Go to the pawn shop and get a used computer. Go to anyplace with free WiFi and spill the beans. Post the phone records. Post the evidence. Let’s see you secret evidence Nothing else has worked in 25 years and people have been making money off this murder.

Supposedly Blue Crab was chased off this site because he got too close. It is time for the truth.

 

[Tadpole12]

The latest rehash of evidence of the intruder is all over the media. It has swayed public opinion on many social groups. It is time to drop the evidence instead of hiding it. Go to the pawn shop and get a used computer. Go to anyplace with free WiFi and spill the beans. Post the phone records. Post the evidence. Let’s see you secret evidence Nothing else has worked in 25 years and people have been making money off this murder.

Supposedly Blue Crab was chased off this site because he got too close. It is time for the truth.

Theories, RDI,
JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia / Ramsey Did It Theories

 

[DeDee]

Theories, RDI,
JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia / Ramsey Did It Theories

Catching the link led to this data, from ST
Injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse'

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)

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Catching the link led to this data, from ST
Injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse'

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)

I don't understand. How were the injuries not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who is physically abused? That sentence isn't making sense to me. Can someone clarify?

 

[UKGuy]

I don't understand. How were the injuries not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who is physically abused? That sentence isn't making sense to me. Can someone clarify?

BeginnerSleuther,
They have evidence found by examining photographs and lab results that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted in the past but not on the night of her death.

So along with all the abrasions, contusions and ligature marks on her body they reckon she was only physically abused the night of her death.

This might be correct, it just depends how you read all the evidence?

i.e.
12-29-1996 Search Warrant for 755 15th Street, Excerpt

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 27, 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 constant with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. For further details on the autopsy see the attached document entitled Addendum To Search Warrant.

So if you accept what the Coroner says, i.e. there was sexual contact it follows it was generic sexual abuse.

The coroners opinion was confirmed by a second independent medical examination the same night.

So if you just read reports and scan photographs you might think she was not sexually assaulted, if you are present and one of only two people who actually examined JonBenet's genitals postmortem it appears there was sexual contact?

One proviso here is: did Coroner Meyer row back on his sexual contact opinion when he faced the Grand Jury or did he repeat it with further clarification?

This will all appear in the media in the years ahead as more GJ jurors come forward to talk on the case.

.