Patsy Ramsey

[2 percent]

Chronic and acute trauma in the same position on the eroded hymen.
Not a coincidence.

 

[CherCher]

After all that, I want to say that I’m always happy to provisionally accept as true that Jonbenet suffered from some sort of prior abuse. Unfortunately, no one has been able to say what form that abuse took (innocent play by children; sexual abuse by mother and/or father; corporal punishment by mother and/or father; etc), no one has even been able to show who might have known about it, and no one has ever presented a reasonable argument for connecting the abuse to the child’s murder. Oh, but it can’t be a coincidence some say. Of course it can be (and not even close to the strangest one that’s ever occurred!), and a distrust of coincidence is not a reasonable argument.
...

AK

Ok, I'll bite. So a stranger (or a non Ramsey) went to all this trouble for basically what amounts to "digital penetration" one time on the night of the crime. Is that what you are positing?

 

[chlban]

After all that, I want to say that I’m always happy to provisionally accept as true that Jonbenet suffered from some sort of prior abuse. Unfortunately, no one has been able to say what form that abuse took (innocent play by children; sexual abuse by mother and/or father; corporal punishment by mother and/or father; etc), no one has even been able to show who might have known about it, and no one has ever presented a reasonable argument for connecting the abuse to the child’s murder. Oh, but it can’t be a coincidence some say. Of course it can be (and not even close to the strangest one that’s ever occurred!), and a distrust of coincidence is not a reasonable argument.
...

AK

I actually agree with you. Additionally, although I am 100% RDI, I am still not 100% convinced of the "chronic abuse" argument. I'm not saying there wasn't abuse, I am just not convinced and, if there was, I tend to lean more toward it being Burke, not John.

That said, I don't think sexual abuse is required to decide it is RDI. Or, as you said, there could have been some abuse and it still could have been completely unrelated to the crime.

The lead detective on the case didn't seem to feel it was related based on his theory of the crime.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Chronic and acute trauma in the same position on the eroded hymen.
Not a coincidence.

I think that after an assault like that on a child with an object it would be hard to tell what was acute and if there was chronic abuse. I just don't buy it. The FBI did not see it.

I think that most likely it was anatomical and then with the abuse from that night, it was hard to tell anything past that abuse.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

False.

Please stop misrepresenting the truth.

"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."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 253

The panel of experts is identified here:
Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis.
Lawrence Schiller, Perfect Murder Perfect Town, page 563.

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

Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét.
He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.
Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.
Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.
~ James Kolar, Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 61


And cynic supplies this information, too:

Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Autopsy evidence of ONGOING SEXUAL ABUSE


This from Dr. Cyril Wecht. At 6:15:

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.

Write From The Author Episode 7 Part 1 JonBenet - YouTube

Arndt's opinion means nothing as she is was a cop and not any forensic expert.
I am not sure about the other so since it comes from Kolar's book I am throwing it out until I find another source that backs it up.

I don't believe this dr examined Jonbenet. I can not find a link anywhere to it being factual except a link to an excerpt in Kolar's book. That is not enough for me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You just said you don't believe experts that didn't see the body, just reviewed the evidence.
But the FBI didn't see the body either...

The fbi investigated to find evidence of abuse. They found nothing.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Okay...I'll restate.
What does the phrase chronic inflammation mean to you?
And remember, we're not talking casual conversation. We're talking professional reports with professional terms that typically do not have latitude in their definitions.
Rinse. Repeat.

Actually it is casual conversation. Nothing more. I don't believe there was chronic abuse.

That is why they have second autopsies on crime victims to see if someone can look at it with fresh eyes and see something different.

That should have happened here but it didn't.

 

[gramcracker]

Arndt's opinion means nothing as she is was a cop and not any forensic expert.

did you read DeDee's post? Arndt did not provide an opinion, and certainly did not pose/attempt to pose as a forensic expert; she reported what the forensic expert said to her during his examination of JB's body

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 it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

please stop misrepresenting the truth

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

did you read DeDee's post? Arndt did not provide an opinion, and certainly did not pose/attempt to pose as a forensic expert; she reported what the forensic expert said to her during his examination of JB's body

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 it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

please stop misrepresenting the truth

I find Arndt less than credible when it comes to everything. I find her to be a little off the deep end. I don't accept her reports as factual.

 

[2 percent]

I think that after an assault like that on a child with an object it would be hard to tell what was acute and if there was chronic abuse. I just don't buy it. The FBI did not see it.

I think that most likely it was anatomical and then with the abuse from that night, it was hard to tell anything past that abuse.

So you have seen the physical evidence? Link me to the photos!
Experts in pathology and pediatrics have reviewed and concurred, both through review of the evidence and examining the body.

The fbi investigated to find evidence of abuse. They found nothing.

The FBI is not the primary investigators in this case and their opinion, as its been cited so far, is anecdotal with no experts named. I suspect this was not an opinion based on actual autopsy evidence, but rather on profiling the family. I've never found FBI profilers worth much, personally :twocents:

Actually it is casual conversation. Nothing more. I don't believe there was chronic abuse.

That is why they have second autopsies on crime victims to see if someone can look at it with fresh eyes and see something different.

That should have happened here but it didn't.

No. It was an official autopsy report. In no way does it resemble a casual conversation.
I suspect your adherence to the IDI theory and the knowledge that the chronic abuse doesn't fit that theory is behind your disbelief in the face of the clearly stated professional medical opinion. JMO, of course.

I have never heard of second autopsies being the norm for murder victims. Of the exhumations or second autopsies I've seen, it's usually the family that petitions the state or finances the second autopsy. The Ramseys didn't. If I were of the belief that a second autopsy not being performed was relevant, that would mean something to me.

 

[pukasonqo2]

I find Arndt less than credible when it comes to everything. I find her to be a little off the deep end. I don't accept her reports as factual.

arndt is less than credible, kolar and thomas only want to sell books so only those who have theories that fit your own IDI theory are worth your time and have no hidden agendas?

i think that is BR was the perpetrator it was an accident, i have no explanation for JB vaginal injuries prior to her death.

if BR did it i could understand the cover up from his parents. they didn't know the law backwards and forwards, they expected his life to be destroyed even if he didn't go to jail because of his age. they james bulger case in the UK was recent, those two kids were sent to a juvenile facility ( OT but their lives have not been an easy ride before or after)

i feel sorry for PR. surviving cancer, with all the psychological and physical scars she had to deal with, to have her "perfect" family destroyed like that...

and yes, this is MOO. unfortunately i haven't been able to reach PR and ask her




lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[DeDee]

Arndt's opinion means nothing as she is was a cop and not any forensic expert.
I am not sure about the other so since it comes from Kolar's book I am throwing it out until I find another source that backs it up.

I don't believe this dr examined Jonbenet. I can not find a link anywhere to it being factual except a link to an excerpt in Kolar's book. That is not enough for me.

Even if it is "not enough for me", it is a stone hard fact included in James Kolar's book. No one should go around lying or intentionally misrepresenting the facts about this child's murder investigation; least of all the members of this forum.

Interesting that you will disregard Det. Arndt's opinion when she was sworn to uphold the law. Her sworn testimony was presented to the judge in the request for Search Warrants. Therefore, her word is good enough to convince a judge to issue a SW but unacceptable to you because she is a cop.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Even if it is "not enough for me", it is a stone hard fact included in James Kolar's book. No one should go around lying or intentionally misrepresenting the facts about this child's murder investigation; least of all the members of this forum.

Interesting that you will disregard Det. Arndt's opinion when she was sworn to uphold the law. Her sworn testimony was presented to the judge in the request for Search Warrants. Therefore, her word is good enough to convince a judge to issue a SW but unacceptable to you because she is a cop.

No. It is not because she is is cop. It is because in all this watching her interview, reading her words she comes off as an angry crazy person.

I realize that that day she was left alone and way over her head, and so I give her a little leeway, But in the end, I don't trust her observations or her remarks.

It has nothing to do with her being a cop. As a rule I believe the cops first, But when they show me something that makes me doubt them, I can not ignore that.

 

[TaylurRose02]

No. It is not because she is is cop. It is because in all this watching her interview, reading her words she comes off as an angry crazy person.

I realize that that day she was left alone and way over her head, and so I give her a little leeway, But in the end, I don't trust her observations or her remarks.

It has nothing to do with her being a cop. As a rule I believe the cops first, But when they show me something that makes me doubt them, I can not ignore that.

So the Ramseys inconsistent stories, rules for questioning, behavior, etc... don't make you doubt them?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So the Ramseys inconsistent stories, rules for questioning, behavior, etc... don't make you doubt them?

I think it is normal not to get everything the same all the time. IN FACT LE looks for stories that are exactly the same all the time as a sign of lying.

I think that they had attorneys and used them as they should and were entitled to.

None of that says to me they are killers. AND again none of their DNA was found in her underwear.

 

[Anti-K]

Ok, I'll bite. So a stranger (or a non Ramsey) went to all this trouble for basically what amounts to "digital penetration" one time on the night of the crime. Is that what you are positing?

I wasn’t actually proposing anything. I think it’s RDI who are doing the proposing. I’m just asking for the evidence that supports their position.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I actually agree with you. Additionally, although I am 100% RDI, I am still not 100% convinced of the "chronic abuse" argument. I'm not saying there wasn't abuse, I am just not convinced and, if there was, I tend to lean more toward it being Burke, not John.

That said, I don't think sexual abuse is required to decide it is RDI. Or, as you said, there could have been some abuse and it still could have been completely unrelated to the crime.

The lead detective on the case didn't seem to feel it was related based on his theory of the crime.

I’m skeptical about prior abuse but I don’t mind discussing it as if it were true.
Prior abuse and RDI could both be true, but this doesn’t mean that one had anything to do with the other.
...

AK

 

[TaylurRose02]

I think it is normal not to get everything the same all the time. IN FACT LE looks for stories that are exactly the same all the time as a sign of lying.

I think that they had attorneys and used them as they should and were entitled to.

None of that says to me they are killers. AND again none of their DNA was found in her underwear.

Right. John Ramsey forgot that his daughter chronically wet her bed. He must have also forgot what time he found his daughters body considering he told JAR that he found it prior to 1pm. I mean really...?

They refused interviews unless they were shown the questions before and were interviewed by a cop of their choosing only. I don't care what the attorneys said. As a parent I'd do anything for my child and it makes me sick that they put restrictions on what the police could or could not do in order to find the killer. I understand that they were targeted, but common sense would be to stop hiding, interview, and move on. Innocent people have nothing to hide.

 

[gramcracker]

I think that after an assault like that on a child with an object it would be hard to tell what was acute and if there was chronic abuse. I just don't buy it. The FBI did not see it.

I think that most likely it was anatomical and then with the abuse from that night, it was hard to tell anything past that abuse.

it would perhaps be difficult for a layperson to tell with certainty, but the determination of chronic vs acute ranks very high among the reasons forensic pathology exists. it's what they do!

and it's not just the ME who is able to recognize and categorize injuries. I know an RN who worked in the ER for 35+ years and is also a forensic nurse who testifies as a prosecution expert in rape/molestation cases. she recognized acute vs chronic vaginal injuries long before she qualified as a FN. medical professionals in many areas of practice can recognize something for what it is based on experience, whether or not a particular document hangs framed on their wall or particular letters appear after their name

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Right. John Ramsey forgot that his daughter chronically wet her bed. He must have also forgot what time he found his daughters body considering he told JAR that he found it prior to 1pm. I mean really...?

They refused interviews unless they were shown the questions before and were interviewed by a cop of their choosing only. I don't care what the attorneys said. As a parent I'd do anything for my child and it makes me sick that they put restrictions on what the police could or could not do in order to find the killer. I understand that they were targeted, but common sense would be to stop hiding, interview, and move on. Innocent people have nothing to hide.

All of this does not lead to murder. None of it does. Some fathers would not know anything that is going on if they are busy family men. And most fathers sleep through the night.

What this has to do with the murder of their child is beyond me.