Patsy Ramsey

[Tawny]

Can you kindly link me to that post so I may see the links? I missed it and I have no idea where to begin looking. TIA

 

[Mama2JML]

From PMPT (p.239-240; nook):

"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."

 

[Theonly1]

But the FBI allegedly thought the parents did it. So...are we picking and choosing what to believe from whom?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But the FBI allegedly thought the parents did it. So...are we picking and choosing what to believe from whom?

The first day they told them to look at the parents. They had no evidence at that point and they did not get involved after that. TheFBI profiler did not think they did it.

 

[CherCher]

Yeah, I've been searching for a while on these boards about the FBI disagreeing that JBR was chronically sexually abused, but can't find anything.

 

[Theonly1]

The FBI concluded that there was NO hard evidence that an intruder was in the house that night. Also, their comments, "look to the parents."

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The FBI concluded that there was NO hard evidence that an intruder was in the house that night. Also, their comments, "look to the parents."

That day they said that. Without investigation. That is not a comment that means much. And who knows if they even said that.

 

[Theonly1]

The No intruder report was not an initial response. See Schiller's book for details.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I would like to know who reported the comment to begin with. There are a lot of things that I don't believe have been told truthfully in this case.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It is not the same as examining the body first hand. It is already someone elses conclusions they are working with. THe FBI disagreed.

The experts can look at the slides of tissue samples taken and see microscopically an accumulation of white blood cells gathered in places that have begun to heal that were previously damaged. They can tell approx how long ago the injury occurred based on the amount of healing, bruising, inflammation etc...They can visually see the damage and tears with a microscope.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The experts can look at the slides of tissue samples taken and see microscopically an accumulation of white blood cells gathered in places that have begun to heal that were previously damaged. They can tell approx how long ago the injury occurred based on the amount of healing, bruising, inflammation etc...They can visually see the damage and tears with a microscope.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IT is not the same. It is not the same as a second autopsy or a third by a different ME. They only have to go off what the first ME did and said. It is just the same autopsy over again.

 

[pukasonqo2]

chapter six of kolar's book, foreign faction, is called interpreting the injuries. he cites other doctors re: JB's injuries
regardless if IDI or RDI, is worth reading, this chapter quotes professionals who either work as forensic experts or paediatric doctors so, personally, i think their opinions count
i am not going into detail about their morals, intentions, and how many letters they have after their names. these are not quacks but professionals with no ulterior motive when describing JB's injuries



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

IT is not the same. It is not the same as a second autopsy or a third by a different ME. They only have to go off what the first ME did and said. It is just the same autopsy over again.

What do you believe happens to the tissue samples?
I'm having difficultly understanding why you feel eyeballs need to be on the decedents body in person. When there are tissue samples, photographs, slides, etc.

Doctors are trained by viewing slides, tissue samples, photographs...a medical student doesn't need to see every possible injury to a human being to be able to make a decision.
If a kid shows up in the ER with dog bite wounds...I'm pretty sure the doc would know exactly what caused it without ever seeing the dog. YKWIM?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pukasonqo2]

IT is not the same. It is not the same as a second autopsy or a third by a different ME. They only have to go off what the first ME did and said. It is just the same autopsy over again.

there is a reason why slides and pics are taken. high resolution cameras make some things easier to see

and is not the same autopsy over and over again. each doctor that looks at those slides or pictures brings with him/her his own knowledge an experience




lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[2 percent]

Nope. Because I believe that there is no way to know that there was Chronic abuse from the injuries and the FBI did not find any evidence of abuse.

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...

 

[2 percent]

What are you asking? :whoosh:

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.

 

[DeDee]

But the body was only examined by one ME. Slides, reports were seen by a lot of people.. But the body itself was examined by the ME. That is it.

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

 

[Anti-K]

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. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." PMPT pg 306

Dr Richard Krugman: “told the media that on the basis of what he’d read in the report, Jonbenet was not a sexually abused child. The he added, ‘I don’t believe it’s possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone.’” PMPT; p. 557

Dr Werner Spitz said that Jonbenet’s vaginal injury dated to the tim of her death. PMPT; p. 672

Detective Harmer...reviewed the medical findings about JonBenét's vaginal injuries. Several well-known experts had concluded that the child's hymen was torn weeks or even months before her murder, Harmer said, but other experts had said the tear was recent. Broken blood vessels inside the child's vagina clearly indicated that she was penetrated that night, but there was no conclusive evidence of a sexual assault before that time. PMPT; p. 781

The results, however, were not what is known in the legal world as “conclusive” – which means that there can be no other interpretation... Thomas; p. 254
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM
Medical Examination for Sexual Abuse: Have We Been Misled?
Lee Coleman*

ABSTRACT: There are serious difficulties in diagnosing sexual abuse on the basis of an ano/genital examination. Nevertheless, medical conclusions are often used in court to provide evidence for abuse. The support for the alleged physical indicators of abuse has been based on opinions and claims unsupported by research data. Recent research by John McCann on the ano/genital anatomy in nonabused children has established that findings often attributed to sexual abuse are found in many normal children. McCann's findings were applied to 158 children who had been medically examined in cases of alleged sexual abuse. Nearly all the findings attributed to sexual abuse were present in McCann's sample of nonabused children. More baseline studies are needed, including those comparing nonabused children to children where there is convincing evidence of abuse. In the meantime, the courts need to modify their current practices concerning evidence from ano/genital examinations.
<snip>

McCann and his colleagues are the only ones so far to take on the very necessary task of trying to establish the range of ano/genital anatomy in normal children. Without such data, the "findings" so regularly attributed to molest are essentially meaningless. That there are as yet no published data on this is itself highly significant.

At a meeting in San Diego in January, 1988, sponsored by the Center for Child Protection of the San Diego Children's Hospital, McCann reported on this research. Three hundred prepubertal children, carefully screened to rule out prior molest, were examined, and it was found that many of the things currently being attributed to molest are present in normal children. Here are some conclusions:
• Vaginal opening size varies widely in the same child, depending on how much traction is applied and the position of the child while being examined. Knee-chest position (Emans, 1980) leads to different results from frog position.
• Fifty percent of the girls had what McCann calls bands around the urethra. He has heard these described as scars indicative of molest.
• Fifty percent of the girls had small (less than 2 mm) labial adhesions when examined with magnification (colposcope). Twenty-five percent had larger adhesions visible with the naked eye.
• Only 25 percent of hymens are smooth in contour. Half are redundant, and a high percentage are irregular.
• What are often called clefts in the hymen, and attributed to molest, were present in 50 percent of the girls. Commenting on his team's mistaken assumptions at the outset of their study, McCann said, "We were struck with the fact that we couldn't find a normal (hymen). It took us three years before we found a normal of what we had in our minds as a preconceived normal ... you see a lot of variation in this area just like any other part of the body ... We need a lot more information about kids ... we found a wide variety ...

•"... in the literature, they talk about ... intravaginal synechiae and it turns out that ... we saw them everywhere ... We couldn't find one that we couldn't find those ridges."
• "When does normal (hymenal) asymmetry become a cleft? I don't know."
<snip>
Table 3 tabulates those findings said to indicate genital abuse of girls. (As it turned out, all "positive" findings in boys were confined to anal examinations). Because of inconsistent terminology used by different examiners, I have included alternate terms in parenthesis.
Table 3
Frequency of Alleged Indicators of Molest in 109 Girls
Hymenal "scar" (bands, synechia) 45
Rounded hymenal edge 35
"Neovascularization" 27
Dilated vaginal opening 19
Vaginal Erythema 18
Vaginal scar 16
Hymen thickened 10
Healed hymen tear (transection) 9
Hymen redundant 5
Vaginal or labial adhesions 5
Hymen thinned 4
Hymenal tags 3
Labial abrasion 3
Vaginal erosions 2
Hymen absent 1
Labial thickening 1
Condyloma 1
Herpes 1

We see that nearly all the findings attributed to molest were in fact found by McCann in substantial portions of the normal children he examined. They are also the findings which Emans, et al. (1987) found in children allegedly molested but also found in girls with no evidence of molest but suffering other types of medical problems.

Even the few findings Emans claims distinguish molested from nonmolested but otherwise symptomatic girls, such as hymenal tears and intravaginal synechiae, have been found to be unreliable. McCann et al. found, as already mentioned, that is was impossible to tell the difference between "normal asymmetry" of the hymen and hymenal "tear," and that he saw intravaginal synechiae "everywhere" when the normal children were examined.
<snip>

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_3_1.htm
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

After all that, I want to say that I&#8217;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&#8217;s murder. Oh, but it can&#8217;t be a coincidence some say. Of course it can be (and not even close to the strangest one that&#8217;s ever occurred!), and a distrust of coincidence is not a reasonable argument.
...

AK