Prior Vaginal Trauma

[BBB167893]

Its clear from this that there is no way to rationally infer chronic parental abuse from the autopsy report expression 'chronic inflammation' that people found and quickly latched onto.

Ah, not by itself. That's the key here. There was considerably more than that.

Welcome back, btw.

 

[DeeDee249]

Welcome back, btw.

Ditto. Good to see you back. Are you "rested"?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Since many of you feel that personal stories are not helpful, needed or even wanted, go to a doctors office, bring a copy of the report done during the autopsey and ask the doctor if this was his child would he or she suspect sexual abuse of achronic nature.

The doctor would say "no."

Common irritants or the acute injury from the attack could cause chronic inflammation:

Chronic inflammation does not necessarily imply inflammation of long duration, and may follow a transient or prolonged acute inflammatory stage (Vernon-Roberts 1988). Essentially there are two forms of chronic inflammation : either the chronic reaction supervenes on the acute reaction or may in fact develop slowly with no initial acute phase (ab initio) (Hurley 1985). Chronic inflammation ab initio can have many causes including local irritants, poor circulation, some micro-organisms or immune disturbances. Chronic inflammation is usually more productive than exudative - it produces more fibrous material than inflammatory exudate. Frequently there is some tissue destruction, inflammation and attempted healing occurring simultaneously (Hurly 1985, Walters and Israel 1987).

http://electrotherapy.org/modalities/tissuerepair.htm

There was nothing in the autopsy report to indicate prior injuries.

 

[BBB167893]

There was nothing in the autopsy report to indicate prior injuries.

You might get an argument on that. From Drs. McCann, Monteleone, Rau, and Jones, just to name a few.

 

[joeskidbeck]

You might get an argument on that. From Drs. McCann, Monteleone, Rau, and Jones, just to name a few.

Dave, you and Sunnie actually sound like you had real doctors to look at those autopsy reports. So, did they actually agree to chronic sexual abuse or all of us really that illiterate? :waitasec:

 

[DeeDee249]

Dave, you and Sunnie actually sound like you had real doctors to look at those autopsy reports. So, did they actually agree to chronic sexual abuse or all of us really that illiterate? :waitasec:

Remember, Wecht and Spitz were real doctors, too.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave, you and Sunnie actually sound like you had real doctors to look at those autopsy reports.

I don't know about Sunnie, but I certainly did.

So, did they actually agree to chronic sexual abuse or all of us really that illiterate? :waitasec:

The three I spoke to agreed that there was, all independently of each other.

I guess that means we're not the ones having trouble reading it.

 

[BBB167893]

Remember, Wecht and Spitz were real doctors, too.

So were the ones I mentioned.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't know about Sunnie, but I certainly did.



The three I spoke to agreed that there was, all independently of each other.

I guess that means we're not the ones having trouble reading it.

So is the BPD, the DA, and all major news outlets. The only thing we hear about is DNA.

If it was as corroborated as you say, BPD would be doing more extensive questioning along those lines. Why aren't they?

 

[BBB167893]

So is the BPD, the DA, and all major news outlets. The only thing we hear about is DNA.

I know. Which only reinforces what I've said about the media in this case. I don't think they HAVE read it.

If it was as corroborated as you say, BPD would be doing more extensive questioning along those lines. Why aren't they?

How do we know they're NOT?

 

[CathyR]

From what I have learned about this case is those doctors who concluded that sexual abuse occurred never examined JBR and only saw autopsy photos. They even disagree among themselves that penile penetration occurred.

Dr Meyer the coroner did not think penile penetration occurred but 1 of your experts does.

 

[madeleine]

What occurred was no accident, since accidents do not require staging.

Yes.And even if,I've never seen such a bizzare,sick staging,it's too much and too horrible.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes.And even if,I've never seen such a bizzare,sick staging,it's too much and too horrible.

madeleine,

I agree. Assuming the Ramsey household was dysfunctional then its possible the staging was contrived to hide something even more bizarre and sick.


.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

What occurred was no accident, since accidents do not require staging.

Unless, of course, in the course of investigating the accident, a crime (such as prior sexual abuse) will be uncovered.

 

[BBB167893]

From what I have learned about this case is those doctors who concluded that sexual abuse occurred never examined JBR and only saw autopsy photos.

Not entirely true. They also examined microscopic slides of tissue taken from JB's vagina during the autopsy. That was the clincher. Also, Andrew Sirotnak did examine her. He later went on to co-author an essay on child abuse with Richard Krugman using JB as a case study.

They even disagree among themselves that penile penetration occurred.

Dr Meyer the coroner did not think penile penetration occurred but 1 of your experts does.

First I've heard of it, CathyR. I'm not aware that any of them thought penile penetration occured.

 

[UKGuy]

Unless, of course, in the course of investigating the accident, a crime (such as prior sexual abuse) will be uncovered.

my_tee_mouse,

Sure, but it is always going to be discovered regardless of the circumstances, staging does not prevent this.

Prior abuse can be blamed on anyone, not just the parents, look how the R's flung people under the bus, to avoid scrutiny. Any accusation of abuse would have met with the same response.


There may have been an accident but this should not obscure the sexual contact just prior to her death.


.

 

[SunnieRN]

The doctor would say "no."

Common irritants or the acute injury from the attack could cause chronic inflammation:

Chronic inflammation does not necessarily imply inflammation of long duration, and may follow a transient or prolonged acute inflammatory stage (Vernon-Roberts 1988). Essentially there are two forms of chronic inflammation : either the chronic reaction supervenes on the acute reaction or may in fact develop slowly with no initial acute phase (ab initio) (Hurley 1985). Chronic inflammation ab initio can have many causes including local irritants, poor circulation, some micro-organisms or immune disturbances. Chronic inflammation is usually more productive than exudative - it produces more fibrous material than inflammatory exudate. Frequently there is some tissue destruction, inflammation and attempted healing occurring simultaneously (Hurly 1985, Walters and Israel 1987).

http://electrotherapy.org/modalities/tissuerepair.htm

There was nothing in the autopsy report to indicate prior injuries.

i would put the opinions of an ME, two pediatricians and a family practice doctor, that I know personally and through their reputations and work with multiple patients on a daily basis, over an opinion of someone or a few someones on a forum. This in no way is meant disrespectfully to any one person here, but, HOTYH, if you can tell me your qualifications that enable you to determine something completely opposite to 7 physicians that Super Dave and i had read the autopsy report, as well as independent ME's SD listed above, I would be most interested in what your qualifications are.

If you are basing it strictly on your opinion, I totally respect that also. I just happen to understand a lot of medical terminology and have people I know who are experts, that I respect, confirm the chronic abuse to be true. This means that in my mind i have NO doubt about my beliefs, or where I stand on the matter.

As for why I brought my i-pad to work the other night, when I wasn't even working, it wasn't to change doubters or IDI's minds, but to lend credence to the fact that in my mind I truly believe that JB was sexually abused. To me, this confirmation of sexual abuse that occured on more than one occasion and the lack of evidence that points to an intruder has sealed in my mind forever the RDI theory.

The 'shills' (thank you Beck, I'm borrowing your wording), can be persuasive at times. Until you look at hard, cold facts, statements and proven lies. The truth NEVER changes. PR experts can twist it, throw out the parts they don't like, but truth never, ever changes.

 

[otg]

First of all, I should point out that I am by no means a medical expert, nor do I even claim to be very knowledgeable on any of this. I freely admit this, but I am able to read on the subject and understand what is being said. We have, I know, at least a few people on this board who are nurses, or are in some way in the medical field, who are much more qualified than me to address this. I got into this because you, HOTYH simply didn’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “chronic”, as opposed to “acute”.

I believe these are your definitions and not clinical definitions. Do you really know the clinical definition for chronic, as it was used by the coroner?

I have seen many times where the term 'chronic' in the autopsy report was instantly construed as meaning JBR had previous chronic sexual abuse by a family member who was involved in the murder. This is where fiction is outrunning fact.

From what I've read, chronic could mean 10 minutes. That is, an injury JBR sustained that night can be described has having 'chronic inflammation'.

I gave you just a few of the “clinical” definitions that I was quickly able to find by simply doing a search and reading, and here’s the key -- understanding what I read.

Chronic inflammation does not necessarily imply inflammation of long duration, and may follow a transient or prolonged acute inflammatory stage (Vernon-Roberts 1988). Essentially there are two forms of chronic inflammation : either the chronic reaction supervenes on the acute reaction or may in fact develop slowly with no initial acute phase (ab initio) (Hurley 1985). Chronic inflammation ab initio can have many causes including local irritants, poor circulation, some micro-organisms or immune disturbances. Chronic inflammation is usually more productive than exudative - it produces more fibrous material than inflammatory exudate. Frequently there is some tissue destruction, inflammation and attempted healing occurring simultaneously (Hurly 1985, Walters and Israel 1987).

http://electrotherapy.org/modalities/tissuerepair.htm

Its clear from this that there is no way to rationally infer chronic parental abuse from the autopsy report expression 'chronic inflammation' that people found and quickly latched onto.

From what I can tell, the chronic reaction can supervene on the acute reaction in a day or two.

Your link (http://electrotherapy.org/modalities/tissuerepair.htm) goes to an excellent article (Thank you for that.) on the phases that an injury goes through in the process of healing, and what therapies might be applied to assist in that healing process. You chose only one paragraph to quote, and I really don’t understand why you chose it because there is nothing in it that disputes what I said or supports your position that “chronic could mean 10 minutes”. And yes, I agree with you that “the chronic reaction can supervene on the acute reaction in a day or two”. But again, that too has nothing to do with the meaning of the word “chronic” or what it means as it is used in the autopsy report.

From your article, it also says the following:

"Probably the most straightforward way to describe the healing process is to divide it up into broad stages which are not mutually exclusive and overlap considerably. There are several different ways to ‘divide up’ the entire process, but the allocation of 4 phases is common and will be adopted here – these being BLEEDING, INFLAMMATION, PROLIFERATION and REMODELLING. The reality of the sequence is that they are far more integrated than this phased model would imply, and thus (Fig 2) actually represents a picture that is closer to reality."​

If you read further in the article (I won’t quote the entire article, you can read it for yourself -- and you should before you quote from it.), the two phases which are particularly pertinent to the injuries described in the autopsy report are the first two, which speak to the period of time that the injuries (note that that is plural) occurred. These would be the “Bleeding Phase” and the “Inflammatory Phase”, both of which are being addressed in Meyers’ observations. While he doesn’t specifically state the time period in days/hours, he is addressing it in a general sense because it is important to establish the recent (acute) and the past (chronic) injuries that were evident to him.

As for you statement:

There was nothing in the autopsy report to indicate prior injuries.

That is simply your opinion, and IMO -- simply wrong.

I'm not confused, and there's nothing you'll say thats going to have an effect.

The first part of that statement is your belief only, but the second part I will agree with. So for that reason, I’m not going to continue this back-and-forth. You have made up your mind to either ignore what is right there in black and white in the autopsy report, or you’ve tried to downplay its significance by trying to mislead others with your lack of understanding of what certain words mean. Either way, further discourse with you on this is useless.
.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Chronic inflammation does not necessarily imply inflammation of long duration, and may follow a transient or prolonged acute inflammatory stage (Vernon-Roberts 1988). Essentially there are two forms of chronic inflammation : either the chronic reaction supervenes on the acute reaction or may in fact develop slowly with no initial acute phase (ab initio) (Hurley 1985). Chronic inflammation ab initio can have many causes including local irritants, poor circulation, some micro-organisms or immune disturbances. Chronic inflammation is usually more productive than exudative - it produces more fibrous material than inflammatory exudate. Frequently there is some tissue destruction, inflammation and attempted healing occurring simultaneously (Hurly 1985, Walters and Israel 1987).

http://electrotherapy.org/modalities/tissuerepair.htm



Since these are references to previous works, their context and meaning can't be arbitrarily changed beyond what is read here. They IS what they IS.

Chronic inflammation isn't 'more than 3 months' as you asserted. Its not necessarily of long duration. This is in direct conflict with the 'chronic' post which asserted it has to be more than three months in duration. A sweeping generalization, really. There is plenty in it that disputes what you said. In fact it reverses it. Nothing more is needed but the one paragraph!

Of course there's a middle ground, but that middle ground isn't one where the expression 'chronic inflammation' equates to 'prior abuse.' There's obviously no link there, as the inflammation could be "local irritants, poor circulation, some micro-organisms or immune disturbances." Or could be the next phase from injuries she suffered that night.

I'm glad you were able to learn something from the link. Especially that 'chronic' doesn't always mean 'more than three months'.

 

[BBB167893]

If I might make a small suggestion:

Try taking a different tack. Instead of just focusing on one thing--the chronic inflammation--try considering the chronic inflammation, the eroded parts of the hymen and vaginal walls, the increasing problems with wetting and soiling, and JB's possibly inappropriate behavior all together and see where that takes you.

Like I always say, it's never just one thing.