Prior Vaginal Trauma

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

How does eroded parts help RDI? Thats an acute injury.

Wetting and soiling? I know of older kids with similar issues and they weren't strangled or headbashed. Nobody wrote a ransom note claiming to be foreign either.

Its like the answer is 23 and you claim A+B+C+D+E=23. There's no rationality where we combine various behavior, label them 'inappropriate' and draw conclusions of brutal murder. See what I mean?

I'm not sure but it seems like presenting erosion as if its non-acute, or helps RDI, is mischaracterizing the autopsy report.

Even if RDI had prior parental abuse resolved (which they don't), it still doesn't establish that PR or JR were involved in this murder.

I know you'd like to not call it a murder at all, but an accident covered up to look like a capital murder. Odd to say the least. Think about this and see where THAT takes you.

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya Hotyh.

by the way, Welcome back!

Why does erosion have to be redefined? or it's meaning manipulated and segmented for delivery?

Why the necessity?

Are there not possibilities that exist, that potentially excludes any guilt by a Ramsey, a position where the medical findings of prior abuse need not be reinterpreted by a layman?

 

[SunnieRN]

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 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.



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:

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



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.
.

Thank you for showing us that taking one word, one sentence, one paragraph out of context can change what an article is actually saying. Kind of like 'Ramsey speak!'

 

[SunnieRN]

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.

Super Dave, many people refuse to look at and process the signs of child abuse. I've had to work with child welfare/social services on many cases. Many parents, are clueless because they choose to be. For some reason, the families that refuse to accept the diagnosis, usually has the worst incidences, due to adults 'looking the other way' and ignoring changes in their childrens behavior patterns.

 

[DeeDee249]

Erosion is not an acute injury, but rather takes place over time. Doesn't have to be a LONG time, but that erosion did not happen the day of her death all in one incident.

 

[joeskidbeck]

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.

BBM
Thanks for the shout out, Sunnie, but I've borrowed that term from KoldKase, who I bow down to when it comes to knowledge of this case. She is awesome! (So are you!)

 

[CathyR]

Bed wetting is common in 10% of the overall non abused children in USA.
In sexual abuse it is only 25% of all the abused children.
If you put it in a pie chart and compared the numbers the 10% overall far outweighs the 25% of abuse victims.

Example 100 children. 10 are bed wetters with no sexual abuse.
25 abuse victims 5 are bed wetters. Since the population of non abused children far outweighs the abused you will end up with numbers far outweighing the abuse victims. Far more children who are not abused wet the bed than those who have been abused do. This is not proof she was molested. The numbers for bed wetting and no abuse far outweigh the number of abuse victims who do bed wet. The fact she wet the bed is not proof she was abused.
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/bedwetting/a/1108_bedwetting.htm


Here is an opinion from a Dr that no abuse occurred.

Other stories claimed that the "vaginal abrasion" mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states:

"From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia and there is no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4b.html

 

[madeleine]

St's book,page 126

"In our interview McReynolds suggested incest as a possible motive for the murder,but he later retracted that and told the Today shiw that the Ramseys were a terrific family."


hmmmmm....I wonder why he (a stranger) would think of that?Did he see any signs,did he notice something?I mean why would you suggest that out of the blue?He didn't even know what the autopsy report said.And INCEST happens only between family members,I wonder who he had in mind?JR?BR?JAR?Interesting!

And I don't see that as a retraction,what he said on TV.On TV people say lots of things that sound good.Or maybe did the R's do something to change his mind?Say anything to convince him like they did with LS?

Oh,I so would like to read the Santa fam. interviews and FW's!

 

[madeleine]

Also,
Santa attended the 23 party right?Maybe he saw/heard something?
The 911 call on the 23rd still bugs me!

 

[otg]

Here is an opinion from a Dr that no abuse occurred.

Other stories claimed that the "vaginal abrasion" mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states:

"From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia and there is no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4b.html

I have to ask... Why did the good doctor choose to only address the lack of exterior injuries and completely disregard the internal?

Did you notice that he very carefully words it, "no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia" (assuming here he is only referring to the majora)? Also, there is "no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas." (Okay. No healed scars externally.) And then just to make sure you know he's not referring to anything internally, he reiterates, "any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

Just seems strange to me that he doesn't address or even mention the "reddish hyperemia" on the vaginal wall, the "red-purple area of abrasion" at the hymenal orifice, the abrasion noted in the vaginal wall, or the "vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation" on "all of the sections of the vaginal mucosa"?
.

 

[madeleine]

I have to ask... Why did the good doctor choose to only address the lack of exterior injuries and completely disregard the internal?

Did you notice that he very carefully words it, "no evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia" (assuming here he is only referring to the majora)? Also, there is "no other indication of any healed scars in any of those areas." (Okay. No healed scars externally.) And then just to make sure you know he's not referring to anything internally, he reiterates, "any other previous injuries that have healed in that particular area."

Just seems strange to me that he doesn't address or even mention the "reddish hyperemia" on the vaginal wall, the "red-purple area of abrasion" at the hymenal orifice, the abrasion noted in the vaginal wall, or the "vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation" on "all of the sections of the vaginal mucosa"?
.

Excellent points,otg.
You know,all their talk re semen found on her legs and inside her vagina
and then oh well,it was nothing,it was just blood...unmatched dna,etc
All this makes me wonder if things were done right....I don't trust Meyer and I really don't like his report.He told Arndt about digital penetration but didn't mention it in his report.
Wth...........something stinks .

 

[otg]

Excellent points,otg.
You know,all their talk re semen found on her legs and inside her vagina
and then oh well,it was nothing,it was just blood...unmatched dna,etc
All this makes me wonder if things were done right....I don't trust Meyer and I really don't like his report.He told Arndt about digital penetration but didn't mention it in his report.
Wth...........something stinks .

Actually, I understand what you mean, but I disagree with you slightly (Please don't hit me, Maddie.)

The early reports of semen on her legs, etc., were leaks that can't be attributed to him.

I think that despite his early mistake in not taking internal temps to more accurately estimate TOD, he was pretty conscientious after that. For instance, he knew what he was doing when he made the ink marks on the ligature before he cut and removed it. The "public" initial autopsy report that we've all seen is not supposed to have all his comments, observations, and questions in it. This report is not supposed to try and interpret what he finds, or solve the crime. In it, he he is only supposed to make notes of what was physically found and determine, if he can, the cause of death.

I know we'd all like to have more information and know all there is to know about it, but I really don't feel we are owed it. Overall, I just feel that Dr. Meyers was kind of given a bad rap. He was a coroner in a fairly small town that had never seen anything like this, and he had no idea just how scrutinized this was going to be by the entire world.
.

 

[madeleine]

Okay but the rest of them,the prosecution team (DA team)...they knew better.Why did they release the body so soon.So many additional tests could have been done,we would have had so many other answers.

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually, I understand what you mean, but I disagree with you slightly (Please don't hit me, Maddie.)

The early reports of semen on her legs, etc., were leaks that can't be attributed to him.

I think that despite his early mistake in not taking internal temps to more accurately estimate TOD, he was pretty conscientious after that. For instance, he knew what he was doing when he made the ink marks on the ligature before he cut and removed it. The "public" initial autopsy report that we've all seen is not supposed to have all his comments, observations, and questions in it. This report is not supposed to try and interpret what he finds, or solve the crime. In it, he he is only supposed to make notes of what was physically found and determine, if he can, the cause of death.

I know we'd all like to have more information and know all there is to know about it, but I really don't feel we are owed it. Overall, I just feel that Dr. Meyers was kind of given a bad rap. He was a coroner in a fairly small town that had never seen anything like this, and he had no idea just how scrutinized this was going to be by the entire world.
.

Even so, there were some standard procedures that he did not do at all (to establish TOD), and the sloppy procedures during the autopsy, specifically the use of unsterile nail clippers that were possibly used on OTHER bodies is a serious breach in a murder investigation. Maddie made a good point- "Oh, it's not semen JUST her blood". JUST HER BLOOD??? Oh, that's OK then I guess.
To find blood on the pubic area thighs of a child as well as INSIDE her vagina and not address it in the report is very suspicious to me. I want to know who "advised" him not to put anything about this in his report.

 

[UKGuy]

Even so, there were some standard procedures that he did not do at all (to establish TOD), and the sloppy procedures during the autopsy, specifically the use of unsterile nail clippers that were possibly used on OTHER bodies is a serious breach in a murder investigation. Maddie made a good point- "Oh, it's not semen JUST her blood". JUST HER BLOOD??? Oh, that's OK then I guess.
To find blood on the pubic area thighs of a child as well as INSIDE her vagina and not address it in the report is very suspicious to me. I want to know who "advised" him not to put anything about this in his report.

DeeDee249,
Might be the same person who redacted the color of the duct-tape found in the wine-cellar?

.

 

[otg]

Even so, there were some standard procedures that he did not do at all (to establish TOD), and the sloppy procedures during the autopsy, specifically the use of unsterile nail clippers that were possibly used on OTHER bodies is a serious breach in a murder investigation. Maddie made a good point- "Oh, it's not semen JUST her blood". JUST HER BLOOD??? Oh, that's OK then I guess.
To find blood on the pubic area thighs of a child as well as INSIDE her vagina and not address it in the report is very suspicious to me. I want to know who "advised" him not to put anything about this in his report.

Boy, I hate getting into this because I’m obviously out of my league, especially while speaking with people whose professions are in the medical field. Yes, there were things that should have been done that I acknowledged (establishing TOD -- certainly something extremely important in the coroner’s responsibilities). Actually, I forgot about the contaminated nail clippers when I wrote what I did (another really big mistake -- on Meyers' part for doing it, and on my part for forgetting about it). Come to think about it, I guess I’ll have to agree with you (and I should, because you guys know more about this than I do, DeeDee249 , madeleine, and SunnieRN too) that his big mistakes outweighed so much of the less important things that he may have done right.

What can I say to excuse myself? Maybe I was trying to “get in touch with my feminine side” in being sympathetic with a man I saw reluctantly thrust into worldwide scrutiny? I guess I just felt a little bit of pity for him being lambasted as much as he has been, and he’s never spoken out or said a word in defense of himself about anything that was done.

Also, why should the blood found in her vagina and on her legs be addressed? The fact that it was there, along with the description of the injuries, says all that has to be said to most people who would read it. It's only a small number of people who read it and deny what it says.

I should say one more thing though (not that I’m trying to back out of my concession that you guys are right) about the leaked info about “possible” semen on her legs. If I recall correctly, that was leaked after the initial examination with some type of fluorescent light (probably a Wood’s lamp) before the lab analysis was completed. Considering the other obvious evidence of some type of sexual assault, semen would be an almost assumed thing to find somewhere on or in her body. But other things cause luminescence under this type of light.

[[[[[[ WARNING: If you eat meat (and I do), you might not want to read the following. ]]]]]]​

I know that, as a part of their inspection of a processing plant, meat inspectors (as in USDA) will shine an ultraviolet fluorescent light (wavelength at ~350 to 375 nanometers) on and around butchered meat before it is further processed. They are looking for signs of rodent infestation, because rats/mice go wherever and whenever they want. Any urine on the meat or in the area will show up under this UV fluorescent light, and hence, they can assume rodent infestation.

The only point in telling you the previous information is to point out that even urine, which we know was probably on JonBenet’s legs, will show up under some UV lights. The Wood’s lamp used mostly in forensics transmits at a wavelength of ~360-nm. Semen fluoresces more distinctively from other substances at a wavelength closer to ~500-nm. Using a standard Wood’s lamp causes a lot of false positives from things like saliva, spermicides, and even various types of skin creams. All of this is why the early leak about “something” showing up on her legs before it had been identified was such a distraction. That it turned out to be smeared blood is actually just further evidence that the blood from the “sexual assault” portion of what happened was covered up (or at least an attempt was made); and to assert that any type of intruder / pedophile / kidnapper / murderer / foreign faction would do something like that is ludicrous.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think that when JB's thighs were examined under the fluoroscope at the autopsy, those in attendance, especially LE, were excited to find evidence of semen. Not that they were happy to see that she had been sexually assaulted, but semen provided DNA that can be linked to a perp. Her own blood there tells us nothing about WHO did it. Semen PROVES sexual assault, and if there had been semen and if it also matched the male DNA in her clothes- we wouldn't be posting here today. THAT rules out innocent transfer. THAT proves someone NOT a male R sexually assaulted her.

As far as the coroner- yes, I understand his job is to report what he finds, not to solve the crime. But he made verbal statements about what he believed caused some of her injuries. If he thought there had been sexual assault, he should have put that in the report.
I didn't have any problem with what you said, otg, and you certainly are not out of your league by any means. I am happy you are hear.
My problem was with what the coroner did, not what you said about it.

 

[SunnieRN]

I wonder what the reasons were behind the discrepancies? Was it just a lack of experience, something he was going to talk about at a later time? Or was there a reason he did not want to make known his suspicions?

I tend to believe the last idea, as he made the comments and just didn't write them down.

Did he testify at the grand jury?

 

[UKGuy]

I wonder what the reasons were behind the discrepancies? Was it just a lack of experience, something he was going to talk about at a later time? Or was there a reason he did not want to make known his suspicions?

I tend to believe the last idea, as he made the comments and just didn't write them down.

Did he testify at the grand jury?

SunnieRN,

If we can see that the crime-scene has been staged. Do you reckon an experienced ME could see this also? If you then add in his remarks e.g. sexual contact and digital penetration. JonBenet's death most definitely becomes a sexually motivated homicide. Just as Lou Smit characterised it, except his perp was an intruder. Once you examine the evidence the probability that an intruder was the perp reduces to close to zero. Excluding the contentious and likely inadmissable touch-dna leaves zero forensic evidence; include it and an intruder still has a low probability e.g. less than 10%.

I reckon Coroner Meyer instictively knew he was dealing with a domestic homicide. Once the autopsy pictures detailing JonBenet's chronic injuries become available then a sexually motivated homicide is a done deal. So Coroner Meyer was likely keeping quiet precisely as to not prejudice his position as a ME. He knew if it came to court he would be asked his opinion regarding JonBenet's internal injuries then he could expand beyond his verbatim remarks.

With the initial sealing of his report it could be he was leant on, a polite phone call etc?

.

 

[SunnieRN]

Great points Otg! I would like to believe that the Grand Jury called him, but from what you are saying they must not have. That is craziness! He was the person who did the initial exam!

If they did call him, I would have loved to hear his testimony.

The further this case gets discussed, the more I realize how much dumb luck was involved! As well as how many people were involved in silencing the truth.