Prior Vaginal Trauma

[ChuckMaureen]

Sorry, but I've never known an angel to be cold or callous. As for emotions, any person that is emotionally vested in this case, shows emotion in regards to posts that can trigger anger, frustration joy and disgust. Some just have a more eloquent method of description than others.

I am curious if you have read through this thread, or just jumped in. Many here have invested time and effort to find the answers and information that has been presented.

I have read.

What answers might they be?

 

[Tadpole12]

It can be easily inferred.

What you're suggesting is that BPD has factual credible knowledge of prior abuse of JBR. This would mean that BPD is not announcing to the public for public safety that the have an unsolved case of child sexual abuse where JBR was the victim.

Is this another conspiracy theory, where the PD knows of crime on a child and keeps their mouth shut? There's a lawsuit in here somewhere.

Heyya hotyh.

I dunno, the PBD meeting was recounted, yet with the touch dna results being revealed as excluding the Ramseys, the BPD has not advised the public to beware.

 

[SunnieRN]

Hi, SunnieRN,

Everything has a "surface" in dimensional space.

True, and the coroner did not mention the injuries were from rigorous surface rub, but from something being inserted into the vagina, eroding the surface of the hymen. Big difference. Now if you want to surmise that the outer labia lips were inflamed due to Jon Benet rigorously rubbing, I could easily buy that theory.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Heyya hotyh.

I dunno, the PBD meeting was recounted, yet with the touch dna results being revealed as excluding the Ramseys, the BPD has not advised the public to beware.

The issues of murder and prior abuse are separate crimes with separate charges. Either the BPD knows of prior abuse or they dont. If they know and don't inform the public that a crime occurred it might be illegal and also crime statistics would be invalid.

BDP doesn't have a panel of experts stating JBR had chronic prior sexual abuse. Its an RDI myth only promoted in the tabs and on the forums.

 

[Tadpole12]

The issues of murder and prior abuse are separate crimes with separate charges. Either the BPD knows of prior abuse or they dont. If they know and don't inform the public that a crime occurred it might be illegal and also crime statistics would be invalid.

BDP doesn't have a panel of experts stating JBR had chronic prior sexual abuse. Its an RDI myth only promoted in the tabs and on the forums.

Heyya hotyh.

hmmm. That's interesting. A witness could still come forward and claim they had seen or been part of the sexul abuse, even another victim could present themselves.

Well, speculation on that end does have its roots in CW's AEA theory.

 

[akashana]

Yeah this is what I mean. Probably you are the one that convinced me about her being killed there but I now find out:

There is a stain on the carpet but it may or may not be urine, or if it is, it may or may not be JBR's urine and even if it is hers, it may or may not have been left when she 'voided' at death. I now see, this is the essence of how you come about your 'belief' for RDI. You take one thing and then pile all the others on top to make a 'body of evidence'. If you pull out the first thing, like the urine stain, the whole 'body of evidence' falls down like a pack of cards.

I could just as easily say she got a fright when the IDI grabbed her in her bed and she wet herself. He then removed her clothes in order to assault her and put them back on her before he left.

For me, and I believe for most RDIs, although I do not intend to put my words in anyone's mouth, it is not a single thing, such as the urine stain, or even the Patsy-sounding ransom letter, but rather, the totality of the evidence we have seen and the circumstances which surround her brutal death. Singling out pieces of evidence which you feel does not jive with the RDI theory isn't going to change the fact that this family had a vested interest in keeping LE at bay and from discovering what lay beneath the surface of the family's seemingly perfect facade. People with nothing to hide do not behave as if they have something to conceal. They are open and forthcoming about all aspects of their lives, even the sometimes tawdry facets, if they feel that such revelations might bring them closer to the truth. We saw that with the Van Dam's (sp?), who did not hesitate to reveal their swinger lifestyle, and fully cooperated with LE. And the killer was caught and convicted. But such was and is not the case for the remaining Ramseys. And one has to wonder why.

 

[BBB167893]

It can be easily inferred.

While I wait for you to explain how, let say that I'll remember you said that the next time anyone jumps on me for making an easy inferrence!

What you're suggesting is that BPD has factual credible knowledge of prior abuse of JBR.

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting.

This would mean that BPD is not announcing to the public for public safety that they have an unsolved case of child sexual abuse where JBR was the victim.

No, that's not necessarily what it means.

In fact, if I were a betting man, I'd say those reports are right there in the police file waiting for someone to actually READ them (if they haven't already).

Is this another conspiracy theory, where the PD knows of crime on a child and keeps their mouth shut?

I don't deal in conspiracy theories, HOTYH. I've told you that. I leave those up to IDI.

Moreover, it's not like they've kept their mouths shut about it. Problem is, you dismiss it as "pure fiction" when they have made statements. A perfectly vicious little circle, wouldn't you say?

BPD doesn't have a panel of experts stating JBR had chronic prior sexual abuse. Its an RDI myth only promoted in the tabs and on the forums.

Then just what WERE James Monteleone, John McCann, David Jones, Virginia Rau. Ronald Wright and Richard Krugman DOING in Boulder anyway? Were they on a skiing trip?

 

[BBB167893]

Heyya hotyh.

I dunno, the PBD meeting was recounted, yet with the touch dna results being revealed as excluding the Ramseys, the BPD has not advised the public to beware.

We could "infer" a LOT from that, couldn't we?

 

[SunnieRN]

For me, and I believe for most RDIs, although I do not intend to put my words in anyone's mouth, it is not a single thing, such as the urine stain, or even the Patsy-sounding ransom letter, but rather, the totality of the evidence we have seen and the circumstances which surround her brutal death. Singling out pieces of evidence which you feel does not jive with the RDI theory isn't going to change the fact that this family had a vested interest in keeping LE at bay and from discovering what lay beneath the surface of the family's seemingly perfect facade. People with nothing to hide do not behave as if they have something to conceal. They are open and forthcoming about all aspects of their lives, even the sometimes tawdry facets, if they feel that such revelations might bring them closer to the truth. We saw that with the Van Dam's (sp?), who did not hesitate to reveal their swinger lifestyle, and fully cooperated with LE. And the killer was caught and convicted. But such was and is not the case for the remaining Ramseys. And one has to wonder why.

Bravo!! Very well spoken!

 

[BBB167893]

For me, and I believe for most RDIs, although I do not intend to put my words in anyone's mouth, it is not a single thing, such as the urine stain, or even the Patsy-sounding ransom letter, but rather, the totality of the evidence we have seen and the circumstances which surround her brutal death. Singling out pieces of evidence which you feel does not jive with the RDI theory isn't going to change the fact that this family had a vested interest in keeping LE at bay and from discovering what lay beneath the surface of the family's seemingly perfect facade. People with nothing to hide do not behave as if they have something to conceal. They are open and forthcoming about all aspects of their lives, even the sometimes tawdry facets, if they feel that such revelations might bring them closer to the truth. We saw that with the Van Dam's (sp?), who did not hesitate to reveal their swinger lifestyle, and fully cooperated with LE. And the killer was caught and convicted. But such was and is not the case for the remaining Ramseys. And one has to wonder why.

Amazing, akashana!

 

[SunnieRN]

I have read.

What answers might they be?

If you read the thread and have specific questions, feel free to ask. Otherwise I will choose to believe you are satisfied with the information that was presented.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Chuck, if you read from the first post of this thread to where you were when you joined in the discussion, you will see why most of us feel the way we do about this case. There are many, many reasons for our emotional responses. There have been posts deleted because of the content so you won't know about the reactions to those, but that doesn't matter. You have remarked a couple of times about our responding with our emotions, this leads me to believe that you are a man, for various reasons, not the least being most men do not react well to emotional responses. That's something that cannot be helped, but if you happen to be a man who was molested as a child, you may have some idea of just how deep these emotions run. Those of us here who have experienced molestation first hand or through those we love dearly have very strong opinions on the subject and have learned over the years what the signs of sexual abuse are. One or two signs may be viewed as just coincidence, but when the signs start mounting up, there are problems somewhere. I am only wanting you to understand that we not trying to "gang up" on you or your posts, but we want you to try and understand where we are coming from before you dismiss us as "emotional females" whose opinions couldn't possibly count because we are somehow "damaged". No, you never said any of this, but it has been implied before by others who now wonder why we have no respect for their opinions. I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into the "War and Peace" of posts, but I have read your posts on other threads and I feel that you are an intelligent person who could offer a lot to our cause, the cause of justice for JonBenet. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Becky

 

[ChuckMaureen]

For me, and I believe for most RDIs, although I do not intend to put my words in anyone's mouth, it is not a single thing, such as the urine stain, or even the Patsy-sounding ransom letter, but rather, the totality of the evidence we have seen and the circumstances which surround her brutal death. Singling out pieces of evidence which you feel does not jive with the RDI theory isn't going to change the fact that this family had a vested interest in keeping LE at bay and from discovering what lay beneath the surface of the family's seemingly perfect facade. People with nothing to hide do not behave as if they have something to conceal. They are open and forthcoming about all aspects of their lives, even the sometimes tawdry facets, if they feel that such revelations might bring them closer to the truth. We saw that with the Van Dam's (sp?), who did not hesitate to reveal their swinger lifestyle, and fully cooperated with LE. And the killer was caught and convicted. But such was and is not the case for the remaining Ramseys. And one has to wonder why.

I wonder if the Rs acted strictly on advice of council from early on to not say anything, and perhaps the Rs began to suspect each other at some point ... ?

 

[MurriFlower]

For me, and I believe for most RDIs, although I do not intend to put my words in anyone's mouth, it is not a single thing, such as the urine stain, or even the Patsy-sounding ransom letter, but rather, the totality of the evidence we have seen and the circumstances which surround her brutal death. Singling out pieces of evidence which you feel does not jive with the RDI theory isn't going to change the fact that this family had a vested interest in keeping LE at bay and from discovering what lay beneath the surface of the family's seemingly perfect facade. People with nothing to hide do not behave as if they have something to conceal. They are open and forthcoming about all aspects of their lives, even the sometimes tawdry facets, if they feel that such revelations might bring them closer to the truth. We saw that with the Van Dam's (sp?), who did not hesitate to reveal their swinger lifestyle, and fully cooperated with LE. And the killer was caught and convicted. But such was and is not the case for the remaining Ramseys. And one has to wonder why.

Ok, well substitute your "totality of evidence" for my "body of evidence". It is still piece upon piece, and if the basis is not a fact, where does it leave the rest? I understand we are all (most of us) working to try to solve this, but if we ignore a piece of evidence (eg the rope) or if something presented to us proves to be false (eg the urine stain in the hallway), then this can change how we view the other pieces of evidence that appeared to support our theory.

Yesterday, for example, I discovered there was no basis for the belief she was murdered in the hallway and also that there is no basis for the belief that she was sexually assaulted with the end of the paintbrush (broken or intact).

Do you see how excited that makes me?? Things I had believed were true, I now find out are just speculation. It's like discovering evidence but in reverse. So I'm left wondering what other things were significant but were ignored. The rope is one thing that has been dismissed or disregarded. The open balcony adjacent to JBRs room has never been regarded as a probably entry/exit route.

I said when I first joined the forum that I believe there is sufficient evidence to solve the murder, but I now see we need to continually question the validity of 'known facts' and re-evaluate evidence that was unexplored or disregarded because it did not fit with the current theory.

 

[joeskidbeck]

MurriFlower, that is, in my opinion, your very best post ever. You are beginning to see some of the things that we have been seeing for 14 years. The thing is, from some of your posts, I think you tend to believe everything the Ramseys said. I learned a long time ago, that you can never tell when they are telling the truth or just throwing something out to see if it will stick. All these "evidentiary rumors" work both ways. I would love to believe that someone other than the R's committed this murder, but it's their behavior that makes me think it will never happen. You obviously cannot go by the so called "evidence" because we will never know for sure which parts are true. You have to use your own common sense and ask yourself, do I really believe this could have happened that way? I'm not trying to convert you, I am actually trying to pay you a compliment. I hope that you accept it for what it is.
Becky

 

[UKGuy]

Ok, well substitute your "totality of evidence" for my "body of evidence". It is still piece upon piece, and if the basis is not a fact, where does it leave the rest? I understand we are all (most of us) working to try to solve this, but if we ignore a piece of evidence (eg the rope) or if something presented to us proves to be false (eg the urine stain in the hallway), then this can change how we view the other pieces of evidence that appeared to support our theory.

Yesterday, for example, I discovered there was no basis for the belief she was murdered in the hallway and also that there is no basis for the belief that she was sexually assaulted with the end of the paintbrush (broken or intact).

Do you see how excited that makes me?? Things I had believed were true, I now find out are just speculation. It's like discovering evidence but in reverse. So I'm left wondering what other things were significant but were ignored. The rope is one thing that has been dismissed or disregarded. The open balcony adjacent to JBRs room has never been regarded as a probably entry/exit route.

I said when I first joined the forum that I believe there is sufficient evidence to solve the murder, but I now see we need to continually question the validity of 'known facts' and re-evaluate evidence that was unexplored or disregarded because it did not fit with the current theory.

MurriFlower,

Yesterday, for example, I discovered there was no basis for the belief she was murdered in the hallway

There is actually an absence of any documented forensic evidence. This is not the same as no basis for the belief. We are all free to believe whatever we like.

and also that there is no basis for the belief that she was sexually assaulted with the end of the paintbrush (broken or intact).

Again there is an absence of documented evidence to confirm exactly what injured JonBenet internally. This should not be confused with a sexual assault.

Coroner Meyer remarked that JonBenet had been penetrated digitally and had been subject to sexual contact.

The wine-cellar is patently a staged crime-scene not everything documented as forensic evidence should be assumed to be available as the basis for belief in any particular theory, without scrutiny. Since the purpose of the staging is to deceive you.

.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower, that is, in my opinion, your very best post ever. You are beginning to see some of the things that we have been seeing for 14 years. The thing is, from some of your posts, I think you tend to believe everything the Ramseys said. I learned a long time ago, that you can never tell when they are telling the truth or just throwing something out to see if it will stick. All these "evidentiary rumors" work both ways. I would love to believe that someone other than the R's committed this murder, but it's their behavior that makes me think it will never happen. You obviously cannot go by the so called "evidence" because we will never know for sure which parts are true. You have to use your own common sense and ask yourself, do I really believe this could have happened that way? I'm not trying to convert you, I am actually trying to pay you a compliment. I hope that you accept it for what it is.
Becky

Hi Beck

I will accept the compliment, gratefully, they are few are far between on this forum!!

You must also understand where I am coming from. Once I had investigated and dismissed the Ramseys as her murderer, a startling revelation came to me! This was, that I was able to believe everything they said (with qualifications for human failings)!! If they were innocent, (as I believe) then they had no need to lie.

So, whilst RDI disbelieves pretty much every utterance, I am in the fortunate position of having a reliable source of information. Not only that, but also I do not believe the RN was concocted by the Rs to mislead, but instead was the sole invention of the IDI (whether it was intended to mislead or not is a moot point, but it remains tangible evidence).

This has brought about another problem though. RDI (not just those on this forum but in LE, tabloids, etc) has skewed, dismissed/disregarded, misrepresented, invented and surmised evidence, based on their original assumption of guilt, and upon this has formed an opinion to which they attach small things that appear to corroborate the evidence and refer to this as a "totality of evidence" against the R's. (I could elaborate, but that would get us bogged down for days in people defending such corroborating theories). When one of these basic pieces is removed (in this case the supposed urine stain in the hallway, leading to the assumption of the location where she died), instead of re-evaluating the validity of the remaining supporting evidence they choose to ignore it. In doing so, they are ignoring the key piece of evidence upon which they based their original theory and upon which they piled up the tiny pieces which make up their "totality of evidence". If you were to look at the crime scene again and say "well if she didn't die there, where did she die?" this might lead to a totally different outcome.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hi Beck

I will accept the compliment, gratefully, they are few are far between on this forum!!

You must also understand where I am coming from. Once I had investigated and dismissed the Ramseys as her murderer, a startling revelation came to me! This was, that I was able to believe everything they said (with qualifications for human failings)!! If they were innocent, (as I believe) then they had no need to lie.

So, whilst RDI disbelieves pretty much every utterance, I am in the fortunate position of having a reliable source of information. Not only that, but also I do not believe the RN was concocted by the Rs to mislead, but instead was the sole invention of the IDI (whether it was intended to mislead or not is a moot point, but it remains tangible evidence).

This has brought about another problem though. RDI (not just those on this forum but in LE, tabloids, etc) has skewed, dismissed/disregarded, misrepresented, invented and surmised evidence, based on their original assumption of guilt, and upon this has formed an opinion to which they attach small things that appear to corroborate the evidence and refer to this as a "totality of evidence" against the R's. (I could elaborate, but that would get us bogged down for days in people defending such corroborating theories). When one of these basic pieces is removed (in this case the supposed urine stain in the hallway, leading to the assumption of the location where she died), instead of re-evaluating the validity of the remaining supporting evidence they choose to ignore it. In doing so, they are ignoring the key piece of evidence upon which they based their original theory and upon which they piled up the tiny pieces which make up their "totality of evidence". If you were to look at the crime scene again and say "well if she didn't die there, where did she die?" this might lead to a totally different outcome.

"Whether it was intended to mislead or not is a moot point."

I only hope RDI can read this twice and understand that when the ransom note is expounded upon as 'bogus' or 'a pack of lies' or 'THAT ransom note' it is done at the expense of RDI credibility. It is a piece of evidence, no more and no less.

According to prima facie, the note was designed to dissuade JR from calling the police, and intended to associate kidnapping and murder with disrespect for this country and fat cat status. This represents the gist of the ransom note.

ETA prima facie, the note was placed on the rear stairs to be picked up by someone using the rear stairs.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

There is actually an absence of any documented forensic evidence. This is not the same as no basis for the belief. We are all free to believe whatever we like.


Again there is an absence of documented evidence to confirm exactly what injured JonBenet internally. This should not be confused with a sexual assault.

Coroner Meyer remarked that JonBenet had been penetrated digitally and had been subject to sexual contact.

The wine-cellar is patently a staged crime-scene not everything documented as forensic evidence should be assumed to be available as the basis for belief in any particular theory, without scrutiny. Since the purpose of the staging is to deceive you.

.

Exactly, indeed you may believe the earth is flat if you choose, it's of no consequence to me.

Coroner Meyer stated the digital penetration and sexual contact had taken place. So, just run with me for a moment if you will?

There being no evidence a stick was used to penetrate her, we are now left with digital penetration.

I'll assert that the digit in question was gloved and it left the black fibers on her genitals noted in the autopsy and was also inserted in her vagina, causing the injury which resulted in bruising and a small amount of bleeding also noted in the autopsy.

Now, did the Rs put on gloves and do this? If so, where are these gloves? Why would they have used gloves? Remember the question in one of the interviews as to whether they had gardening gloves or not?

If the answer to these questions does not satisify, then I suggest that the digital penetration/sexual contact was instead performed by the IDI, a person who had reason to wear gloves, and also took the gloves away with him.

Do you understand now why it is critical to get all this evidence correct??

 

[DeeDee249]

Hi, DeeDee249,

Please show me the phrase in my post that you claim offers my opinion that JBR "masturbated herself as she was being killed"?

... this is the 2nd time in which you inferred and announced an intent to one of my posts that does not accurately reflect actual content.

I cordially accept that members of these forums hold varying beliefs and opinions, that we opine and debate sensitive subject matter but I do not appreciate my commentary being negatively adorned with phrases or inferred intent which I never included, and then to be categorized as "vile opinion" after the adornment.

Apologies to all if this post is a TOS issue, but I will not let stand another poster morphing my commentary into something other than what is included and intended in my writings.

No hard feelings, as I understand the anger and pain that accompanies some of our experiences and now and again we slip and let that anger and pain spill over towards those with whom we might disagree.

I'm posting this simply as a reminder to us all, to please read carefully any post to which you desire to reply and be cognizant and thoughful of the content.

The injuries you were referring to were the acute injuries which happened that night. These were the inflammation, irritation, hyperemia, small amounts of blood, bruising. If you maintain that they were the result of her masturbation, then it would have to follow that it was during the commission of this crime (her molestation/strangulation). As odious as this may sound when you see it presented that way, and though you did not spell it out the way I did, if you felt these injuries could be self-inflicted, then that is exactly what it would mean to me (that it had to have happened at the time of the crime). These were UNhealed injuries.
And yes, there is a lot of anger and pain for ALL of us when we think of what happened to JB that night, that is why I get so upset when it is suggested that an innocent 6-year old may have caused these injuries by masturbating.
No hard feelings here either. I said what it appeared to me to be. If that was not what you meant, please accept MY apologies.