Prior Vaginal Trauma

[KoldKase]

If he did indeed do, what I am not willing to rule out, the label would fit.

I'm not saying he did, but I am also not going to say he didn't.

I think the legal issue, and maybe the moral one, is that a nine year old child is not legally or morally responsible for his actions. They do not have the brain development to determine right from wrong on an adult level, nor do they have the abstract thinking skills needed to contemplate the long term outcome of their actions.

Children are given into the care of their parents/guardians for that reason up to legal age. While that line is flexible in juvenile court, it is the parents' responsibility legally to care for those siblings, train them, protect them at such a young age as 9 in most states and with few exceptions.

If Burke were the one molesting JonBenet, for all we know her own curiosity and very inappropriate pageant behavior she was trained to exhibit might have contributed to both of the children "experimenting" sexually. It's not uncommon or unnatural for children to be curious, and with all they are exposed to in modern life, it's not like they have no idea about sexual things.

Patsy did tell Mrs. Archuleta JonBenet was acting inappropriately, flirting. If Mrs. Archuleta detailed that complaint to the reporter who wrote about it, the details were left out. I think she did imply or quote Mrs. Archuleta as saying JB was flirting with "strangers," though, which now that I think of it, could have been an attempt to lead away from a question of incest. Patsy was adept at leading away from the truth, IMO.

Let me make clear: I'm not blaming the victim, so don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing molestation by older siblings, as age and situation are important factors, I believe. I am not only not qualified, but I have no idea what even happened of this nature between these children, if anything.

In this case, though, legally, Burke could not be held responsible for commiting a crime as he was nine. His parents were solely in control of their children's safety and conduct and how they responded to it. If it were Burke molesting his little sister and Patsy found out, the Ramseys should have gotten the family professional counseling immediately if they didn't know how to deal with it--and who does in such a situation? They had the money and the education. What they might not have had was the ability to accept that they weren't capable of handling it in private and the humility to seek professional help in something that is taboo as incest.

Burke was not capable of seeking help or understanding any of these issues on his own. So if his parents mishandled something like this and the stress was too high in dealing with it all the way round, leading to this murder, the parents were the ones who should have answered for it in court, whatever happened. It only required the truth and dealing with it according to law, which we are all supposed to be subjected to equally in this country.

If this is what happened, I think the Ramsey's pride and greed led them to their downfall. It's human enough. I'd feel sorry for them, but for their determination to destroy others rather than take responsibility for their own actions. JMO.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I think the legal issue, and maybe the moral one, is that a nine year old child is not legally or morally responsible for his actions. They do not have the brain development to determine right from wrong on an adult level, nor do they have the abstract thinking skills needed to contemplate the long term outcome of their actions.

Children are given into the care of their parents/guardians for that reason up to legal age. While that line is flexible in juvenile court, it is the parents' responsibility legally to care for those siblings, train them, protect them at such a young age as 9 in most states and with few exceptions.

If Burke were the one molesting JonBenet, for all we know her own curiosity and very inappropriate pageant behavior she was trained to exhibit might have contributed to both of the children "experimenting" sexually. It's not uncommon or unnatural for children to be curious, and with all they are exposed to in modern life, it's not like they have no idea about sexual things.

Patsy did tell Mrs. Archuleta JonBenet was acting inappropriately, flirting. If Mrs. Archuleta detailed that complaint to the reporter who wrote about it, the details were left out. I think she did imply or quote Mrs. Archuleta as saying JB was flirting with "strangers," though, which now that I think of it, could have been an attempt to lead away from a question of incest. Patsy was adept at leading away from the truth, IMO.

Let me make clear: I'm not blaming the victim, so don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing molestation by older siblings, as age and situation are important factors, I believe. I am not only not qualified, but I have no idea what even happened of this nature between these children, if anything.

In this case, though, legally, Burke could not be held responsible for commiting a crime as he was nine. His parents were solely in control of their children's safety and conduct and how they responded to it. If it were Burke molesting his little sister and Patsy found out, the Ramseys should have gotten the family professional counseling immediately if they didn't know how to deal with it--and who does in such a situation? They had the money and the education. What they might not have had was the ability to accept that they weren't capable of handling it in private and the humility to seek professional help in something that is taboo as incest.

Burke was not capable of seeking help or understanding any of these issues on his own. So if his parents mishandled something like this and the stress was too high in dealing with it all the way round, leading to this murder, the parents were the ones who should have answered for it in court, whatever happened. It only required the truth and dealing with it according to law, which we are all supposed to be subjected to equally in this country.

If this is what happened, I think the Ramsey's pride and greed led them to their downfall. It's human enough. I'd feel sorry for them, but for their determination to destroy others rather than take responsibility for their own actions. JMO.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think the legal issue, and maybe the moral one, is that a nine year old child is not legally or morally responsible for his actions. They do not have the brain development to determine right from wrong on an adult level, nor do they have the abstract thinking skills needed to contemplate the long term outcome of their actions.

Children are given into the care of their parents/guardians for that reason up to legal age. While that line is flexible in juvenile court, it is the parents' responsibility legally to care for those siblings, train them, protect them at such a young age as 9 in most states and with few exceptions.

If Burke were the one molesting JonBenet, for all we know her own curiosity and very inappropriate pageant behavior she was trained to exhibit might have contributed to both of the children "experimenting" sexually. It's not uncommon or unnatural for children to be curious, and with all they are exposed to in modern life, it's not like they have no idea about sexual things.

Patsy did tell Mrs. Archuleta JonBenet was acting inappropriately, flirting. If Mrs. Archuleta detailed that complaint to the reporter who wrote about it, the details were left out. I think she did imply or quote Mrs. Archuleta as saying JB was flirting with "strangers," though, which now that I think of it, could have been an attempt to lead away from a question of incest. Patsy was adept at leading away from the truth, IMO.

Let me make clear: I'm not blaming the victim, so don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing molestation by older siblings, as age and situation are important factors, I believe. I am not only not qualified, but I have no idea what even happened of this nature between these children, if anything.

In this case, though, legally, Burke could not be held responsible for committing a crime as he was nine. His parents were solely in control of their children's safety and conduct and how they responded to it. If it were Burke molesting his little sister and Patsy found out, the Ramseys should have gotten the family professional counseling immediately if they didn't know how to deal with it--and who does in such a situation? They had the money and the education. What they might not have had was the ability to accept that they weren't capable of handling it in private and the humility to seek professional help in something that is taboo as incest.

Burke was not capable of seeking help or understanding any of these issues on his own. So if his parents mishandled something like this and the stress was too high in dealing with it all the way round, leading to this murder, the parents were the ones who should have answered for it in court, whatever happened. It only required the truth and dealing with it according to law, which we are all supposed to be subjected to equally in this country.

If this is what happened, I think the Ramsey's pride and greed led them to their downfall. It's human enough. I'd feel sorry for them, but for their determination to destroy others rather than take responsibility for their own actions. JMO.

I agree with your entire post.

The highlighted portions I just wanted to comment on. IF Burke did it, he knew enough to hide it and would have likely used threats and intimidation to keep her quiet. Who knows? He may have went too far that night, and she was on her way to tell when he struck her.

All I THINK I know, tells me a Ramsey did it. Burke isn't even my favorite theory. I have no idea what went on in that house. I do believe Patsy wrote the note.

I feel Burke is the missing piece of the puzzle, whether he did it or not. He's the reason they covered it up. Even if it was to spare him the details and watch a parent or TWO go to prison.

 

[madeleine]

Interesting Patsy comment

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/10151999boplindamclean.htm

VAN SUSTEREN: What about Patsy?

MCLEAN: You know, one time I was on their back porch, and I said to her: Patsy, you know you know who this is. It has to be somebody you know. Why don't you think back over, maybe there were some clues.

And she said: No, I don't know them. It's not somebody we know.

I said: Well, of course, it is.

And she said: But if it was, what kind of mother would I be that I didn't notice the signs?
And I say: Hey, you don't have time to feel guilty. We got to get on with this.

 

[otg]

Interesting Patsy comment

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/10151999boplindamclean.htm

VAN SUSTEREN: What about Patsy?

MCLEAN: You know, one time I was on their back porch, and I said to her: Patsy, you know you know who this is. It has to be somebody you know. Why don't you think back over, maybe there were some clues.

And she said: No, I don't know them. It's not somebody we know.

I said: Well, of course, it is.

And she said: But if it was, what kind of mother would I be that I didn't notice the signs?
And I say: Hey, you don't have time to feel guilty. We got to get on with this.

Wow! I never read that or heard about it. That is just so telling.
.

 

[BBB167893]

Interesting Patsy comment

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/10151999boplindamclean.htm

VAN SUSTEREN: What about Patsy?

MCLEAN: You know, one time I was on their back porch, and I said to her: Patsy, you know you know who this is. It has to be somebody you know. Why don't you think back over, maybe there were some clues.

And she said: No, I don't know them. It's not somebody we know.

I said: Well, of course, it is.

And she said: But if it was, what kind of mother would I be that I didn't notice the signs?
And I say: Hey, you don't have time to feel guilty. We got to get on with this.

I don't mean to overplay this, but that's almost a confession!

 

[SunnieRN]

Autopsy says "Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa". Please point out where it says "hymenal erosion".

Matching.

I go by BPD and their concerted efforts to produce evidence of prior abuse of any kind. There were no results, they were clean. On a scale of criminality, JR and PR have more in common with with Ozzie and Harriet. Not to be insulting but they're just not very abusive or criminal. On their own, I mean.

I'm sorry I don't go by forum posts, tabloids, hearsay, disgruntled houseworkers, or rumor. I'm not surprised that RDI does. Its their existence.

My gosh. I am not sure why there is an argument over a word in the context of JBR hymen. Anyone can tell you, that is in the medical field or the medical examiner field that JBR had an abnormal vaginal area and hymen. This abnormal area is not from a single episode.

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 a chronic nature. Of course if doubters here have children of their own or not I can not be sure of. If it were my family member I would go ballistic and do anything and everything in my power to find the person who did this to my family member. In less I knew who did this deed. Then I would hope I would have enough moral responsibility and conscious to do the right thing and tell the truth, the whole truth.

As for the DNA evidence, one set of nail clippers, previously used on other victims, were used to cut all of Jon Benet's nails. Therefore the evidence found under her nails was contaminated and therefore inadmissible in a court of law. That is all it takes to know that if that procedure was flawed, that the DNA from the long John can also be contaminated.

I have NO clue what would cause someone to argue points that can be disproven. Even in your heart of hearts, if you are working for the Ramseys, know the Ramseys, or just want to be controversial, the truth is the truth and even if refuted, is still the truth. The DNA evidence does not match in all three places and is contaminated and incomplete in other places.

 

[joeskidbeck]

My gosh. I am not sure why there is an argument over a word in the context of JBR hymen. Anyone can tell you, that is in the medical field or the medical examiner field that JBR had an abnormal vaginal area and hymen. This abnormal area is not from a single episode.

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 a chronic nature. Of course if doubters here have children of their own or not I can not be sure of. If it were my family member I would go ballistic and do anything and everything in my power to find the person who did this to my family member. In less I knew who did this deed. Then I would hope I would have enough moral responsibility and conscious to do the right thing and tell the truth, the whole truth.

As for the DNA evidence, one set of nail clippers, previously used on other victims, were used to cut all of Jon Benet's nails. Therefore the evidence found under her nails was contaminated and therefore inadmissible in a court of law. That is all it takes to know that if that procedure was flawed, that the DNA from the long John can also be contaminated.

I have NO clue what would cause someone to argue points that can be disproven. Even in your heart of hearts, if you are working for the Ramseys, know the Ramseys, or just want to be controversial, the truth is the truth and even if refuted, is still the truth. The DNA evidence does not match in all three places and is contaminated and incomplete in other places.

Wow, Sunnie! I don't have enough words to thank you for this post. Since I already know that you work in the medical field, I take your opinion on the medical terms very seriously and if you would take that autopsy report to a physician and ask him about those terms, anybody on this forum should have enough confidence to do the same (if they doubt or are even troubled by the prior abuse).
Once again, thank you. There are many here who will appreciate this post but I am happy to be the first to say it.
Becky

 

[DeeDee249]

Wow, Sunnie! I don't have enough words to thank you for this post. Since I already know that you work in the medical field, I take your opinion on the medical terms very seriously and if you would take that autopsy report to a physician and ask him about those terms, anybody on this forum should have enough confidence to do the same (if they doubt or are even troubled by the prior abuse).
Once again, thank you. There are many here who will appreciate this post but I am happy to be the first to say it.
Becky

And me the second!

 

[joeskidbeck]

Interesting Patsy comment

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/10151999boplindamclean.htm

VAN SUSTEREN: What about Patsy?

MCLEAN: You know, one time I was on their back porch, and I said to her: Patsy, you know you know who this is. It has to be somebody you know. Why don't you think back over, maybe there were some clues.

And she said: No, I don't know them. It's not somebody we know.

I said: Well, of course, it is.

And she said: But if it was, what kind of mother would I be that I didn't notice the signs?
And I say: Hey, you don't have time to feel guilty. We got to get on with this.

I appreciate you bringing this here Madeleine as I had never read it. But honestly, it is starting to give me a theory on what may have happened. Those simple words "what kind of mother would I be that I didn't notice the signs?"
I'm thinking that 911 call on the 23rd was Patsy's wake up call about what was going on with her daughter's abuse. This really answers a lot of questions for me. The seed was planted that night and Patsy determined in her mind to find out for sure. I think she did and did it by catching the culprit red-handed. I can't and won't say that it was John (although it could have been), but in my opinion, it was a very close family member and Patsy really did mean to kill that person that night (I think with the flashlight). Too bad the wrong person took the hit. I only think John helped with the staging because he knew Patsy probably would have went to jail for trying to kill the abuser, not because he had any special love for that person. I also believe if we had one question answered, we would know for sure who was abusing JB. When, exactly, did DP fly home to Atlanta? I cannot get this man out of any scenario that I think of. I would think now that Patsy has gone on, John would come out with the truth. Don, Nedra, and Patsy are all dead now, correct? Unless he just doesn't want to put more hurt on Burke or go to prison for obstruction of justice (probably the latter). I no longer think he is the abuser, though.

 

[DeeDee249]

We know Nedra and Patsy are dead- not sure about Patsy's father Don.

 

[joeskidbeck]

We know Nedra and Patsy are dead- not sure about Patsy's father Don.

I sure would like to know. Think I'll do some sleuthing.

 

[otg]

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'.

You should read more:

Chronic: This important term in medicine comes from the Greek chronos, time and means lasting a long time.
A chronic condition is one lasting 3 months or more, by the definition of the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.
In ancient Greece, the "father of medicine" Hippocrates distinguished diseases that were acute (abrupt, sharp and brief) from those that were chronic. This is still a very useful distinction. Subacute has been coined to designate the mid-ground between acute and chronic.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2728

Chronic refers to something that continues or persists over an extended period of time. A chronic condition is usually long-lasting and does not easily or quickly go away.
Chronic is the opposite of acute.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002312.htm

In medicine, a chronic disease is a disease that is long-lasting or recurrent. The term chronic describes the course of the disease, or its rate of onset and development. A chronic course is distinguished from a recurrent course; recurrent diseases relapse repeatedly, with periods of remission in between. As an adjective, chronic can refer to a persistent and lasting medical condition. Chronicity is usually applied to a condition that lasts more than three months. The opposite of chronic is acute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_(medicine)

1 a: marked by long duration, by frequent recurrence over a long time, and often by slowly progressing seriousness : not acute <chronic indigestion> <her hallucinations became chronic> b : suffering from a disease or ailment of long duration or frequent recurrence <a chronic arthritic> <chronic sufferers from asthma>
2 a: having a slow progressive course of indefinite duration—used especially of degenerative invasive diseases, some infections, psychoses, and inflammations <chronic heart disease> <chronic arthritis> <chronic tuberculosis>; compare acute 2b(1)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/chronic?show=0&t=1288669774
.

 

[SunnieRN]

Wow, Sunnie! I don't have enough words to thank you for this post. Since I already know that you work in the medical field, I take your opinion on the medical terms very seriously and if you would take that autopsy report to a physician and ask him about those terms, anybody on this forum should have enough confidence to do the same (if they doubt or are even troubled by the prior abuse).
Once again, thank you. There are many here who will appreciate this post but I am happy to be the first to say it.
Becky

There was a lot more I wanted to say. There is one more thing I will add right now. The ME that I knew in CA was the first person who told me Jon Benet was an abuse victim. When I started reading here, I brought my i-pad to work and showed two pediatricians and one family practice doc I know well to read the coroners report. They all said the same thing. Repeated sexual abuse, with a small penis or digital insertion.

This is in conservative TX.

Ok I lied, one more. If PR and even JR found out on the 23rd who was responsible for JBR's sexual abuse and did NOTHING about it and grandpa flew home on the 24th, that only leaves 3 people that can be responsible. My, my, the tangled webs we weave, when we practice to deceive.

 

[joeskidbeck]

It's a shame that some folks are so good at deception. Sometimes I wish I could just get into one of their heads for five minutes so I could know what really happened and then again, I'm afraid I don't really want to know what happened!

 

[otg]

I'd have to speak to a clinical professional to know for sure.

I would suggest you do.

I suggest reading the autopsy report where the coroner describes injury to JBR that is consistent with someone who had a genuine intent to kill JBR in a violent way, as opposed to an accident.

Where is that in the autopsy report? Can you direct me to that quote?

RDI forever sugar coats the autopsy report, even suggesting that the deep furrow was post-mortem.

You really just don't know what you're saying, do you? Do you have any idea what causes a ligature furrow? (Don't bother answering that, I know the answer.)

I'm sorry, I don't like being confrontational, but you come here attacking people with nonsense for no reason other than that you disagree with them. And I know you don't realize this, but nearly each time you state something using words that are beyond your knowledge, you demonstrate just how little you know.
.

 

[UKGuy]

I appreciate you bringing this here Madeleine as I had never read it. But honestly, it is starting to give me a theory on what may have happened. Those simple words "what kind of mother would I be that I didn't notice the signs?"
I'm thinking that 911 call on the 23rd was Patsy's wake up call about what was going on with her daughter's abuse. This really answers a lot of questions for me. The seed was planted that night and Patsy determined in her mind to find out for sure. I think she did and did it by catching the culprit red-handed. I can't and won't say that it was John (although it could have been), but in my opinion, it was a very close family member and Patsy really did mean to kill that person that night (I think with the flashlight). Too bad the wrong person took the hit. I only think John helped with the staging because he knew Patsy probably would have went to jail for trying to kill the abuser, not because he had any special love for that person. I also believe if we had one question answered, we would know for sure who was abusing JB. When, exactly, did DP fly home to Atlanta? I cannot get this man out of any scenario that I think of. I would think now that Patsy has gone on, John would come out with the truth. Don, Nedra, and Patsy are all dead now, correct? Unless he just doesn't want to put more hurt on Burke or go to prison for obstruction of justice (probably the latter). I no longer think he is the abuser, though.

joeskidbeck,

Well thats as good an admisssion of culpability. Patsy is admitting there were signs to be seen. Guess what she is not telling us what they might be. Patsy is acknowledging that other people know that JonBenet was being chronically molested, and that she missed the signs. As she says that Patsy obviously knows who the abuser is, yet she plays out the charade of respectability.

Coroner Meyer opined that prior to her death JonBenet had been subject to sexual contact, so this rules out Don Paugh for that episode. There were three people left in that house, and anyone may be the suspect.

What occurred was no accident, since accidents do not require staging. I reckon the person molesting JonBenet lost it when JonBenet refused some request, resulting in the head injury?

The rest is all staging and the removal of evidence.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You should read more:

Chronic: This important term in medicine comes from the Greek chronos, time and means lasting a long time.
A chronic condition is one lasting 3 months or more, by the definition of the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.
In ancient Greece, the "father of medicine" Hippocrates distinguished diseases that were acute (abrupt, sharp and brief) from those that were chronic. This is still a very useful distinction. Subacute has been coined to designate the mid-ground between acute and chronic.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2728

.

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.

 

[BBB167893]

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 autopsy and ask the doctor if this was his child would he or she suspect sexual abuse of a chronic nature.

I DID, Sunnie. Three of them. Guess what they told me.

I have NO clue what would cause someone to argue points that can be disproven. Even in your heart of hearts, if you are working for the Ramseys, know the Ramseys, or just want to be controversial, the truth is the truth and even if refuted, is still the truth.

I remember saying something like that when I switched sides.

 

[BBB167893]

You really just don't know what you're saying, do you? Do you have any idea what causes a ligature furrow? (Don't bother answering that, I know the answer.)

I'm sorry, I don't like being confrontational,

Sometimes, you've got to fight fire with fire, otg.

but you come here attacking people with nonsense for no reason other than that you disagree with them. And I know you don't realize this, but nearly each time you state something using words that are beyond your knowledge, you demonstrate just how little you know.
.

Strong language, otg.