Prior Vaginal Trauma

[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.

ETA:
Does anyone have a link or a source for "someone has been looking up 'incest' in the R home"?Is this fact or just rumour?TIA

 

[otg]

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.

I don't know if Meyers testified or not. There was a lot of secrecy involved in the whole thing -- even witnesses in the backs of tinted-window vans, wearing wigs, entering through obscure entrances. Like you, I can't imagine him not being called.

But there are lots of holes in what was reported of the GJ proceedings -- lots of times that he could have testified that we wouldn't have known. Here is the best timeline of GJ I've seen:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer8_gjtl.html

On a side note: Take a look at Day 53, Friday October 8, 1999. Something was going on then (I remember the speculation at the time about a "runaway jury"), that they were operating on their own without Hunter. This was right about the time that Dr. Lee testified; and then shortly afterward they dismissed without charges filed, and no report was issued.
.

 

[BBB167893]

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

I'm afraid NOT. The very word "erosion" gives the game away: as in, happening over time. If it was the acute injury, it would be a SCRAPE.

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.

Wow. That's so far off the track, I don't know where to start! But I'll give it a shot.

1) Not all victims of sexual molestation are murdered.

2) Did these older children you speak of suddenly regress to this infantile behavior after several years of success and did it keep getting worse over time?

Its like the answer is 23 and you claim A+B+C+D+E=23

.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting!

There's no rationality where we combine various behavior, label them 'inappropriate' and draw conclusions of brutal murder. See what I mean?

Yeah, I do. But I'm not doing that. I'm trying to combine these behaviors and draw conclusions about abuse. THEN, that might lead to conclusions of killing. You get what I'm saying?

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

Then I suggest you read it again. You'll see that I'm right.

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.

Whether or not we have it resolved, you have a point. By itself, it does not automatically point to them as killers.

I know you'd like to not call it a murder at all, but an accident covered up to look like a capital murder.

Right on both counts.

Odd to say the least.

How is it odd?

Think about this and see where THAT takes you.

Are you kidding? I HAVE thought about it! I've BEEN thinking about it since 2001. That's one of the reasons I switched sides. THAT's where it took me. I think YOU should think about it and see where it takes you. Who knows where you might end up?

 

[BBB167893]

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?

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[BBB167893]

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.

I said pretty much the same thing when I started this thread, Sunnie.

 

[BBB167893]

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"?
.

He hardly mentions ANY of the autopsy findings. At best, this shows that he's perhaps not familiar with what signs to check for. But I don't necessarily believe that. CathyR's source was plagiarized word-for-word from an interview done by Michael Tracey for one of his sham-umentaries. They could have left out any parts that didn't conform to what they were putting out. Odin only knows how badly that interview was chopped up.

 

[otg]

He hardly mentions ANY of the autopsy findings. At best, this shows that he's perhaps not familiar with what signs to check for. But I don't necessarily believe that. CathyR's source was plagiarized word-for-word from an interview done by Michael Tracey for one of his sham-umentaries. They could have left out any parts that didn't conform to what they were putting out. Odin only knows how badly that interview was chopped up.

He only mentions the "exterior" vaginal findings, which I agree, shows no sign of damage. That would only show signs of damage if there was bruising from forced rape (in the sense of the word (what was it?) "conventional" rape). That is not what happened here.
.

 

[cynic]

ETA:
Does anyone have a link or a source for "someone has been looking up 'incest' in the R home"?Is this fact or just rumour?TIA

When we checked the photos from a big manila envelope marked as evidence item #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A picture showed Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first-floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members.
Jonbenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Page 293

 

[joeskidbeck]

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"?
.

I think the doctor is just saying what he feels to be the truth from probably the only photos he saw. What I don't understand is how one could take those remarks to mean that he feels JB was not molested at all. Where did he say that? Did I miss something?

 

[otg]

I think the doctor is just saying what he feels to be the truth from probably the only photos he saw. What I don't understand is how one could take those remarks to mean that he feels JB was not molested at all. Where did he say that? Did I miss something?

In this quote from CathyR:

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."

Beck, I simply pointed out that in the quote from this "doctor", he very carefully listed only external portions stating that there was no sign of injury, and he completely ignored the internal injuries.
.

 

[CathyR]

In this quote from CathyR:



Beck, I simply pointed out that in the quote from this "doctor", he very carefully listed only external portions stating that there was no sign of injury, and he completely ignored the internal injuries.
.

The internal ones were fresh the hymnal damage was fresh the signs she was assaulted THAT NIGHT are present. The Denver medical examiner said no PREVIOUS injuries indicating sexual assault were present.

 

[otg]

The internal ones were fresh the hymnal damage was fresh the signs she was assaulted THAT NIGHT are present. The Denver medical examiner said no PREVIOUS injuries indicating sexual assault were present.

The first sentence above is your statement, not what the doctor said, and not what was implied in the full statement from him, from the person reporting his opinion in the article, or from you when you posted it. For the full context of what was said, read it all (my bold):

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.

Again, no one can (or does) dispute his opinion that there were no external injuries to her genitals. But to address only that and ignore the internal injuries, and then come to the conclusion that, as you said, "Here is an opinion from a Dr that no abuse occurred," is just wrong. No... it's repulsive. (my bold)
.

 

[joeskidbeck]

The first sentence above is your statement, not what the doctor said, and not what was implied in the full statement from him, from the person reporting his opinion in the article, or from you when you posted it. For the full context of what was said, read it all (my bold):



Again, no one can (or does) dispute his opinion that there were no external injuries to her genitals. But to address only that and ignore the internal injuries, and then come to the conclusion that, as you said, "Here is an opinion from a Dr that no abuse occurred," is just wrong. No... it's repulsive. (my bold)
.

otg, you said exactly what I meant, you just said it so much better than I did. I did not see one sentence from that doctor that indicated she had not been molested. Only that there were no "external" signs of it. Well, honestly, I don't think a close family member would want to leave "external" signs of molestation. That's a quick way to get caught, don't ya think?

 

[ChuckMaureen]

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.

I want to expand on that, as I believe some might misinterpret.

It means the chronic inflammation condition is not necessarily caused by prolonged inflammation in and of itself, but that the chronic inflammation condition could result from other underlying or external influences, "including local irritants, poor circulation, some micro-organisms or immune disturbances."

Sexual abuse is not ruled out since multiple transient or prolonged rubbing episodes could be categorized as "irritant". If JB did not have "poor circulation" in her genital area and / or "micro-organisms or immune disturbances" then sexual abuse or other local physical intrusion of a sort would be logical assumptions.

Without knowledge of a more complete medical diagnosis of JBR immediately before or at the TOD we may not reach definitive conclusion as to whether or not JBR was sexually molested during a prolonged period prior to the DOD....

... but we may assume to other logical conclusions within context:

We know there was an abnormal condition existing at the TOD, a chronic inflammation.



We know JBR was taken numerous times to a doctor for vaginitis, common causes of which in pre-pubescent girls are (different than those for reproductive-age women):

• Bacterial vaginosis: vaginitis caused by Streptococcus spp..
• Improper hygiene, which may introduce bacteria or other irritants from the anal region to the vaginal area.

I doubt Strep. as a primary cause in this case. I'd focus more on bacteria or other irritants from JBR's anal region, given that it's been reported JBR needed help with "wiping". I suspect this to be the cause of the chronic inflammation.

We know there was vaginal bleeding at or near the TOD. This indicates sexual abuse / insertion at or near TOD, nothing more, nothing less. It is not known if it was for pure sexual satisfaction or for sadistic pleasure but given the state in which the body was found we might assume a sadistic nature.

JBR was wearing at least one piece of unusual, outsized clothing typically worn by a larger person. I suspect there might be other unusual aspects to JBR's appearance or surroundings at the TOD that are being withheld.

Possible (electrical or other) burn marks were discovered on JBR's face and other areas.

Unattributed DNA material was discovered on particular areas of the clothing.

Unattributed DNA material was discovered under JBR's fingernail(s).

I do not trust the DNA reports in this case. I believe the "reports" to be an LE tactic to elicit response from POI(s). The DNA means nothing in this case.

Some conditions of the scene and of JBR might be unrelated (chronic inflammation and sexual abuse and burns and sadistic tendency of the perp and posing) but within the context of the crime, to many they might appear related.

We might assume a "kidnapper(s)" most likely would not perform extended abusive actions on the child victim within the home, that s/he would attempt to quietly and immediately arrive to the victim's location within the dwelling and spirit her/him away from the dwelling just as quietly and immediately, i.e.: Jessica Lundsford.

I believe the R family had an enemy. That enemy wanted revenge. That enemy most likely is someone very close to the family, in fact might be outwardly friendly and helpful. It could be an extended family member.

There was no reported footprint evidence in the snow cover surrounding the basement window areas. We know perhaps each of 15 (more? less?) individuals possessed a key to the R dwelling.

We also must assume those individuals have family, friends and acquaintances that might have had inadvertent or clandestine access to those keys.

Which of all those individuals knew of a "safe in the Ramsey house"?

Was JBR aware of the safe / location?

Was JBR asked, and she obliged then the perp became enraged upon discovery of an empty or inaccessible safe?

How else to steal money from a family that you hate? A ransom?

After drudging away on writing a ransom note the perp modeled after PR's writings found in the house, the perp ultimately decides the mechanics of demanding and receiving a ransom is too risky so s/he decides to destroy whom s/he believes to be the family's most prized member?

What triggered the hate? What triggered the revenge?

... just throwing thought-threads to up in the air ...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A few things I'd be skeptical of:

If the DA knowingly and deliberately misled the public in collusion with an independent private laboratory IMO it could draw a lawsuit. I'm not sure thats even legal. I'm very doubtful this is the case. If they have a POI that isn't a handwriting match or a DNA match, the person's not going to be all THAT interesting, IMO. Besides, its in CODIS and the FBI put it there. Are they in on it also?

While most RDI act like they're aghast at chronic inflammation, I would believe it if a doctor told me it is common. Your post describes it as a condition with common causes.

New ideas are a good thing...
\

 

[BBB167893]

The internal ones were fresh the hymnal damage was fresh the signs she was assaulted THAT NIGHT are present. The Denver medical examiner said no PREVIOUS injuries indicating sexual assault were present.

He said there was no scarring. A lot of abuse doesn't even leave scar tissue.

examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.
"There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim.

otg is right, sadly.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

A few things I'd be skeptical of:

If the DA knowingly and deliberately misled the public in collusion with an independent private laboratory IMO it could draw a lawsuit. I'm not sure thats even legal. I'm very doubtful this is the case. If they have a POI that isn't a handwriting match or a DNA match, the person's not going to be all THAT interesting, IMO. Besides, its in CODIS and the FBI put it there. Are they in on it also?

While most RDI act like they're aghast at chronic inflammation, I would believe it if a doctor told me it is common. Your post describes it as a condition with common causes.

New ideas are a good thing...
\

Hi, hotyh,

I hope you are not implying I indicated deliberate misleading?

My comment:

I do not trust the DNA reports in this case. I believe the "reports" to be an LE tactic to elicit response from POI(s). The DNA means nothing in this case.

Note that I used the word "reports". Typically, DNA details are not released to the public until a match / perp is determined and even then typically not until an arrest.

I believe DNA information was released as a tactic and in that context the information in and of itself is useless to we, the observers, i.e.: means nothing as we are unable to apply it with meaningful result to successful outcome.

On the other hand, the information release could be yet another tension trigger placed upon an unknown perp ... "DNA!? Are they closer to finding me out?". A common tactic. A nervous perp is more likely to trip up in some fashion: demeanor change, flight, whatever.

While I advocate it's likely that chronic inflammation was common to JBR, et al (age, demeanor, and those with a propensity to rely), I do not rule out moderate or even perpetual sexual abuse as a possible cause.

Given the very busy schedule and centralized focus placed upon JBR, it seems for a potential that could result in affectation of some weird intimacies between "friends", "nannies" and / or family members.

I do not suspect that here, at least not as a communal affectation, but certainly a possibility of an individual taking it upon hisself or herself to let extend that "intimacy" beyond artificially perceived boundaries.

What tilts that potential conclusion is the sadistic nature in which JBR and eventually her body was abused during the act ... that has gone way beyond any expected "weird intimacies", to the point of portraying anger, revenge and / or unchecked human animalism.

A key question: why such a sadistic manifestation released upon an entirely defenseless 6 year old girl? What was the pay-off? Sexual gratification? Revenge? Illogical compulsion? Sickness? Payback?

A pedophile might murder to prevent being identified by the victim, but what we have with JBR is more than "simple" murder. There is a torture component, either aimed directly toward JBR or she was a proxy to affect to another family member(s).

JR does and PR did know this perp.

What of the 911 call placed from the R home to BPD on Dec 23, 1996? There was a Christmas party under way and a police report was not filed after a BPD officer visited the home in follow-up to the 911 hang-up and subsequent PD callback to R voicemail.

Was that 911 call placed from the R residence (by anyone whom was attending the Christmas party) to "time" the BPD response time, in preparation to determine how much time they would have in case JBR was discovered missing while the perp was still within the residence?

I suspect we'll never know whom placed that call .. but I suspect it was the same individual who murdered JBR.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

He said there was no scarring. A lot of abuse doesn't even leave scar tissue.

examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.
"There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim.

otg is right, sadly.

Let us not forget JBR was a pageant girl who practiced dance and various movements while learning her presentation craft. Ask any adult woman whom began active sports or horseback riding when they were 6 or 7, if their hymen was eroded at that time? I'm sure more than a few would confirm.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Let us not forget JBR was a pageant girl who practiced dance and various movements while learning her presentation craft. Ask any adult woman whom began active sports or horseback riding when they were 6 or 7, if their hymen was eroded at that time? I'm sure more than a few would confirm.

What I'm sure of is that most "adult women" are not aware of the condition of their hymen when they were 6 years old. UNLESS they were molested, bet they'd know for sure. As a woman and one that raised 2 daughters, I can tell you that my daughters rarely had UTI's and NEVER had yeast and other infections of their internal sexual organs. The first time I took my oldest to the doctor with a UTI his advice was "absolutely no bubble baths" and guess what, no more UTI's. What I don't and have never understood is all of the dr. visits that JB made. Patsy Ramsey was looking for an answer and she either never got the one she wanted or she failed miserably to follow the dr's advice. She was not a stupid woman and I want to know why LE didn't question her extensively about those doctor visits. Also, if Dr. Beuf was not called to testify to the Grand Jury, then I can't see the reason to even covene it. Normal six year old girls don't have to go to the doctor umpteen times a year with UTI's and yeast infections and they don't soil their underpants or have to have help wiping, even from non-family members. I know some of the posters who believe these things are not indicative of molestation are men and I guess I can almost understand that, but I cannot understand a woman who would not recognize these signs for what they were: she was being abused! I don't proclaim to know who did it, but someone did it. Look at autopsy reports all you like, but the autopsy report you should be concerned with was probably never done. Was there a psychological autopsy done on JonBenet? I bet not. The family would never have allowed it. If you are not familiar with what that term means, please go here: http://www.deathreference.com/A-Bi/Autopsy-Psychological.html

RANT OVER

 

[BBB167893]

Let us not forget JBR was a pageant girl who practiced dance and various movements while learning her presentation craft. Ask any adult woman whom began active sports or horseback riding when they were 6 or 7, if their hymen was eroded at that time? I'm sure more than a few would confirm.

1) I think their hymens would have tears, not erosion.

2)Even if they did, were their vaginal walls eroded, too?