Prior Vaginal Trauma

[UKGuy]

hymenal erosion can maybe be explained away but what about this murry?

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. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent

claudicici,

JonBenet was a sex abuse victim, there are many who do not believe such actions occur, particularly in the wealthy classes where greater virtue is said to exist as a result of their work ethic.

But wealth and work are not arbiters of abuse it crosses all social boundaries it denies choice to its victims rendering them incapable of making sensible relationship decisions in later life.

To have abuse deniers on board actively suggesting that the BPD told deliberate lies, that the evidence does not support a conclusion of prior e.g chronic, molestation, appears to suggest their motivation may be pecunary?


.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Hi, tadpole,

bbm

Hey CM.

Hymenal erosion can be attributed to more than one single or grouped cause(s)....

but not the 10-2 position of erosion. From the medical illustrations we`ve reviewed as a group, there was an obvious difference in the 10-2 erosion, vs the images of the malformed hymen, and images displaying the thinning of tissue due to hormonal change or the effects of medications.

10-2:
It is used as the criteria for inquiry into sexual abuse because it is observable and distinct.

Normal Hymenal Configuration : http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-22887

To attribute hymenal erosion at specific positions as being specifically caused by sexual abuse is a stretch, no pun intended. I do not believe there is a pedophiles handbook that instructions to "manipulate and erode the hymen at between only the 2-10 positions." I'm not intending to be snarky, just attempting to point out that abusive entry, rubbing, shift and lateral angles, etc. might probably vary at least in some degree.

Also, given JBR's chronic condition her doctor's exploratory, long-term observation and treatment applications would by necessity the erode hymenal tissue.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

claudicici,

JonBenet was a sex abuse victim, there are many who do not believe such actions occur, particularly in the wealthy classes where greater virtue is said to exist as a result of their work ethic.

But wealth and work are not arbiters of abuse it crosses all social boundaries it denies choice to its victims rendering them incapable of making sensible relationship decisions in later life.

To have abuse deniers on board actively suggesting that the BPD told deliberate lies, that the evidence does not support a conclusion of prior e.g chronic, molestation, appears to suggest their motivation may be pecunary?


.

I am not including for class and social status in my observations regarding whether or not JBR was sexually abused prior to the date of her murder.

Given JBR's published medical history, and lack of family and friend witness and opinion, lack of a "perception of", lack of abuse history, lack of a "hint of", lack of telling parental demeanor and lack of JBR demeanor that might suggest sexual abuse, I can not conclude for on-going sexual abuse.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I am not including for class and social status in my observations regarding whether or not JBR was sexually abused prior to the date of her murder.

Given JBR's published medical history, and lack of family and friend witness and opinion, lack of a "perception of", lack of abuse history, lack of a "hint of", lack of telling parental demeanor and lack of JBR demeanor that might suggest sexual abuse, I can not conclude for on-going sexual abuse.

BBM

Please show me the evidence that says JonBenet did not have the demeanor of an abused child. I say if you believe that she did not, you have never been around an abused child. It's a shame. No one listened or seen the signs in her life and won't accept them in her death. This child never had a chance.

 

[MurriFlower]

To have abuse deniers on board actively suggesting that the BPD told deliberate lies, that the evidence does not support a conclusion of prior e.g chronic, molestation, appears to suggest their motivation may be pecunary?

Pecunary? Hmm. Abuse deniers or abuse promoters? What is the motivation for someone supporting a conclusion of chronic prior molestation where they are provided with no evidence? To take an 'expert's' opinion, which is clearly subjective given that he was not present at autopsy, and attribute these findings to her having been abused by her father/brother/grandfather (any or all) over a period of time (prior to the sexual abuse that occurred at the time of her death), in order to support their theory that she was not killed by an intruder by by a member of her own family, sounds rather like someone who hopes to make a few dollars from it by writing a little old book. Pecuniary more likely.

 

[DeeDee249]

DD I can see from a simple google that hymenal erosion is NOT a sign of sexual abuse and is a normal fact of life in most girls. Your ability to misinform never ceases to amaze me.

Not in 6 year old girls. You amaze me as well- as do some others here- in what you are willing to excuse and deny when it comes to the sexual abuse of a child.
Whether her abuser was a family member or not, this little girl was sexually abused. And to see her injuries portrayed as self-inflicted or somehow related to activities she may have taken part in is more than sickening. It is heartbreaking.
And this has nothing to do with being RDI. It has to do with the coroner determining she had been abused. Even if you don't believe she had been abused prior to that night, I can't understand why IDI cannot or will not accept what the coroner had to say about digital penetration.

 

[MurriFlower]

Not in 6 year old girls. You amaze me as well- as do some others here- in what you are willing to excuse and deny when it comes to the sexual abuse of a child.

I think misinformation presented as fact is also inexcusable. But as someone said recently, 'there are none so blind......'

 

[DeeDee249]

I think misinformation presented as fact is also inexcusable. But as someone said recently, 'there are none so blind......'

The coroner's findings were factual.

 

[DeeDee249]

And now it's been suggested her some of her injuries were a "birthmark"

That's pretty low.

 

[MurriFlower]

The coroner's findings were factual.

The coroner did not say she had been subjected to sexual abuse prior to that night.

 

[DeeDee249]

The coroner did not say she had been subjected to sexual abuse prior to that night.

I wasn't referring to abuse prior to that night. He said what he saw in the autopsy was indicative of digital penetration. I see no reason for him to lie.

 

[MurriFlower]

I wasn't referring to abuse prior to that night. He said what he saw in the autopsy was indicative of digital penetration. I see no reason for him to lie.

So are you now in agreement with me that she was ONLY sexual abused (via digit) on that night and not PRIOR to that night??

 

[DeeDee249]

So are you now in agreement with me that she was ONLY sexual abused (via digit) on that night and not PRIOR to that night??

Not at all. I am in agreement that some injures the coroner noted were from that night.
There is still evidence, IMO, that leads me to believe that JB had been molested before that night. I can't say how many times or how far back in her life it began (days? weeks? months? years?).
The erosion wouldn't have happened from one occasion. At least several occasions of contact would have been needed.
But I am happy to see that you at least agree that she was abused that night, because some IDI refuse to accept even that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence-of-Prior-Sexual-Abuse
•FBI Assessment. "The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher)

•Expert Panel. "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused." (Thomas 2000a:253; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher).


http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0
Pathologists working with Boulder police say that JonBenet's vagina showed indications of long-term sexual abuse, according to Det. Thomas, citing "a panel of pediatric experts from around the country." He doesn't name them. He writes there were "no dissenting opinions among them."
"We gathered affidavits stating in clear language," he writes, "that there were injuries (to JonBenet's vagina) 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse'....'There was chronic abuse'...'Past violation of the vagina'... 'Evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse.'"
"One expert summed it up well," Thomas writes, "when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who was being physically abused."
Apparently referring to the reports of the pathologists, Det. Haney told Patsy during the 1998 interview that police had "reliable medical information" that JonBenet had been sexually abused well prior to her death. Haney did not indicate how often JonBenet had been abused, but the conclusion of the medical experts that the abuse had occurred well prior to her death meant that if JonBenet had been murdered by an intruder, the intruder wasn't responsible for the sexual abuse, unless the intruder was someone who had also been alone with JonBenet on numerous occasions well before her death.
"That's one of the things that's been bothering us about this case," Haney said.
"No damned kidding," Patsy said.
"What does it tell you?

-------------------------------------------------------

I can't seem to find exactly who was on ST's 'expert panel'. I notice he doesn't list them, and you'd think he would upon introducing such a damning statement!

Anyway there seems to be MD's on both sides of the issue. Just like the ransom note, where there are 'experts' on both sides.

 

[MurriFlower]

Not at all. I am in agreement that some injures the coroner noted were from that night.
There is still evidence, IMO, that leads me to believe that JB had been molested before that night. I can't say how many times or how far back in her life it began (days? weeks? months? years?).
The erosion wouldn't have happened from one occasion. At least several occasions of contact would have been needed.
But I am happy to see that you at least agree that she was abused that night, because some IDI refuse to accept even that.

If you read what I posted, it is clear that in a 'blind' experiment, the experts were unable to distinguish between abused and non-abused girls. There is a vast range of what is normal and a 6yo with a history of infection could be similar to a child who had been abused or even to another non-abused child. It cannot be determined by examination alone. That is straight from Dr McCann himself. Combine this with the 'known' abuse that occurred that night and it further complicates the issue.

 

[DeeDee249]

If you read what I posted, it is clear that in a 'blind' experiment, the experts were unable to distinguish between abused and non-abused girls. There is a vast range of what is normal and a 6yo with a history of infection could be similar to a child who had been abused or even to another non-abused child. It cannot be determined by examination alone. That is straight from Dr McCann himself. Combine this with the 'known' abuse that occurred that night and it further complicates the issue.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that the whole case is complicated. From the unstated time of death, to the ambiguous cause of death to all who reviewed the autopsy, it seems like NO one reviewing this case had anything to say that could be written in stone. And to me, the coroner adds to the confusion. He tells LE present at the autopsy that he feels there is evidence of digital penetration (which by its definition is sexual abuse because of her age) yet he doesn't include it in the report nor does he put anything about her vaginal injuries being caused by sexual abuse, though he tells LE verbally she had had sexual contact. Also, there was a report (not often seen) that a partial fingerprint was lifted off the body and Mayer "chose not to put that in his report" (not my words). Is it any wonder we are still here?

 

[ChuckMaureen]

BBM

Please show me the evidence that says JonBenet did not have the demeanor of an abused child. I say if you believe that she did not, you have never been around an abused child. It's a shame. No one listened or seen the signs in her life and won't accept them in her death. This child never had a chance.

I should think I do not have to prove a negative, i.e.: that she did not .. I expect someone would have to prove that she did.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

And now it's been suggested her some of her injuries were a "birthmark"

That's pretty low.

"That's pretty low"? Please explain what you mean.

"some of her injuries", as in plural?

I only inquired if one "violent discoloration" on her right labia majora might possibly be a birthmark (given that the coroner proved there was no underlying hemmorhage and did not offer an opinion as to what it might be or might have caused it or whether it was a natural discoloration) is not a far-fetched question.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Not in 6 year old girls. You amaze me as well- as do some others here- in what you are willing to excuse and deny when it comes to the sexual abuse of a child.
Whether her abuser was a family member or not, this little girl was sexually abused. And to see her injuries portrayed as self-inflicted or somehow related to activities she may have taken part in is more than sickening. It is heartbreaking.
And this has nothing to do with being RDI. It has to do with the coroner determining she had been abused. Even if you don't believe she had been abused prior to that night, I can't understand why IDI cannot or will not accept what the coroner had to say about digital penetration.

The word "abuse" is not included in the autopsy text.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Not at all. I am in agreement that some injures the coroner noted were from that night.
There is still evidence, IMO, that leads me to believe that JB had been molested before that night. I can't say how many times or how far back in her life it began (days? weeks? months? years?).
The erosion wouldn't have happened from one occasion. At least several occasions of contact would have been needed.
But I am happy to see that you at least agree that she was abused that night, because some IDI refuse to accept even that.

Who might they be?