Prior Vaginal Trauma

[UKGuy]

I'm finding it a bit worrying that the BPD would need to see photos of her genitals and have instruction on how to tell that she had been (supposedly) abused prior to that night. Did BPD for example, see results of the fiber testing at the lab and get instruction from a technician on how to tell if fibers are a match? No -- according to ST, his superiors didn't show any such reports to him. Were the DNA results made available to the BPD with a Bode technician explaining the results? Was the coroner sent around to give them a talk on his findings?

Can't help but wonder!

MurriFlower,

Looks to me as if there was a concerted effort to minimize evidence collection.

 

[BBB167893]

Not at all, no malice intended. How's about this?

I KNOW!!:woohoo:

I'll let it lie.

Ok, then I stand corrected. If Dr. Robert Kirschner, from the University of Chicago, Department of Pathology, was not on the panel of 'experts' then I should have said -- Isn't it interesting how I can easily find results of actual research that totally contradicts the opinions of 'experts' who commented on the case to the press?

I should have specified that he was not on the panel.

How many rocks make an avalanche, Murri?

On the contrary, it does contradict the "experts" because they did not take any bedwetting into account, just the examination of the genitals of the dead child.

I'm afraid I must correct you again:

In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

I guess they did take it into account. (You can read the whole thing here: [ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=139808"]The Bonita Papers - Forums For Justice[/ame])

Let's see: they eliminated urination issues, masturbation...that doesn't leave too much, does it?

I agree that the research indicates that examination of genitals not definitive of sexual abuse (as may have been thought in the past). When they examined abused and non-abused children they could not pick the difference.
So you add the bedwetting to try to back up the accusation. Bedwetting is so common that even these two things together are no more than a coincidence.

Coincidence, my Irish a**. Her toilet training was going fine until Patsy got sick. Now, the argument has been made that the stress of that could have made JB regress. I can believe that. I of all people know what that's like. BUT, Patsy had been on the road to recovery for quite some time when JB was killed, right? And yet JB's problem was getting WORSE. She started having accidents during the day and soiling her bed. PLUS, Patsy admitted that she considered that John had started molesting JB while she was sick. That kind of thought doesn't come out of nowhere. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that would immediately "pop" into a sick wife's head about her supposedly rock-solid husband. Moreover, she discounted the possibility, but her reasoning was odd, to say the least: not because she had any great faith in John, but because her mother was sleeping in JB's room like a guard dog. Whicn brings up an interesting question: why did Grandma NEED to guard JB?

Someone else has tried to add soiling, but as far as I can see, the only regular soiling was a failure to wipe effectively.

LHP spoke about finding feces in JB's bed, quote, "the size of a grapefruit."

Her Doctor did not detect any problems, either physically or emotionally, despite her having seen him regularly.

We've been over that.

What about her teacher, dance instructor, others?

Good question. There was a school nurse, but I don't think her statements were ever released.

Even McCann said the consensus of experts is no substitute for research.

Then WHY are you so resistant to his expertise?

Subsequent research indicates that it is not a reliable indicator.

And we have a kid who's dead and can't tell about it. Isn't that convenient?

 

[BBB167893]

Hi, superdave,

bbm



We are given:

"Girls with no definitive signs of gential trauma exhibited a mean transhymenal diameter of 2.3mm and in general showed an increase of 1mm per [age-year]."

(I believe 'diameter' is a misnomer in the sense that 'diameter' suggests a 'circle' opening, which is not always the case but I'll use it as in context.)

2.3mm = at birth.

JBR was 6 years of age at autopsy.

1mm x 6yrs = 6mm additional widening.

To wit:

2.3mm + (1 x 6)mm = 8.3mm = 0.83cm

JBR's transhymenal 'diameter' @ autopsy: 1.0cm

I do not believe a deviation of +1.7mm is significant to suggest penetration.

Given that JBR's transhymenal 'diameter' was measured some hours after time of death, the +1.7mm could be explained as from autolysis.

Better crunch your numbers again, Chuck:

These findings imply an "expected" hymenal opening size of 6 mm for someone JBR's age; her actual opening size, 1 cm, placed her in the mid-range of sizes observed in this study among six-year olds known to have been abused (see Fig. 3 of the study). 99% specific means that using this reference standard (1 mm per year of age), 99% of those with hymenal opening sizes above this standard were actually abused (i.e., the test is 99% accurate in identifying such individuals: only 1 percent are incorrectly labeled as abused). 79% sensitive means that 21% of victims of abuse were missed using this standard.

I should also point out that the hymen of a prepubescent child is different than even a pubescent one: it's less flexible.

".. twice the normal size for six-year-olds."

We've calculated a 'normal' size for JBR as = 0.83cm.

2 x 0.83cm = 1.66cm

JBR's transhymenal 'diameter' @ autopsy: 1.0cm

Dr. Kirschner's statements do not fall in line with the "September 1999 study for the Medical Journal Family Medicine" conclusions.

According to you and the others, there's nothing to fall in line with.

Next.

Oh, I'm not done yet. You can count on that. For example, the autopsy report shows that JB had very little hymen LEFT.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Better crunch your numbers again, Chuck:

These findings imply an "expected" hymenal opening size of 6 mm for someone JBR's age; her actual opening size, 1 cm, placed her in the mid-range of sizes observed in this study among six-year olds known to have been abused (see Fig. 3 of the study). 99% specific means that using this reference standard (1 mm per year of age), 99% of those with hymenal opening sizes above this standard were actually abused (i.e., the test is 99% accurate in identifying such individuals: only 1 percent are incorrectly labeled as abused). 79% sensitive means that 21% of victims of abuse were missed using this standard.

No need to re-crunch. It's spelled out quite clearly:

In a September 1999 study for the Medical Journal Family Medicine titled "Genital Findings in Prepubertal Girls Evaluated for Sexual Abuse: A Different Perspective on Hymeneal Measurements," Dr. Perry Pugno said:

"Girls with no definitive signs of genital trauma exhibited a mean transhymenal diameter of 2.3 mm and in general showed an increase of approximately 1 mm per year of age. Girls with definitive signs of genital trauma exhibited a mean transhymenal diameter of 9.0 mm and no significant variance with age. Correcting for age differences, the transhymenal diameter was highly significant as a differentiating factor (F=1079, P<.001). When compared against the criterion standard, the transhymenal measurement is 99% specific and 79% sensitive as a screening tool."

The word "increase" makes all the difference ... increase by 1mm per year of age .. increase as applied to the mean of 2.3mm .. = 8.3mm.

We can not go beyond these numbers without having historical measurements of JBR's hymenal orifice beginning from at a maximum of 1 year to the year of the autopsy.

I should also point out that the hymen of a prepubescent child is different than even a pubescent one: it's less flexible.

According to you and the others, there's nothing to fall in line with.

Oh, I'm not done yet. You can count on that. For example, the autopsy report shows that JB had very little hymen LEFT.

This significant point: there is no indication of hymenal tearing referenced in the autopsy.

And, "very little hymen LEFT" is not a valid indicator ... read below:

bubm

http://www.medical-library.org/journals5a/child_sexual_abuse.htm

So from 9 o&#8217;clock to 3 o&#8217;clock, but posteriorly, and we will be looking for lacerations that occur from the edge of the hymen down to the point of attachment. The hymen is a very very delicate membrane and tears will occur after blunt force penetrating trauma, but they will carry down to the edge or the base. They will not result in little tiny nicks. Injuries occur posteriorly because anteriorly the pubic rami protect most of the soft tissue so when force is applied, this is the path of least resistance.

Here we have what I referred to before as a posterior rim hymen, you can call it a U-shaped hymen, it doesn&#8217;t matter, the idea is to be aware that in this type of hymen anteriorly it will blend with the vaginal wall, so your posteriorly is the only area where you expect to find tissue. I have seen some evaluations where evaluators have called this as hymen absent in the anterior half and regarded it as a sign of sexual abuse. That is not the case, this is just how this type of hymen happens to look.

 

[BBB167893]

No need to re-crunch. It's spelled out quite clearly:



The word "increase" makes all the difference ... increase by 1mm per year of age .. increase as applied to the mean of 2.3mm .. = 8.3mm.

We can not go beyond these numbers without having historical measurements of JBR's hymenal orifice beginning from at a maximum of 1 year to the year of the autopsy.

That would be nice.

This significant point: there is no indication of hymenal tearing referenced in the autopsy.

I didn't say there WAS. The hymen was not torn. It was gradually worn away.

And, "very little hymen LEFT" is not a valid indicator ... read below:

bubm

Like I say, Chuck: it's not one thing; it's everything.

 

[Toltec]

So what your saying ChuckMaureen is that no sexual assault took place that night...or are you saying no prior vaginal trauma?

Dr. Meyer brought in a Pediatrician from CU to observe and/or examine JonBenet's genitalia. I believe he concurred with Dr. Meyer's findings.

So did the FBI's CASKU unit...

 

[ChuckMaureen]

That would be nice.


I didn't say there WAS. The hymen was not torn. It was gradually worn away.


Like I say, Chuck: it's not one thing; it's everything.

Are you referring to the Enuresis (bed-wetting) issues?

http://www.minddisorders.com/Del-Fi/Enuresis.html

Causes in children

The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , fourth edition, text revision, or ( DSM-IV-TR ), does not distinguish between children who wet the bed involuntarily and those who voluntarily release urine. Increasingly, however, research findings suggest that voluntary and involuntary enuresis have different causes.

Involuntary enuresis is much more common than voluntary enuresis. Involuntary enuresis may be categorized as either primary or secondary. Primary enuresis occurs when young children lack bladder control from infancy. Most of these children have urine control problems only during sleep; they do not consciously, intentionally, or maliciously wet the bed. Research suggests that children who are nighttime-only bed wetters may have a nervous system that is slow to process the feeling of a full bladder. Consequently, these children do not wake up in time to relieve themselves. In other cases, the child's enuresis may be related to a sleep disorder.

Children with diurnal enuresis wet only during the day. There appear to be two types of daytime wetters. One group seems to have difficulty controlling the urge to urinate. The other group consciously delays urinating until they lose control. Some children have both diurnal and nocturnal enuresis.

Secondary enuresis occurs when a child has stayed dry day and night for at least six months, then returns to wetting. Secondary enuresis usually occurs at night. Many studies have been done to determine if there is a psychological component to enuresis. Researchers have found that secondary enuresis is more likely to occur after a child has experienced a stressful life event such as the birth of a sibling, divorce or death of a parent, or moving to a new house.

Several studies have investigated the association of primary enuresis and psychiatric or behavior problems. The results suggest that primary nocturnal enuresis is not caused by psychological disorders. Bed-wetting runs in families, however, and there is strong evidence of a genetic component to involuntary enuresis.

Unlike involuntary enuresis, voluntary enuresis is not common. It is associated with such psychiatric disorders as "oppositional defiant disorder" , and is substantially different from ordinary nighttime bed-wetting. Voluntary enuresis is always secondary.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/au/sec23/ch269/ch269c.html

• Bedwetting
  
  
  • The most common cause of bed-wetting is a slowly maturing bladder.
  • Limiting fluids 2 to 3 hours before bed and restricting caffeine consumption may help prevent bed-wetting.
  • Positive reinforcement, bed-wetting alarms, desmopressin Some Trade Names
    DDAVPSTIMATE, and imipramine Some Trade Names
    TOFRANIL help treat the disorder.
  About 30% of children still wet the bed at age 4, 10% at age 6, 3% at age 12, and 1% at age 18. Bed-wetting is more common among boys and seems to run in families.
  
  Bed-wetting is usually caused by slow maturation of the nerves that supply the bladder, so that child does not awaken appropriately when the bladder fills and needs emptying.
  
  Bed-wetting can accompany such sleep disorders as sleepwalking and night terrors (see Behavioral and Developmental Problems in Young Children: Sleep Problems).
  
  A physical disorder—usually a urinary tract infection—is found in only 1 to 2% of children who wet the bed. Other less common disorders, such as diabetes, also can cause bed-wetting.
  
  Bed-wetting occasionally is caused by psychologic problems, either in the child or in another family member, and is occasionally part of a constellation of symptoms that suggests the possibility of sexual abuse.
  
  Sometimes bed-wetting stops and then begins again. The relapse usually follows a psychologically stressful event or condition, but a physical cause, especially a urinary tract infection, may be responsible.

Quoting you again, superdave,

Like I say, Chuck: it's not one thing; it's everything.

One of those "everythings" you must include PR's cancer diagnosis in July, 1992, when JBR was 2 years old.

As I have commented previously I have first-hand experience regarding how a parent's cancer diagnosis, disease progression, treatments, change in demeanor, physical appearance and availability, might affect a child.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/1238189/detail.html

Ramsey told a reporter she discovered that she had stage four ovarian cancer in July, 1992. She said at the time that she fought the disease for the sake of her two children, Burke and JonBenet.


"I remember praying on my knees when I had cancer, 'God why did you give me two children when you are going to take me away from them and not be able to raise them?'" Ramsey told a reporter in 2001.

The worry, concern, anger, tears and fear that PR experienced during her cancer years were probably quite troubling to her children and to JR.

The anxiety and fear a child experiences when they see their parent appearing so sickly, weak, crying, etc. can be extremely traumatic, similar to PTSD.

Even after PR beat the cancer, anytime PR got sick, cold, flu, cough, allergy or whatever JBR would not understand to separate those sicknesses from the cancer sickness that made her "mommy" appear so frail and sickly and unable to fully attend to her child.

PR's cancer and subsequent sickness-related experiences are factual, and is a possible cause for JBR's enuresis and perhaps for her frequent "please wipe me" requests.

It's also possible that on-going sexual abuse was the cause, but since we have PR's situation in evidence and the autopsy that indicates there was sexual contact that evening but no conclusive evidence of prolonged sexual abuse prior to that evening ... well.

Eroded hymen? Questionable. On-going vaginitus is factual, with surrounding issues of that remaining a possible cause.

 

[UKGuy]

So what your saying ChuckMaureen is that no sexual assault took place that night...or are you saying no prior vaginal trauma?

Dr. Meyer brought in a Pediatrician from CU to observe and/or examine JonBenet's genitalia. I believe he concurred with Dr. Meyer's findings.

So did the FBI's CASKU unit...

:dance:

 

[MurriFlower]

Are you referring to the Enuresis (bed-wetting) issues?




[/LIST]Quoting you again, superdave,



One of those "everythings" you must include PR's cancer diagnosis in July, 1992, when JBR was 2 years old.

As I have commented previously I have first-hand experience regarding how a parent's cancer diagnosis, disease progression, treatments, change in demeanor, physical appearance and availability, might affect a child.



The worry, concern, anger, tears and fear that PR experienced during her cancer years were probably quite troubling to her children and to JR.

The anxiety and fear a child experiences when they see their parent appearing so sickly, weak, crying, etc. can be extremely traumatic, similar to PTSD.

Even after PR beat the cancer, anytime PR got sick, cold, flu, cough, allergy or whatever JBR would not understand to separate those sicknesses from the cancer sickness that made her "mommy" appear so frail and sickly and unable to fully attend to her child.

PR's cancer and subsequent sickness-related experiences are factual, and is a possible cause for JBR's enuresis and perhaps for her frequent "please wipe me" requests.

It's also possible that on-going sexual abuse was the cause, but since we have PR's situation in evidence and the autopsy that indicates there was sexual contact that evening but no conclusive evidence of prolonged sexual abuse prior to that evening ... well.

Eroded hymen? Questionable. On-going vaginitus is factual, with surrounding issues of that remaining a possible cause.

chuck, I've often wondered about how JBR was emotionally affected by changes in her domestic situation.

I know the cancer her mother experienced was one stress factor. During the time PR was ill, JBR was taken care of by a 'nanny' who went with them to Atlanta during the treatment and lived with them for some time later. It was during this time that it's reported she had bed-wetting and PR said the nanny took them to see Dr Beuf. The nanny was abruptly 'no longer required' when JBR went to pre school. This has always struck me as odd and I wondered in light of comments the housekeeper at the time (LW) that she continued to see the kids (presumably without PR's knowledge) if there was another reason she left. Shortly after that LW left and the new housekeeper LHP came on the scene three days a week. Following her engagement it seems JBR's bedwetting was again reported. The nanny spent 18 months 'on a mission for her Church' and it wasn't until PW asked her to babysit for PRs 40th birthday that she was again in the house (eventhough she still had a key!). Following this PR asked her to babysit on December 1 for the AG Christmas Party.

I wonder about the nanny's disappearance and reappearance just before the murder.

I wonder about the coincidence of "second stage bedwetting" which seems to have coincided with LHP's arrival.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

So what your saying ChuckMaureen is that no sexual assault took place that night...or are you saying no prior vaginal trauma?

Dr. Meyer brought in a Pediatrician from CU to observe and/or examine JonBenet's genitalia. I believe he concurred with Dr. Meyer's findings.

So did the FBI's CASKU unit...

There is no unequivocal proof of prior sexual assault.

 

[DeeDee249]

Here's a question for DD who seems to know about such things.

When someone dies, their muscles relax is this not so? Orifices, shall we say, that are normally tight shut open slightly, mouth becomes slack, and urine leaks out as does faeces?

Would it be also the case that the muscles of the vagina relax giving the impression in a small child that it is twice the normal opening size??

Yes, the muscles relax- instantly. This is called "primary flaccidity". Feces will not leak out unless it is in the area of the digestive tract where it is about to be excreted. Feces in the intestines (as JB had) will not be excreted at death.
BUT- the muscles of the vagina, although they will relax as will all muscles, will not affect the actual size of the opening. That is not changed by death. We have not been given information on the exact instrument that was used to measure JB's vaginal opening, but suffice it to say that there had to be something specific that was used to get that measurement. Hope this answered your question.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes, the muscles relax- instantly. This is called "primary flaccidity". Feces will not leak out unless it is in the area of the digestive tract where it is about to be excreted. Feces in the intestines (as JB had) will not be excreted at death.
BUT- the muscles of the vagina, although they will relax as will all muscles, will not affect the actual size of the opening. That is not changed by death. We have not been given information on the exact instrument that was used to measure JB's vaginal opening, but suffice it to say that there had to be something specific that was used to get that measurement. Hope this answered your question.

Thanks DD

I questioned the apparent laxity/stretching because I wondered how many of the 'experts' in child sexual abuse had extensive experience with dead children and to what extent this could affect the supposedly overly large vaginal opening. In reading of the processes, apparently the position the child is normally placed in to be examined influences the result. So, I was thinking that this would not have been possible with JBR. If as you say, the size of the opening of the vagina is not influenced by muscle tension, then what does?

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks DD

I questioned the apparent laxity/stretching because I wondered how many of the 'experts' in child sexual abuse had extensive experience with dead children and to what extent this could affect the supposedly overly large vaginal opening. In reading of the processes, apparently the position the child is normally placed in to be examined influences the result. So, I was thinking that this would not have been possible with JBR. If as you say, the size of the opening of the vagina is not influenced by muscle tension, then what does?

Of course, I don't know exactly what was used to measure her, but it was done postmortem, so possibly a metal ruler or right-angle as we see in the autopsy photos. There IS no muscle tension in a dead body, so nothing affects the measurement, really. Rigor mortis primarily affects the joints, most obviously, but the flesh all over the body will be rigid and there is no elasticity, no "give". This would likely make the measurement MORE accurate.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Of course, I don't know exactly what was used to measure her, but it was done postmortem, so possibly a metal ruler or right-angle as we see in the autopsy photos. There IS no muscle tension in a dead body, so nothing affects the measurement, really. Rigor mortis primarily affects the joints, most obviously, but the flesh all over the body will be rigid and there is no elasticity, no "give". This would likely make the measurement MORE accurate.

Autolysis also affects organ and tissue integrity.

 

[DeeDee249]

Autolysis also affects organ and tissue integrity.

Yes, it does, and MILD autolysis was noted in some internal organs. but JB was not in such an advanced stage of decomposition that it would have affected her vagina. The coroner reported no autolysis of her reproductive organs.

 

[BBB167893]

So what your saying ChuckMaureen is that no sexual assault took place that night...or are you saying no prior vaginal trauma?

Dr. Meyer brought in a Pediatrician from CU to observe and/or examine JonBenet's genitalia. I believe he concurred with Dr. Meyer's findings.

That was Andrew Sirotnak, if memory serves.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes, it does, and MILD autolysis was noted in some internal organs. but JB was not in such an advanced stage of decomposition that it would have affected her vagina. The coroner reported no autolysis of her reproductive organs.

Didn't she have a 'smell of decomposition about her' according to Arndt, when she was found at 1pm on the 26th? The autopsy wasn't conducted until the morning of the 27th. So, decomposition was well under way.

 

[BBB167893]

Are you referring to the Enuresis (bed-wetting) issues?

I am. Look, Chuck, I know that bedwetting in and of itself is not indicative of anything necessarily. And I can say that from personal experience. (I know that admission will come back to haunt me!)

Quoting you again, superdave,

Fine by me.

One of those "everythings" you must include PR's cancer diagnosis in July, 1992, when JBR was 2 years old.

And I DID, Chuck. I specifically mentioned it in another post. In fact, here's what I said:

Her toilet training was going fine until Patsy got sick. Now, the argument has been made that the stress of that could have made JB regress. I can believe that. I of all people know what that's like. BUT, Patsy had been on the road to recovery for quite some time when JB was killed, right? And yet JB's problem was getting WORSE. She started having accidents during the day and soiling her bed. PLUS, Patsy admitted that she considered that John had started molesting JB while she was sick. That kind of thought doesn't come out of nowhere. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that would immediately "pop" into a sick wife's head about her supposedly rock-solid husband. Moreover, she discounted the possibility, but her reasoning was odd, to say the least: not because she had any great faith in John, but because her mother was sleeping in JB's room like a guard dog. Whicn brings up an interesting question: why did Grandma NEED to guard JB?

As I have commented previously I have first-hand experience regarding how a parent's cancer diagnosis, disease progression, treatments, change in demeanor, physical appearance and availability, might affect a child.

As do I, Chuck. Believe me, I do.

The worry, concern, anger, tears and fear that PR experienced during her cancer years were probably quite troubling to her children and to JR.

Of that I have no doubt.

The anxiety and fear a child experiences when they see their parent appearing so sickly, weak, crying, etc. can be extremely traumatic, similar to PTSD.

Agreed.

Even after PR beat the cancer, anytime PR got sick, cold, flu, cough, allergy or whatever JBR would not understand to separate those sicknesses from the cancer sickness that made her "mommy" appear so frail and sickly and unable to fully attend to her child.

PR's cancer and subsequent sickness-related experiences are factual, and is a possible cause for JBR's enuresis and perhaps for her frequent "please wipe me" requests.

Maybe, Chuck. But that's one big maybe. Again, it's not enough to focus on one element.

It's also possible that on-going sexual abuse was the cause, but since we have PR's situation in evidence and the autopsy that indicates there was sexual contact that evening but no conclusive evidence of prolonged sexual abuse prior to that evening ... well.

Chuck, it's not often that I agree with Murri, but she's right about one thing: it would all come down to which experts the jury found credible. Now, let me lay a hypothetical on you: if Drs. McCann, Monteleone and Jones were testifying to a jury in graphic detail as to how they came to their conclusions, describing how this little angel was used in such a horrific way, coupled with the film of JB prancing about in those pageant costumes, what do YOU think the jury would think?

 

[UKGuy]

That was Andrew Sirotnak, if memory serves.

SuperDave,


Seems like he reckoned abuse occurred?
http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today011224.html




.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,


Seems like he reckoned abuse occurred?
http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today011224.html




.

Darn it, UKGuy! You beat me to it!