Prior Vaginal Trauma

[MurriFlower]

I thought I remebered PR showing one of JB's drawings during a TV show but I can't remember which one.I remember the colors orange and black but I don't remember what the drawing was about.I'm thinking of Helloween for some reason?

The Burke drawings during his therapy sessions we do know about ,how he omitted JB so shortly after her death.That does seem strange to me.

Well if I'm surprised RDI haven't set out to find these and interpret something into them that backed their prior/cronic abuse theory.

 

[DeeDee249]

FW did NOT suggest the "special plate". It was JR who asked that some cracked crab be saved for JB because she liked it. The kids were busy playing and PW saved plates for OTHER kids too, not just JB, to be sure there was some left for them of they waned it.

NO drugs or alcohol of ANY kind were found in JB.

 

[BBB167893]

Well if I'm surprised RDI haven't set out to find these and interpret something into them that backed their prior/cronic abuse theory.

What for? Far as I go, I've got all I need, and then some.

 

[Tadpole12]

The DNA under JB's fingernails has to be regarded as contaminated because it was KNOWN that the coroner used the same unsterile nail clippers on all her fingers when protocol requires a clean, sterile pair for EACH finger. Not only that, there was a possibility that the clippers had been used on previous bodies in the morgue and not been sterilized in between use. I cannot imagine why the LE present at the autopsy, and the other medical examiner who was there did not question this AT THE TIME and insist on proper procedure, but Arndt was the one who violated procedure right at the beginning, allowing people who did not belong in the house to remain there and allowing ANYONE to roam around an unsecured active crime scene. So it doesn't surprise me (although it saddens me) that the coroner was allowed to proceed with improper techniques.

As far as her brain weight- all coroners are supposed to remove and weigh certain organs separately- the brain among them. There were others present at the autopsy and it hasn't been mentioned that this was not done, but in the report that was released to the public the weight of the separate organs was not listed. As the others present did not stop the coroner from improper use of the nail clippers, it wouldn't surprise me if they did not question not weighing her brain and other organs either.
Her brain was described as having mild swelling and narrowing of the sulci and gyri, which is all that is mentioned about it in the report that was released to the public. There may be more to the report than that, including the coroner's thoughts on what may have caused her injuries.
It is frustrating that the written report is (deliberately?) vague on certain things, like TOD (although we know why- because Mayer didn't perform either a liver stab or testing of the vitreous matter in the eyeball, two important steps in determining TOD) and he didn't try to determine exactly what the parallel "abrasions" on her cheek and back actually were. It would have been easy to test them to see if they WERE cigarette or stun gun burns, or if something had pressed against her. Once JB 's remains were released to her family and she was buried, there was never going to be a way to go back and check, as the family would never allow an exhumation and the DA was too spineless to get a warrant for it. The coroner's refusal to keep JB a bit longer was seen as an extortion attempt by LE, when doing so could have allowed further examination and answers to questions that had not been addressed (like the round abrasions).
Dr. Wecht had access to information that the public (that means us) did not have. This included all autopsy photos and probably the more technical reports on toxicology and organ weight.

Heyya DeeDee.

ty for the reply. I've been considering your post and,
CW's confidence in his interpretation.

Re blood clotting and

Bleeding Time,
http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Blood-Test-Clotting-Tests.htm

In this test a tiny cut is made in your earlobe, or forearm, and the time taken for the bleeding to stop is measured. It is normally 3-8 minutes.


The Ramseys didn't have much leeway time to commit to the staging, if headblow came first?



There may be more to the report than that, including the coroner's thoughts on what may have caused her injuries. - DD

Yes. I was wondering if CW's conclusion is boilstered by his noting evidence of previous injury to JBR's neck, making the AEA
plausible.

 

[Toltec]

Read this: JonBenet suffered the same vaginal insertion days before her murder:

25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are

0581

1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal

2 intrusion on JonBenet?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

4 Prior to the night she was killed?

5 TOM HANEY: Correct.

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.

9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?

10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.

11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.

13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.

15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have

16 been violated like that?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This

18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.

19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you

20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't

21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely

23 did not.

24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--

25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to

0582

1 see where it says that and who reported that.

2 TOM HANEY: Okay.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?

4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it

5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot

6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the

7 photos, but--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find

9 that?

10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think

11 it's pretty significant?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn

13 significant. You know, I am shocked.

14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,

15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper

16 whether or not she represented what is true as a

17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too

18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a

19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to

20 be fair to my client.

21 TOM HANEY: And based on the

22 reliable medical information that we have at

23 this point, that is a fact.

24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say

25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling

0583

1 me here?

2 TOM HANEY: That there was some

3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --

4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night

6 that she was assaulted?

7 TOM HANEY: That's the--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I

9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking

10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am

11 shocked.

 

[BBB167893]

Read this: JonBenet suffered the same vaginal insertion days before her murder:

25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are

0581

1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal

2 intrusion on JonBenet?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

4 Prior to the night she was killed?

5 TOM HANEY: Correct.

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.

9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?

10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.

11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.

13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.

15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have

16 been violated like that?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This

18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.

19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you

20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't

21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely

23 did not.

24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--

25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to

0582

1 see where it says that and who reported that.

2 TOM HANEY: Okay.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?

4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it

5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot

6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the

7 photos, but--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find

9 that?

10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think

11 it's pretty significant?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn

13 significant. You know, I am shocked.

14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,

15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper

16 whether or not she represented what is true as a

17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too

18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a

19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to

20 be fair to my client.

21 TOM HANEY: And based on the

22 reliable medical information that we have at

23 this point, that is a fact.

24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say

25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling

0583

1 me here?

2 TOM HANEY: That there was some

3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --

4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night

6 that she was assaulted?

7 TOM HANEY: That's the--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I

9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking

10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am

11 shocked.

Well done, Toltec. But I fear your effort will be wasted.

 

[Toltec]

Well SuperDave, it is not the first time. Seems some people like to argue just for the sake of arguing. I know I am here for the long haul and when I post pertinent information or suggest a theory...most of the time it goes unnoticed.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Well SuperDave, it is not the first time. Seems some people like to argue just for the sake of arguing. I know I am here for the long haul and when I post pertinent information or suggest a theory...most of the time it goes unnoticed.

Toltec, I can assure you that it does not go unnoticed by a lot of us.
Thank you!
B.

 

[MurriFlower]

Well SuperDave, it is not the first time. Seems some people like to argue just for the sake of arguing. I know I am here for the long haul and when I post pertinent information or suggest a theory...most of the time it goes unnoticed.

I apologise for not commenting on this earlier, it just slipped through the net.

Again, when asked to produce a report, they just didn't have one.

"25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to

0582

1 see where it says that and who reported that.

2 TOM HANEY: Okay.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?

4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it

5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot

6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the

7 photos, but--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find

9 that?

10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think

11 it's pretty significant?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn

13 significant. You know, I am shocked."

Either it's just another attempt to throw the witness off balance or these people are total nit wits. They have this VERY IMPORTANT report somewhere, but they just don't know where. BUT regardless of not being able to find it or prove it, they just casually dropped it like a bombshell on the mother of a murdered child, and asked her to speculate on who might have been interferring with her daughter! Sure!!

Ditto for all the other 'evidence' they had against the R's, (PR and JR fibers).

 

[UKGuy]

I apologise for not commenting on this earlier, it just slipped through the net.

Again, when asked to produce a report, they just didn't have one.

"25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to

0582

1 see where it says that and who reported that.

2 TOM HANEY: Okay.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?

4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it

5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot

6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the

7 photos, but--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find

9 that?

10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think

11 it's pretty significant?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn

13 significant. You know, I am shocked."

Either it's just another attempt to throw the witness off balance or these people are total nit wits. They have this VERY IMPORTANT report somewhere, but they just don't know where. BUT regardless of not being able to find it or prove it, they just casually dropped it like a bombshell on the mother of a murdered child, and asked her to speculate on who might have been interferring with her daughter! Sure!!

Ditto for all the other 'evidence' they had against the R's, (PR and JR fibers).

MurriFlower,
Its time for you and your sidekick to step up to the plate. You are arguing an absence of evidence here. So prove your case, demonstrate an absence, do not make claims you cannot substantiate, else its all hot air.


Again prove your case offer us evidence not its absence.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Read this: JonBenet suffered the same vaginal insertion days before her murder:

25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are

0581

1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal

2 intrusion on JonBenet?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

4 Prior to the night she was killed?

5 TOM HANEY: Correct.

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.

9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?

10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.

11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.

13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.

15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have

16 been violated like that?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This

18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.

19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you

20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't

21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely

23 did not.

24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--

25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to

0582

1 see where it says that and who reported that.

2 TOM HANEY: Okay.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?

4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it

5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot

6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the

7 photos, but--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find

9 that?

10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think

11 it's pretty significant?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn

13 significant. You know, I am shocked.

14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,

15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper

16 whether or not she represented what is true as a

17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too

18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a

19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to

20 be fair to my client.

21 TOM HANEY: And based on the

22 reliable medical information that we have at

23 this point, that is a fact.

24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say

25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling

0583

1 me here?

2 TOM HANEY: That there was some

3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --

4 something was inserted?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night

6 that she was assaulted?

7 TOM HANEY: That's the--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I

9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking

10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am

11 shocked.

Toltec,
Thanks for posting. I find this exchange interesting:

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?

4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it

5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot

6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the

7 photos, but--

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find

9 that?

10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think

11 it's pretty significant?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn

13 significant. You know, I am shocked.

Patsy is shocked and considers what she has been told as significant.

Tom Haney patently has forensic evidence to back up his claims, but slightly more significantly he cites photos. This must mean there is clear evidence demonstrating JonBenet's prior internal injuries?


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,
Its time for you and your sidekick to step up to the plate. You are arguing an absence of evidence here. So prove your case, demonstrate an absence, do not make claims you cannot substantiate, else its all hot air.


Again prove your case offer us evidence not its absence.


.

You are asking me to provide evidence for the lack of something that we do not have evidence of it's existence (the report on sexual assault, the lab report on the fibers). It's like asking me for evidence that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. The evidence is in that LE has never produced any evidence, although they state they have it "somewhere". Medical reports on the sexual assault, lab reports on the fibers, they just well, don't have a copy of them or anything, but Mrs R you just explain anyway how this happened. Please!! You obviously would be very easy to trick in a Police interview.

 

[UKGuy]

You are asking me to provide evidence for the lack of something that we do not have evidence of it's existence (the report on sexual assault, the lab report on the fibers). It's like asking me for evidence that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. The evidence is in that LE has never produced any evidence, although they state they have it "somewhere". Medical reports on the sexual assault, lab reports on the fibers, they just well, don't have a copy of them or anything, but Mrs R you just explain anyway how this happened. Please!! You obviously would be very easy to trick in a Police interview.

MurriFlower,

The police have produced evidence to back up their claims that JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to her death.

Furthermore they have shared this evidence with other pathologists.

Just because you have never seen seen it does not mean it does not exist.

The burden of proof lies with you! You are claiming non-existence, despite evidence to the contrary.

Just like the dna v touch-dna do I have to query every single post of yours until you remain the only person left that thinks non-existent evidence is a sensible claim?


.

 

[BBB167893]

Either it's just another attempt to throw the witness off balance or these people are total nit wits.

Or neither! Listen, this is one instance where the wildcard excuse of "cops lie" might--and I hold pretty strong reservations--be the case. Tom Haney is a policeman, a homicide detective. He's probably used that tactic in the past. But let's take a CLOSE look at this.

Tom Haney is widely described as one of the finest homicide detectives in the country. I'm sure if you asked people who know him, "nit wit" is not the first word that comes to mind.

There's also the whole deal with him and Mary Lacy, but we'll get to that later!

They have this VERY IMPORTANT report somewhere, but they just don't know where.

No, that's NOT what he said. Like I just said, Haney is no fool. He knows you have to keep your cards close to your vest. I honestly don't see what your problem is with that, Murri. Indeed, maybe if the DA's office had done that instead of giving everything away to the Rs, this case would be solved already!

I have no reason to doubt him, Murri. You keep arguing that this evidence doesn't exist, but were you there? We KNOW that the materials he's talking about exist, because they were presented to the assembled panel in June of 1998, right about this same time.

BUT regardless of not being able to find it or prove it, they just casually dropped it like a bombshell on the mother of a murdered child,

Yes, they did! Good thing, too, because they got some interesting stuff out of it. I won't go into the whole thing right now, but if you haven't seen the actual video of this exchange, Murri, you really can't get the whole picture. If a cop told me that my daughter had been abused sexually by some creep, I'd turn into the Hulk. That's not what happened here.

Patsy stays completely calm. Her voice does not alter its pitch or timbre. She's completely flat, with all the emotion of a toothpaste commercial. Now, if you want to tell us that doesn't mean anything, you're certainly welcome to do so. But I believe it about as far as I can throw an elephant by the trunk!

and asked her to speculate on who might have been interferring with her daughter! Sure!!

Wouldn't YOU ask her that? I'm deadly serious; this is probably the most important evidence in the entire case. If you thought she could give you something to follow up on, would YOU keep it to yourself?

It's been speculated by some that Haney was trying to knock PR off-balance. That he was giving her an opportunity to save herself by implicating JR or BR. Maybe he was. But it's just as likely he was giving her a legitimate out. Wouldn't you say?

 

[BBB167893]

MurriFlower,
Its time for you and your sidekick to step up to the plate. You are arguing an absence of evidence here. So prove your case, demonstrate an absence, do not make claims you cannot substantiate, else its all hot air.

Yes, PLEASE! Let's have it!

 

[BBB167893]

MurriFlower,

The police have produced evidence to back up their claims that JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to her death.

Furthermore they have shared this evidence with other pathologists.

Just because you have never seen seen it does not mean it does not exist.

The burden of proof lies with you! You are claiming non-existence, despite evidence to the contrary.

Just like the dna v touch-dna do I have to query every single post of yours until you remain the only person left that thinks non-existent evidence is a sensible claim?


.

That deserves a standing ovation.

 

[BBB167893]

Medical reports on the sexual assault, lab reports on the fibers, they just well, don't have a copy of them or anything, but Mrs R you just explain anyway how this happened. Please!! You obviously would be very easy to trick in a Police interview.

As was PR! That's your whole problem, Murri: PR dug herself deeper in every instance. Nobody held a gun to head to say anything she didn't want to say. Nobody FORCED her to say it was significant or give that bull**** story about hugging JB's body. Don't blame LE.

 

[BOESP]

If I remember correctly the autopsy mentions acute and chronic vaginal injuries. Seems to me that is proof enough to support Haney's line of questioning.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

The police have produced evidence to back up their claims that JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to her death.

Furthermore they have shared this evidence with other pathologists.

Just because you have never seen seen it does not mean it does not exist.

The burden of proof lies with you! You are claiming non-existence, despite evidence to the contrary.

Just like the dna v touch-dna do I have to query every single post of yours until you remain the only person left that thinks non-existent evidence is a sensible claim?

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. If in fact this evidence exists as you say, you would have no reason to ask me for proof of it's non existence, because you would be able to find numerous sources (aside from interviews) that it does actually exist.

You need not query any posts of mine, that is your choice. It is what we are doing here in the absence of actual evidence, we discuss.

 

[MurriFlower]

As was PR! That's your whole problem, Murri: PR dug herself deeper in every instance. Nobody held a gun to head to say anything she didn't want to say. Nobody FORCED her to say it was significant or give that bull**** story about hugging JB's body. Don't blame LE.

She did not 'dig herself deeper' anywhere but in your mind. To subject a traumatised mother to such treatment is disgraceful.