Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[tovarisch]

It seems as though you're ignoring JBR's eroded hymen and focusing on a lesser fragment of the evidence. The point is there were wooden splinters found inside of her, confirming she was penetrated by the paintbrush. The paintbrush was sharp, so it's not unheard of that she would've bled, previously molested or not. Whether lacerations were found or not, the fact that her hymen was eroded and there were signs of healing where the bruises in her vagina were located determines (at least to me) she was assaulted before December 26th.

Oh, you want to switch and focus on eroded hymen? Ok. Show me coroner`s conclusion on eroded hymen. I never in my life heard this silly expression about hymen was"eroded". Show me the official report . I want to see with my own eyes! that professional pathologist would name hymen like this (in a child).

 

[inspector rex]

It seems as though you're ignoring JBR's eroded (not torn) hymen and focusing on a lesser fragment of the evidence. The point is there were wooden splinters found inside of her, confirming she was penetrated by the paintbrush. The paintbrush was sharp, so it's not unheard of that she would've bled, previously molested or not. Whether lacerations were found or not, the fact that her hymen was eroded and there were signs of healing where the bruises in her vagina were located determines (at least to me, the coroner, and other experts) she was assaulted before December 26th.

BBM. I'm interested to see where you got the evidence about wooden splinters? And where these have matched the "wooden fibers" to the paintbrush?

Also, I can find no reference in the Autopsy report that mentions assault prior to 26th or "healing where the bruises in her vagina were located". I'm assuming this comes from some other source?

 

[OliviaG1996]

Oh, you want to switch and focus on eroded hymen? Ok. Show me coroner`s conclusion on eroded hymen. I never in my life heard this silly expression about hymen was"eroded". Show me the official report . I want to see with my own eyes! that professional pathologist would name hymen like this (in a child).

I didn't "switch" the topic of conversation at all. We were speaking about her hymen when you brought up the lacerations. I don't see anything "silly" about the use of the term "eroded", why do you?

From the autopsy report :

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion.

(Anyone, please correct me if I misunderstood the autopsy report. I'm not familiar with medical terminology.)

 

[tovarisch]

I didn't "switch" the topic of conversation at all. We were speaking about her hymen when you brought up the lacerations. I don't see anything "silly" about the use of the term "eroded", why do you?

From the autopsy report :

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion.

(Anyone, please correct me if I misunderstood the autopsy report. I'm not familiar with medical terminology.)

That`s it ? You mean that eroded hymen, long time ago eroded, this speculation was created by someone out of THIS ?

Common, you are not serious.
The smallest piece of tissue, at 7 oclock position, WHERE the object was inserted!! as we know, right there , had epithelia erosion ?? I`m not medic, but this means epithelia was absent at this SMALLEST piece of tissue due impact of the object.

But wait a minut. I want to see long time eroded hymen description.

Prove your argument of a long time going on sexual abuse.

 

[OliviaG1996]

BBM. I'm interested to see where you got the evidence about wooden splinters? And where these have matched the "wooden fibers" to the paintbrush?

By "splinters" I meant material consistent with the wood of the paintbrush.

From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by James Kolar:
"The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of 'cellulose material' in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote."

Also, I can find no reference in the Autopsy report that mentions assault prior to 26th or "healing where the bruises in her vagina were located". I'm assuming this comes from some other source?

Not quite sure where I heard about the healing of the bruising, but here is what Dr. McCann had to say about the bruising, which I believe I already posted in response to one of tovarisch's questions:

From The Bonita Papers:
"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. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia"

 

[OliviaG1996]

That`s it ? You mean that eroded hymen, long time ago eroded, this speculation was created by someone out of THIS ?

Common, you are not serious.
The smallest piece of tissue, at 7 oclock position, WHERE the object was inserted!! as we know, right there , had epithelia erosion ?? I`m not medic, but this means epithelia was absent at this SMALLEST piece of tissue due impact of the object.

But wait a minut. I want to see long time eroded hymen description.

Prove your argument of a long time going on sexual abuse.

The word "chronic", as found in the report, means ongoing. Over a period of time. I don't think you want to believe she was abused before her death, and no amount of proof is going to satisfy you. I'll leave it at that.

 

[tovarisch]

Chronic means ongoing. Over a period of time. I don't think you want to believe she was abused before her death, and no amount of proof is going to satisfy you. I'll leave it at that.

Yes,Olivia, we will live it at this. Because chronic inflammation of vaginal vestibule is not the prove of chronic sexual abuse beyond the doubt. And because smallest piece of epithelial erosion( torn, absent epithelia) at the position where the object was inserted is not, IS NOT eroded long time ago hymen.

 

[inspector rex]

By "splinters" I meant material consistent with the wood of the paintbrush.

From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by James Kolar:
"The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of 'cellulose material' in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote."

Cellulose material may not necessarily be wood from the paintbrush.
This is an assumption that has been made without the backing of any forensic evidence.
It could have just as easily been cellulose from toilet paper.

Not quite sure where I heard about the healing of the bruising, but here is what Dr. McCann had to say about the bruising, which I believe I already posted in response to one of tovarisch's questions:

From The Bonita Papers:
"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. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia"

The Bonita Papers are not actually evidence in the case.
I believe they are actually a rough draft of notes from someone who was intending to write a book.

As for McCann, he has written many papers on physical injuries and sexual assault. Here is one. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/5/e1094.abstract

It says, in part: "RESULTS. The injuries that were sustained by the 113 prepubertal girls consisted of 21 accidental or noninflicted injuries, 73 secondary to abuse, and 19 “unknown cause” injuries. All 126 pubertal adolescents were sexual assault victims. The hymenal injuries healed at various rates and except for the deeper lacerations left no evidence of the previous trauma. Abrasions and “mild” submucosal hemorrhages disappeared within 3 to 4 days, whereas “marked” hemorrhages persisted for 11 to 15 days. Only petechiae and blood blisters proved to be “markers” for determining the approximate age of an injury. Petechiae resolved within 48 hours in the prepubertal girls and 72 hours in the adolescents. A blood blister was detected at 34 days in an adolescent. As lacerations healed, their observed depth became shallower and their configuration smoothed out. Of the girls who sustained “superficial,” “intermediate,” or “deep” lacerations, 15 of 18 prepubertal girls had smooth and continuous appearing hymenal rims, whereas 24 of 41 adolescents' hymens had a normal, “scalloped” appearance and 30 of 34 had no disruption of continuity on healing. The final “width” of a hymenal rim was dependent on the initial depth of the laceration. No scar tissue formation was observed in either group of girls. "

While this is consistent with some sexual contact either just prior or at the time of her death, the AR says there is some hyperemia (skin redenning) but no blood blister or petechiae to enable determination of the age of previous injury.
McCann's findings seem to contradict the assumption that any prior sexual assault would leave scarring or thickening.
I don't believe the word "chronic inflammation" mentioned in the AR should lead people to believe this refers to ongoing or persistent sexual assault prior to the night of her death.
JonBenet was know to suffer from frequent vulvovaginitis, https://pedclerk.bsd.uchicago.edu/page/vulvovaginitis-prepubertal-child
(Note one of the causes is a 'foreign body' in the form of toilet paper.)

 

[Anti-K]

I didn't "switch" the topic of conversation at all. We were speaking about her hymen when you brought up the lacerations. I don't see anything "silly" about the use of the term "eroded", why do you?

From the autopsy report :

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion.

(Anyone, please correct me if I misunderstood the autopsy report. I'm not familiar with medical terminology.)

We all know there was a history of bedwetting, perhaps other toiletry issues. These sorts of things can cause inflammation of certain areas, and inflammation means EROSION, sloughing off of cells.

This below is also from the Medical Examination for Sexual Abuse: Have We Been Misled? Abstract that I posted above. The entire thing is here: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_3_1.htm
BBM

“... all the findings attributed to molest were in fact found by McCann in substantial portions of the normal children he examined. They are also the findings which Emans, et al. (1987) found in children allegedly molested but also found in girls with no evidence of molest but suffering other types of medical problems.

“Even the few findings Emans claims distinguish molested from nonmolested but otherwise symptomatic girls, such as hymenal tears and intravaginal synechiae, have been found to be unreliable. McCann et al. found, as already mentioned, that is was impossible to tell the difference between "normal asymmetry" of the hymen and hymenal "tear," and that he saw intravaginal synechiae "everywhere" when the normal children were examined.”
...

AK

 

[mochii]

I’m so sorry mocha, but I still can’t see how a ransom note can explain a body in the house. These things just don’t belong together and they never will. If they belonged together than they wouldn’t be contradictory; they would be consistent. You can’t have it both ways.

This idea of a failed kidnapping is interesting, but if someone wanted to fake something like this, then all they would have to do is say that they caught the kidnapper mid-crime, and he ran off without his victim; leave the body out in the open, near a doorway or open window. This point is moot as no evidence, real or staged, suggests such a thing.

The reason why no one has ever staged or reported a kidnapping to explain a dead body in the house is because it doesn’t explain it.

When people – the extorted as well as investigators, etc – are confronted with a ransom note they always, always, always and forever until the end of time realize that the victim has been taken away; they’re not in the home; they’re gone; the kidnappers took them. “We have your daughter.”
.

You ask, “What do you think, in lieu of a fake kidnapping, the Ramsey's should have done?”

Maybe it would help to consider what others have done when faced with similar circumstances – a dead body in the house that needed explaining. People stage break-ins or accidents, but, no one – ask the FBI – has ever staged or reported a kidnapping to explain this.

What would someone do if you they were in their shoes that night? Where do you want to start? The head blow? Because I always get stuck at this step. Because most people would panic and call for help immediately – not the police, either. They would panic and try to save tier child consequences be damned.

But, let’s say there is something different about the Ramseys – both of them – and they take a different direction. If I was one of THOSE Ramseys, what would I do? I’d throw her down the spiral staircase. I’d put a shoe or a toy or something on one of the stairs, or at the top of it and say she must have tripped. I’d call an ambulance or rush her lifeless body to the hospital myself. Id’ call my lawyers; I’d get out of dodge.

This is the sort of thing that people confronted with a similar situation do. They fake accidents, or they stage break-ins.
...

AK

Sorry for the late reply on this, AK. Been busy the last couple of days...& thanks for moving the thread. I'm gonna go through and read & reply all to what I can.

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the ransom note. I'm not sure why you don't see how the body in the house and ransom note are correlated, because in my mind it's perfectly clear. As to why they didn't call 911 immediately after the head blow? I couldn't tell you that. I don't know. They should have. Maybe it had been too late, maybe they feared how it'd reflect on them, maybe they were afraid they'd be found out, maybe they feared of the alleged abuse, maybe they were protecting someone (themselves and/or Burke?). So the one thing to do when you're scared, panicked, and guilty? Point fingers at other people. Deflect everything away from you. We've said before that with a body in the house (or even a missing person) would raise further questions and suspicions. The best way to divert that, again, is to point fingers elsewhere. A ransom note is the perfect way of doing this. It gives a motive, it tells us there is someone out there who wants to harm the family. It doesn't matter that with a typical kidnapping that the body is removed. This wasn't a typical kidnapping. Again, it was apart of their grand scheme of the cover up. They relied heavily on the ransom note to divert the attention away from them. I see there has been lots of great replies to this thread and this website explaining why.

I'm not sure how much more I can explain without repeating myself (or others). The RN was only there to (1)explain why she was dead, and, (2)point fingers away from anyone in the family. I am not exactly trying to convince you; but at least tell you that, yes, there is a connection to the RN and the body. You keep saying there is a contradiction, but are refusing to see why that contradiction exists. The only thing the Ramsey's could have done to make themselves appear innocent is to leave some type of incriminating evidence that clears them. It doesn't matter that there is a RN and body. It just doesn't. Even if IDI, the motive is clear! I wish I could let you into my head so you could understand that the circumstances of the rn/body are no contradiction. If anything it's telling us "look who was never kidnapped." If she were, she wouldn't be there! The point for the RN is because it makes absolutely no sense. It just makes a mess of the situation.

To hold onto the body (with help of the RN) will let the Ramsey's hold onto JB forever.

 

[mochii]

Supposedly, if RDI, the sexual assault at or near point of death was to cover up prior abuse, but this sexual assault was itself covered up. This is a contradiction. However, it disappears if IDI because the sexual assault is no longer supposed to cover up anything. It just is.

RDI says that the cord, the tape, the earlier draft, the note itself, etc are disposed of because the Ramseys didn’t want evidence to be traced back to them/the house. But, the notepad, the pen, the paint brush handle, all items that can be traced back to the house are intentionally used and left behind for investigators to find. This is another contradiction that disappears with IDI. Now items are used because they can’t be traced back to the killer and other items are removed for the same reason.

One could go on forever – if RDI the Ramseys write a note warning themselves not to call the police but then they call the police, once again contradicting themselves. The contradiction vanishes as soon as we substitute IDI because now the Ramseys are no longer warning themselves. If RDI the Ramseys want investigators to think someone entered their home and then contradict this by saying they heard nothing, saw nothing and all the doors were locked. This contradiction disappears as soon as we remove the motivation. Etc and on and on...

So, call it bullsh* t if you want. The evidence is the evidence, and the evidence is against you.
...

AK

Note points away from Ramseys, but materials used and note content points towards Ramseys. If RDI, this is a contradiction. If IDI, the contradiction disappears because the note no longer is supposed to point away from the Ramseys.

Maybe they didn't realize that the paper and pen could be traced back to the home. I wouldn't think that. When I first started to read on the case I thought that was amazing forensics was able to pinpoint that exactly. You'd think paper and pen are the two most unassuming things ever. With the other materials (paintbrush, etc.) it's possible they had to work with what they had. Maybe removing the garrote from JB proved too difficult, so they had to leave it on (hence why that wasn't disposed of, but the rope and tape was). The Ramseys had nothing to fear when calling the police -- of course they're going to call, because nothing will happen to them. It is NOT a contradiction. It's all apart of their plan! If they call and act devastated they look innocent. In their minds they think "would a guilty person call?". They covered their tracks (so they thought)...

Supposedly, if RDI, the sexual assault at or near point of death was to cover up prior abuse, but this sexual assault was itself covered up. This is a contradiction. However, it disappears if IDI because the sexual assault is no longer supposed to cover up anything. It just is.

The prior abuse (as I've said before) is something I go back and forth on. I've read conflicting reports on both sides, so I don't know what to think personally. I believe the intent (if RDI) of the abuse with the paintbrush was to cover up the old abuse. In their mind, if the new fresh abuse was there maybe it'd cover all past signs of abuse (or maybe they didn't realize you could trace back past abuse as it's believed it was done digitally). Regarding her chronic UTI's -- I don't believe that would cause the inside of her vagina and hymen to become inflammed/eroded. It is very hard to explain this on either side -- because we don't know. Experts have said conflicting reports. HOWEVER, you have to admit that the finding's (enlarged vagina, eroded hymen, etc.) does not help the case or poor JB. It's a little to coincidental that she happened to suffer from these ailments, and was found molested with a paintbrush the night of her murder. Curious, don't you think?

I apologize for the sloppy formatting of this post -- I am trying to reply to everything I can as I read.

 

[UKGuy]

Note points away from Ramseys, but materials used and note content points towards Ramseys. If RDI, this is a contradiction. If IDI, the contradiction disappears because the note no longer is supposed to point away from the Ramseys.

Maybe they didn't realize that the paper and pen could be traced back to the home. I wouldn't think that. When I first started to read on the case I thought that was amazing forensics was able to pinpoint that exactly. You'd think paper and pen are the two most unassuming things ever. With the other materials (paintbrush, etc.) it's possible they had to work with what they had. Maybe removing the garrote from JB proved too difficult, so they had to leave it on (hence why that wasn't disposed of, but the rope and tape was). The Ramseys had nothing to fear when calling the police -- of course they're going to call, because nothing will happen to them. It is NOT a contradiction. It's all apart of their plan! If they call and act devastated they look innocent. In their minds they think "would a guilty person call?". They covered their tracks (so they thought)...

Supposedly, if RDI, the sexual assault at or near point of death was to cover up prior abuse, but this sexual assault was itself covered up. This is a contradiction. However, it disappears if IDI because the sexual assault is no longer supposed to cover up anything. It just is.

The prior abuse (as I've said before) is something I go back and forth on. I've read conflicting reports on both sides, so I don't know what to think personally. I believe the intent (if RDI) of the abuse with the paintbrush was to cover up the old abuse. In their mind, if the new fresh abuse was there maybe it'd cover all past signs of abuse (or maybe they didn't realize you could trace back past abuse as it's believed it was done digitally). Regarding her chronic UTI's -- I don't believe that would cause the inside of her vagina and hymen to become inflammed/eroded. It is very hard to explain this on either side -- because we don't know. Experts have said conflicting reports. HOWEVER, you have to admit that the finding's (enlarged vagina, eroded hymen, etc.) does not help the case or poor JB. It's a little to coincidental that she happened to suffer from these ailments, and was found molested with a paintbrush the night of her murder. Curious, don't you think?

I apologize for the sloppy formatting of this post -- I am trying to reply to everything I can as I read.

mochii,
On the Prior Abuse: JonBenet has internal healed injuries that indicate chronic abuse. Coroner Meyer's verbatim statement is that JonBenet was digitally penetrated, i.e. by a finger. Also James Kolar says outright that JonBenet was assaulted with the paintbrush, but he contends it was not part of the staging!

So all the evidence points to a serious sexual assault inflicted on JonBenet sometime Christmas night, followed later by a cleanup/wipedown and redressing, i.e. part of the staging?

The R's would say that the intruder simply made use of items in their house, e.g. notepad, pen, blanket, etc, easily explaining why they were left behind, i.e. they are no use to the intruder!

.

 

[DeeDee249]

Bedwetting and inflammation do not erode a hymen.

 

[BBB167893]

Hmm. Not much there.

As I said, I was reluctant and I didn't have much thinking time. Also, I wasn't sure what you meant. I assumed that you were asking for what sparked the decision to stage AFTER the head blow. Did I get you wrong?

 

[BBB167893]

Note points away from Ramseys, but materials used and note content points towards Ramseys. If RDI, this is a contradiction. If IDI, the contradiction disappears because the note no longer is supposed to point away from the Ramseys.

Supposedly, if RDI, the sexual assault at or near point of death was to cover up prior abuse, but this sexual assault was itself covered up. This is a contradiction. However, it disappears if IDI because the sexual assault is no longer supposed to cover up anything. It just is.

RDI says that the cord, the tape, the earlier draft, the note itself, etc are disposed of because the Ramseys didn’t want evidence to be traced back to them/the house. But, the notepad, the pen, the paint brush handle, all items that can be traced back to the house are intentionally used and left behind for investigators to find. This is another contradiction that disappears with IDI. Now items are used because they can’t be traced back to the killer and other items are removed for the same reason.

In these instances you mention, the Rs would have been constrained both by lack of experience and lack of time. Would you really expect perfection?

Meanwhile, what about all the IDI contradictions?

One could go on forever –

As can I.

if RDI the Ramseys write a note warning themselves not to call the police but then they call the police, once again contradicting themselves. The contradiction vanishes as soon as we substitute IDI because now the Ramseys are no longer warning themselves.

They might have been counting on people to think like that.

If RDI the Ramseys want investigators to think someone entered their home and then contradict this by saying they heard nothing, saw nothing and all the doors were locked. This contradiction disappears as soon as we remove the motivation. Etc and on and on...

Exactly what could they have said they saw or heard? Their story revolves around not knowing that anything was off-kilter until they "found" the note.

So, call it bullsh* t if you want.

You bet I will.

The evidence is the evidence, and the evidence is against you.

I'm quite confident with the evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

If an accident were claimed and the child taken to the hospital then there would be no sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death. So, we wold only have the prior abuse that Meyer wasn’t even sure had occurred, he had to consult various experts. Even after this, there is no certainty about who was responsible for it or even what it was. So, no arrest for sexual battery. Or, for anything.

What's so odd about Meyer consulting other experts?

But you may have seized on something: "who was responsible." It would be one thing to arrest at the hospital. Afterwards, as what happened here, I don't think they could arrest for anything less than murder by the law.

 

[BBB167893]

The evidence for prior abuse was not sufficient for any charges to be laid against anyone. We know this because no one was arrested for it. And, no one knows what it was comprised of or who was responsible for it or who knew about it.

If the autopsy demonstrated that the head blow could not have been the result of an accident than surely there would be an investigation. But, then what? Who would they arrest? As far as this argument goes I don’t think it matters because no one is saying that they would have gotten away with anything by faking an accident.

No, the argument does matter. Who do you charge with what? It's called the "cross-fingerpointing defense."

 

[BBB167893]

BBM. I'm interested to see where you got the evidence about wooden splinters? And where these have matched the "wooden fibers" to the paintbrush?

I'll help:

"Finally, the detectives turned to the microscopic splinter of cellulose found in JonBenet's vagina, which looked like wood. The broken paintbrush that had been tied to the stick was splintered into shards." (PMPT, p 559.)

Also, I can find no reference in the Autopsy report that mentions assault prior to 26th or "healing where the bruises in her vagina were located". I'm assuming this comes from some other source?

OliviaG1996 already provided you with one other source, rex.

 

[BBB167893]

McCann's findings seem to contradict the assumption that any prior sexual assault would leave scarring or thickening.

Much of it doesn't, rex. That's one reason why these creeps are so hard to catch.

 

[andreww]

But, would it be fair to say that most RDI theories incorporate the prior abuse? After all, this is the reason RDI give for the Ramseys not reporting an accident; this is the reason RDI give for the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death (to cover up prior). it is central to BDI theories, and even JDI theories; etc.
.

The problem as previously stated: no one has been able to say what form that abuse took (innocent play by children; sexual abuse by mother and/or father; or other; corporal punishment by mother and/or father; etc), no one has even been able to show who might have known about it, and no one has ever presented a reasonable argument for connecting the abuse to the child’s murder.

If we view evidence through theory (BAD reasoning) then we can find ways to incorporate prior abuse into the crime; but if we go at it evidence-first, then prior abuse becomes less certain and it’s connection to the crime is lost.
...

AK

I don't think any RDIs think the reason that the accidental head blow was not reported was because of prior sexual activity. First, I really have a hard time believing that, given the severity of the wound, that this was an accident. It was probably more likely to have been a deliberate act of frustration or rage. But nonetheless, they could have lied and said JB fell down the stairs, but what if doctors were able to save her? The truth would have come out and the Rs would be disgraced. For me, that I the only logical explanation for not immediately calling for medical help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk