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

[ElleElle]

The "sexual abuse" prior to the killing may have been Patsy douching her due to bedwetting, and not sexual abuse at all, but just over cleansing?

 

[BOESP]

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

You have both mis-read and mis-understood the Autopsy Report
It doesn't describe 'vaginal trauma'.
The word 'trauma' is only used in the following sentence:
"No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified"

The word 'chronic' is used several times in the Autopsy Report. In the Microscopic Description (of the tissue) from various organs (BBM):

"Thyroid: [snip] An occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial inflammatory inflitrate is seen"

"Trachea: There is mild chronic inflammation in the submucosa of the trachea"

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation.

This is a term to describe what is seen on the slides under a microscope.
It is not an indicator of any previous/ongoing/long term sexual abuse.
The summary of findings, the Coroner notes "V. Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa".

Since I didn't use quotation marks around "vaginal trauma" in my original post, apparently you wrongly assumed I was quoting the autopsy report. I stand by the phrase as being correct when discussing JonBenet's vaginal trauma.

As to the word "chronic" in describing that vaginal trauma, I fail to see why tissue examined under a microscope or a visual examination in situ matters unless one is trying to disregard the meaning of the word "chronic."

Chronic inflammation means on-going and representing more than one event over a period of time as opposed to acute trauma, which represents a one-time event.

ETA: The anal and perineal regions are not the same as the vaginal region. They are three distinct areas. In my view, this is significant in determining whether she was raped by an Intruder or by someone who knew her. Pedophiles and rapists generally leave evidence of anal and/or perineal trauma along with vaginal trauma. Based on the quotes you posted above JonBenet had injuries (trauma) only in the vaginal region.

 

[inspector rex]

Since I didn't use quotation marks around "vaginal trauma" in my original post, apparently you wrongly assumed I was quoting the autopsy report. I stand by the phrase as being correct when discussing JonBenet's vaginal trauma.

No, I didn't wrongly assume that you were quoting the autopsy report. It is what you actually said.

The autopsy report uses the word chronic when describing the vaginal trauma.

As to the word "chronic" in describing that vaginal trauma, I fail to see why tissue examined under a microscope or a visual examination in situ matters unless one is trying to disregard the meaning of the word "chronic."

No, "chronic" as used in the AR in regards to several of the tissue specimens (namely the thyroild and trachea) examined and has no relationship to trauma or prior/previous sexual abuse. It describes the type of inflammation, not the cause.

Chronic inflammation means on-going and representing more than one event over a period of time as opposed to acute trauma, which represents a one-time event.

Chronic in this context means "long lasting or re-current" where as Acute means "rapid onset or short but severe".

ETA: The anal and perineal regions are not the same as the vaginal region. They are three distinct areas. In my view, this is significant in determining whether she was raped by an Intruder or by someone who knew her. Pedophiles and rapists generally leave evidence of anal and/or perineal trauma along with vaginal trauma. Based on the quotes you posted above JonBenet had injuries (trauma) only in the vaginal region.

I'm certainly aware that the anus and vagina are not the same, and I have never confused the two.
The perineal region is that between these areas.
I don't believe there was any evidence she had been raped, and as the AR clearly states, there was no trauma in any of these areas.

However, the coroner concluded that there was: "V. Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa", but makes no suggestion as to its cause.

 

[BoldBear]

There as been a lot of discussion as to Dr. Krugman’s definition of sexual abuse vs physical abuse. There is another definition we've been ignoring and that is the legal definition. I'm sure that there are a lot of rapists in prison would would love to have their crime redefined as "physical abuse". That would change their crime to assault a remove them from the sex offender roles. Win-win.

We define how severe a murder is by what the murderer may have been thinking at the time the crime was committed: 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree. Are we now going to do that with sex crimes? What about sex crimes involving children? Do we now define the crime on whether or not the assailant achieves sexual gratification? Do we really need to know what was going through their head when this person committed these crimes?

I think it's pretty damn shameful that we're arguing whether or not an attack to a little girls sexual organs constitutes a sex crime or not.

Dr. Krugman seems to hide behind, "I'm much smarter than you. There's not enough time in the world to explain it. You'll just have to take my word for it." That's pretty damn arrogant to me--he gets to define what constitutes sexual abuse and we're not smart enough to understand it.

One phrase I've had drilled into my head all my life is, "Rape is Rape." The person committing the act doesn't get to define what it is. Now it seems like we have a new rule. "Rape is rape unless Dr. Krugman thinks it isn't."

I really don't care what you call it. Touching a child's genitalia in an act of aggression (sexual or otherwise), should continue to bear some of the worst penalties our society can give. I put it one rung below murder.

Finally, I've seen the statement that someone who believes that JBR was sexually molested needs to prove it. I disagree with that. If you believe that JBR wasn't sexually assaulted, prove it. Don't give me studies that require more investigation. Don't give me studies that involve more interviews with everyone involved. Don't give me quotes that biological parents are less likely to sexually assault their children. None of that is proof. Prove that she wasn’t because the bed-wetting, retracted hymen, enlarged vaginal opening, abrasions and multiple visits to the pediatrician point to the possibility of previous sexual abuse. So if someone wants to believe that she was sexually abused prior to the night that she was murdered, it makes sense to me. Honestly, ruling it out as a possibility, seems as childish as sticking your fingers in your ears and crying out, "la la la la la la la."

What I don't understand is how someone here goes out of their way to try to destroy someone's belief that JBR was sexually abused. That is the cornerstone of some people's theories. Make your point and move on. We should be discussing theories here and not stating that someone is wrong because 'you've' decided that there was no previous sexual abuse. Oh, I almost forgot that there have been denials here that there was sexual abuse on the night of her murder because it wasn't sexual abuse—we've redefined it. It was physical abuse.

I guess I'm not one of those people who can understand the difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse; although, I can. I can also see someone trying to reframe an argument to make a truly repulsive act sound less horrible (like calling it physical abuse will make it go away).

 

[CorallaroC]

Well said, BoldBear. ITA. You post is very helpful, and easily understood. Thank you.

 

[inspector rex]

There as been a lot of discussion as to Dr. Krugman’s definition of sexual abuse vs physical abuse. There is another definition we've been ignoring and that is the legal definition. I'm sure that there are a lot of rapists in prison would would love to have their crime redefined as "physical abuse". That would change their crime to assault a remove them from the sex offender roles. Win-win.

We define how severe a murder is by what the murderer may have been thinking at the time the crime was committed: 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree. Are we now going to do that with sex crimes? What about sex crimes involving children? Do we now define the crime on whether or not the assailant achieves sexual gratification? Do we really need to know what was going through their head when this person committed these crimes?

I think it's pretty damn shameful that we're arguing whether or not an attack to a little girls sexual organs constitutes a sex crime or not.

Yes, it’s sad that we need to discuss it at all. The fact that there are adults who see little children as objects of their sexual lust is a blot on our society. However in the case of JonBenet, it is whether her “sex organs” were “attacked” or not that is in question. It seems there was some sexual contact on the night of her death. It was relatively minor, by comparison to the nature of her murder.

It is not this that I am challenging.

It is PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULT that I am questioning.

Dr. Krugman seems to hide behind, "I'm much smarter than you. There's not enough time in the world to explain it. You'll just have to take my word for it." That's pretty damn arrogant to me--he gets to define what constitutes sexual abuse and we're not smart enough to understand it

.

Dr Krugman simply said there was no evidence of sexual assault. He is not trying to define anything, except in relation to incorrect assumptions.
I think his qualifications and his clinical experience speak for themselves. In his area of expertise, he clearly is smarter than us.
If it weren’t so, he wouldn’t have been asked for his expert opinion on the matter.

One phrase I've had drilled into my head all my life is, "Rape is Rape." The person committing the act doesn't get to define what it is. Now it seems like we have a new rule. "Rape is rape unless Dr. Krugman thinks it isn't."

I really don't care what you call it. Touching a child's genitalia in an act of aggression (sexual or otherwise), should continue to bear some of the worst penalties our society can give. I put it one rung below murder.

I really think the murder was far and away the major crime committed.
It is uncontested. She was either struck on the head and strangled or vice versa. No argument.

Whether this was a sexually motivated crime and what form the sexual abuse took that occurred on the night she died, we can only speculate.
What I have been trying to convey to RDI is that there is absolutely no evidence to support ANY SEXUAL ABUSE PRIOR TO THE NIGHT SHE DIED.
This is not for my benefit. In fact, I’d heard it repeatedly said that she had been previously abused so often that I came to believe it. It was only when I looked more closely that I discovered there was no evidence at all in the autopsy report or since that has identified this.

Finally, I've seen the statement that someone who believes that JBR was sexually molested needs to prove it. I disagree with that. If you believe that JBR wasn't sexually assaulted, prove it. Don't give me studies that require more investigation. Don't give me studies that involve more interviews with everyone involved. Don't give me quotes that biological parents are less likely to sexually assault their children. None of that is proof. Prove that she wasn’t because the bed-wetting, retracted hymen, enlarged vaginal opening, abrasions and multiple visits to the pediatrician point to the possibility of previous sexual abuse. So if someone wants to believe that she was sexually abused prior to the night that she was murdered, it makes sense to me. Honestly, ruling it out as a possibility, seems as childish as sticking your fingers in your ears and crying out, "la la la la la la la."

What I don't understand is how someone here goes out of their way to try to destroy someone's belief that JBR was sexually abused. That is the cornerstone of some people's theories.

On the contrary, what I said to UKGuy was that I have no problem with people believing what they wish, despite the fact that it is not supported by evidence. Just please do not state an unsupported belief as if it were a fact.

Make your point and move on. We should be discussing theories here and not stating that someone is wrong because 'you've' decided that there was no previous sexual abuse. Oh, I almost forgot that there have been denials here that there was sexual abuse on the night of her murder because it wasn't sexual abuse—we've redefined it. It was physical abuse.

I guess I'm not one of those people who can understand the difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse; although, I can. I can also see someone trying to reframe an argument to make a truly repulsive act sound less horrible (like calling it physical abuse will make it go away).

No, that’s not the point at all. As I said, I think people should believe whatever they wish.
I made my point and as far as I was concerned, that was an end to it.

No history of abuse of any kind in the house.
No evidence of sexual abuse prior to the night she died.

It is only those who believe they have evidence who are wishing to continue the argument. I am simply pointing out that what they take to be evidence, they have either misunderstood or been mistaken.

What I object to is people posting something as a fact that hasn’t been supported by evidence.
In most countries, a person is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
Therefore you cannot form a theory and then twist the evidence to suit.
Tricia has asked us to approach this forum in this way – facts and logic.
Not stating something as a truth in order to support their theory.

Surely everyone on the forum is trying to get to the truth?

 

[BOESP]

<snipped for brevity>

No, "chronic" as used in the AR in regards to several of the tissue specimens (namely the thyroild and trachea) examined and has no relationship to trauma or prior/previous sexual abuse. It describes the type of inflammation, not the cause.


Chronic in this context means "long lasting or re-current" where as Acute means "rapid onset or short but severe".



I'm certainly aware that the anus and vagina are not the same, and I have never confused the two.
The perineal region is that between these areas.
I don't believe there was any evidence sheee was: "V. Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa", but makes no suggestion as to its cause.

Unfortunately, your conclusions seem to be based on only one piece of evidence (the autopsy report) instead of evaluating other information such as statements by detectives who were present at the autopsy; information from Linda Hoffman Pugh; that JonBenet was taken to her pediatrician numerous times in excess of what is usual for regression issues; the hymenal erosion, etc.

I'm at a loss why you don't seem to consider chronic inflammation as on-going trauma. It also is abnormal for a six-year-old female to have regressive bed-wetting issues and bowel incontinence.

We'll have to agree to disagree since it beyond my understanding why there is a failure to see that this combination of events means something was terribly wrong in the way JonBenet was treated over a period of time.

 

[questfortrue]

Thanks, Boesp. :goodpost: It’s fine if someone disbelieves the opinions of Dr. Jones, Dr. Monteleon, Dr. Wright, Dr. McCann, and Dr. Wecht as to evidence of prior sexual abuse, or confirms that Chief Beckner was being untruthful when he stated there was evidence of prior sexual abuse, or that Boulder County Child Protective Services was being untruthful when they conferred with LA that there was evidence of incest dynamics within the family. None of us, after all, have seen the reports of CPS opinions or reports which support Chief Beckner’s assertion.

As some of the people of Boulder who've imbibed their herbal supplements would say about what someone calls facts, “That’s cool,” and agreeing to disagree and moving on, is a great suggestion.

 

[UKGuy]

Unfortunately, your conclusions seem to be based on only one piece of evidence (the autopsy report) instead of evaluating other information such as statements by detectives who were present at the autopsy; information from Linda Hoffman Pugh; that JonBenet was taken to her pediatrician numerous times in excess of what is usual for regression issues; the hymenal erosion, etc.

I'm at a loss why you don't seem to consider chronic inflammation as on-going trauma. It also is abnormal for a six-year-old female to have regressive bed-wetting issues and bowel incontinence.

We'll have to agree to disagree since it beyond my understanding why there is a failure to see that this combination of events means something was terribly wrong in the way JonBenet was treated over a period of time.

BOESP,
Excellent post. The hymenal erosion, along with signs of past internal healing, suggest something unusual was going on. Both of these features are chronic in nature, yet I have no direct evidence it was a finger or whatever that caused them, I think if JonBenet had complained and it had been acted on, I'm willing to bet it would be called a sexual assault?

Another aspect is that Coroner Meyer took internal tissue samples, swap samples etc, rendered some of the tissue sample as cross-sections and applied standard microscopic analysis, not to mention the spectrographic technique applied to the splinter.

Corroborating evidence may exist to backup some members suspicions, its just that, in the absence of a trial, it may not be forthcoming?

Not knowing what Coroner Meyer has stored away in some fridge at a BPD facility means I cannot conclude from an absence of forensic evidence that JonBenet never underwent prior chronic sexual abuse!

.

 

[inspector rex]

Unfortunately, your conclusions seem to be based on only one piece of evidence (the autopsy report) instead of evaluating other information such as statements by detectives who were present at the autopsy; information from Linda Hoffman Pugh; that JonBenet was taken to her pediatrician numerous times in excess of what is usual for regression issues; the hymenal erosion, etc.

I'm sure I supplied other evidence in support of my conclusion.
However, people keep referring to the AR as definitive proof of PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE, due to the word "chronic" so this is what I have addressed.

The frequent visits to the pediatrician for were for vulvovaginitis, which in part, explains the urinary incontinence.
The supposed feces incontinence seems to be nothing more than poor wiping technique, not unusual for a 6yo.
This is also a contributing factor to the vaginal infections and can also introduce 'cellulose' material in the form of remnants of paper.
https://pedclerk.bsd.uchicago.edu/page/vulvovaginitis-prepubertal-child
http://www.rch.org.au/kidsinfo/fact_sheets/Vulvovaginitis/

I'm at a loss why you don't seem to consider chronic inflammation as on-going trauma. It also is abnormal for a six-year-old female to have regressive bed-wetting issues and bowel incontinence.

The only mention he makes of the word 'trauma' is to say there was no trauma to areas adjacent to the vagina, as previously discussed.

As part of an autopsy, fluids and sections of tissue are taken from various organs for examination.
Tissue is sliced thinly and examined microscopically for changes in cells.
In the case of JonBenet, tissue from several organs (Thyroid, Trachea and Vagina) showed signs of chronic inflammation.
The Coroner made no notes concerning his opinion as to the cause.

So it is incorrect for a layman to say this indicates PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE.
To what do you attribute the chronic inflammation of the tissue sections from the thyroid and trachea noted in the AR?
Surely you don't believe these are indicative of PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE also?

We'll have to agree to disagree since it beyond my understanding why there is a failure to see that this combination of events means something was terribly wrong in the way JonBenet was treated over a period of time.

Yes, I see now that it is quite beyond your understanding.
I apologise for my inability to explain this clearly enough for you to see for yourself.

For my part, I believe:
She appears to have had an upper respiratory tract infection.
She also appears to have had vulvovaginitis.
She may also have had some minor autoimmune reaction.

There was certainly something wrong with the way she was treated on the night of her death, but I cannot see any evidence of mistreatment over a 'period of time' prior to that night.
That is my point.

 

[OliviaG1996]

<SNIPPED>

As part of an autopsy, fluids and sections of tissue are taken from various organs for examination.
Tissue is sliced thinly and examined microscopically for changes in cells.
In the case of JonBenet, tissue from several organs (Thyroid, Trachea and Vagina) showed signs of chronic inflammation.
The Coroner made no notes concerning his opinion as to the cause.

So it is incorrect for a layman to say this indicates PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE.
To what do you attribute the chronic inflammation of the tissue sections from the thyroid and trachea noted in the AR?
Surely you don't believe these are indicative of PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE also?

<SNIPPED>

BBM: It's plausible to attribute the chronic inflammation of her trachea to JBR's allergic rhinitis. She visited her pediatrician in November of 1996, a month before her death, with a sinus infection later diagnosed as allergic rhinitis. The word "chronic" seems to be subjective, but in my opinion, her sinus infection was chronic (it was reoccurring over a period of time). I could be wrong, but sinus infections may affect the thyroid as well, meaning it became inflamed over time (chronic).

From JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas:
"Like lots of kids, although she suffered from colds and coughs, her sinus infections were eventually diagnosed as allergic rhinitis, not unlike a problem that had once plagued her father. In 1995 she tripped in a grocery store, landed on her nose, and the doctor treated her with ice and Popsicles. Six months later she fell again, bonking herself over the left eye. In the twenty-four months before her death, she visited the doctor eighteen times."

More about allergic rhinitis:
http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/allergic-rhinitis

 

[andreww]

I can understand your argument Rex. In fact, I took the very same stance at some point last year. However, I have come to the conclusion that an AR is not the place to make conclusions of things like sexual abuse, it is simply a record of the observations that the coroner observed. I highly doubt that he would have made that kind of pronouncement even if he felt strongly that ongoing abuse actually happened.

It is up to other experts to take his findings and piece together what happened. In this case I believe there is enough evidence to say that there may have been prior sexual abuse, but that is the extent of it. It seems that the leading expert wouldn't make a sexual abuse charge without the presence of semen, a STD, or an allegation from the victim. Duh!!! So unless there is testimony we haven't heard about, which I doubt, this issue is always going to remain open to interpretation, and nobody can prove one way or another what happened. But that doe not mean evidence doesn't exist, it's there but it's not conclusive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BOESP]

Questfortrue made a post on another thread that adds more information to the abuse question. No doubt JonBenet was abused the night she died but there is enough information that when correlated shows that it wasn't the first time something similar happened. Here's the link, then go to post #1153:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-amp-Discussion-ONLY!&p=11763800#post11763800

 

[icedtea4me]

During The ENQUIRER interview, Patsy admitted she considered and rejected the possibility that John was sexually abusing JonBenet. She openly admitted that during her struggle to defeat ovarian cancer between 1993 and 1994, John and Patsy's sex life suffered. She totally rejects the notion of John abusing JonBenet, but her reasoning is odd.


She said her mother "came to take care of the kids (when I had cancer). She slept in the other bed in JonBenet's room. I mean, if John was coming in to molest JonBenet, you know that's not going to happen 'cause Grandma was right there every night."

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

Since Grandma Paugh's presence = John not sexually molesting JonBenet, then that would mean that
Grandma Paugh's absence = John sexually molesting JonBenet.

 

[inspector rex]

BOESP

Questfortrue made a post on another thread that adds more information to the abuse question. No doubt JonBenet was abused the night she died but there is enough information that when correlated shows that it wasn't the first time something similar happened. Here's the link, then go to post #1153:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...0#post11763800

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond to this post, as it is on an "RDI Only" thread

 

[Anti-K]

I don't NEED excuses. You can say I'm minimizing, but I am certainly not. I'm not saying anything that the autopsy report and FBI didn't say.

If anything, IDI is making it out WORSE than it was. John Ramsey, Michael Tracey and Lou Smit are particularly guilty of this. What happened to her was horrific enough without that. And it's obvious why IDI does it: the worse it seems, the harder it is to believe the Rs could have done it. Thus, our current conversation.

THAT'S what is disturbing, Anti-K.



I get the feeling you mean it in a different way than I do.



I'm glad someone complained about them. Still, that was not what I meant. I meant that they might disagree that the investigation failed to show they were that kind of people. I quote ST:

Tom Haney, with his no-nonsense style and three days in which to ask his questions, had found something I felt had to be there not too far below that polished beauty queen surface. Patsy Ramsey had, for a few moments, lifted her mask.



In this case, that's all TRUE, Anti-K. You want me to list all the missed opportunities?

When you say that the asphyxiation “LOOKS horrific” and you emphasize “look,” you are essentially saying that it was not horrific. It just LOOKS that way. IMO, this minimizes the horror (your word; I use “brutal”).

I’d like to see where the FBI said that the asphyxiation only “LOOKED” horrific, or brutal, etc.;” please.
I don’t think you can easily make the assault that occurred on this child sound much worse than what it was. And, it is disturbing that you make it so.
.

Yeah, I’m bored. List me all the missed opportunities.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Good idea! Along that same vein of thought, I'll snip only the parts of your post to which I'm responding (the link to your full post is in the quote box above):


Assuming that by “the JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia” you mean “pbworks.com”, you should know that it is not THE authority on this case. That site was an attempt at impartially compiling information by a fellow forum poster (Miss Marple). The website has not been updated since 2007. So the statement she (Miss Marple) wrote about much of the information not being corroborated might have been true (in her opinion, of course) when it was written. But since the original disclosure of the Bonita Papers, much of the information in them HAS been corroborated by people inside the investigation. And as for the claim that another internet poster (Jameson) made that “Bonita (Sauer) has disavowed much of what is in these papers”... well okay, do you have any other source for that other than another internet poster? And if so, would it be any surprise that Sauer might disclaim it under certain circumstances to avoid possible legal ramifications or even public notoriety?

I’ve stated several times already (and usually whenever I post something from the Bonita Papers, because I understand what a problem the information in them presents to IDI/ABAR) that it’s up to the individual to decide for himself/herself (or “hirself”, since Jammie’s name has come up) how much credibility they wish to assign to them. But you’re just wrong in trying to associate the document with Steve Thomas’ book.


You really don’t get it, do you? It really is just over your head to try and understand the difference in Dr. Krugman’s distinction between what constitutes sexual abuse over physical abuse.


I've read and understand the AR (okay, I had to look up the big words). I accept as a fact that JonBenet was sexually molested on the night she died, as well as repeatedly during an indeterminate period of time prior to her death. Who the person is who is responsible for that is up for debate -- but not whether or not it happened. Take off the blinders.

Okay, before anyone gets too excited, I am NOT going to argue that prior abuse never happened. I’m more than happy to provisionally accept that “something” happened.

However...

OTG.

You may accept it as a fact that Jonbenet was sexually molested “repeatedly during an indeterminate period of time prior to her death,” but that doesn’t make it a fact. And, no one should have to accept it as such simply because you do.

Even if we were to accept as fact that “something” occurred before the murder, we do not know how often it happened, we don’t know how many times it happened, we don’t know how recent to the murder it happened; and, we don’t even know for sure what that something was (innocent play between children; sexual abuse by either or both parents, or by JAR; corporal punishment by either or both parents; etc).
When it comes to facts, there is very little here.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

There as been a lot of discussion as to Dr. Krugman’s definition of sexual abuse vs physical abuse. There is another definition we've been ignoring and that is the legal definition. I'm sure that there are a lot of rapists in prison would would love to have their crime redefined as "physical abuse". That would change their crime to assault a remove them from the sex offender roles. Win-win.

We define how severe a murder is by what the murderer may have been thinking at the time the crime was committed: 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree. Are we now going to do that with sex crimes? What about sex crimes involving children? Do we now define the crime on whether or not the assailant achieves sexual gratification? Do we really need to know what was going through their head when this person committed these crimes?

I think it's pretty damn shameful that we're arguing whether or not an attack to a little girls sexual organs constitutes a sex crime or not.

Dr. Krugman seems to hide behind, "I'm much smarter than you. There's not enough time in the world to explain it. You'll just have to take my word for it." That's pretty damn arrogant to me--he gets to define what constitutes sexual abuse and we're not smart enough to understand it.

One phrase I've had drilled into my head all my life is, "Rape is Rape." The person committing the act doesn't get to define what it is. Now it seems like we have a new rule. "Rape is rape unless Dr. Krugman thinks it isn't."

I really don't care what you call it. Touching a child's genitalia in an act of aggression (sexual or otherwise), should continue to bear some of the worst penalties our society can give. I put it one rung below murder.

Finally, I've seen the statement that someone who believes that JBR was sexually molested needs to prove it. I disagree with that. If you believe that JBR wasn't sexually assaulted, prove it. Don't give me studies that require more investigation. Don't give me studies that involve more interviews with everyone involved. Don't give me quotes that biological parents are less likely to sexually assault their children. None of that is proof. Prove that she wasn’t because the bed-wetting, retracted hymen, enlarged vaginal opening, abrasions and multiple visits to the pediatrician point to the possibility of previous sexual abuse. So if someone wants to believe that she was sexually abused prior to the night that she was murdered, it makes sense to me. Honestly, ruling it out as a possibility, seems as childish as sticking your fingers in your ears and crying out, "la la la la la la la."

What I don't understand is how someone here goes out of their way to try to destroy someone's belief that JBR was sexually abused. That is the cornerstone of some people's theories. Make your point and move on. We should be discussing theories here and not stating that someone is wrong because 'you've' decided that there was no previous sexual abuse. Oh, I almost forgot that there have been denials here that there was sexual abuse on the night of her murder because it wasn't sexual abuse—we've redefined it. It was physical abuse.

I guess I'm not one of those people who can understand the difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse; although, I can. I can also see someone trying to reframe an argument to make a truly repulsive act sound less horrible (like calling it physical abuse will make it go away).

I agree with much of what you’ve written here and BBM. Thank you for saying this.

On the other hand...

People who say that jbr was sexually assaulted or otherwise abused prior to the night of her murder DO have to prove it. The burden of proof is on them because the presumption would be that she was not a victim of prior abuse (because most persons are not).

Of course, expert opinion goes some ways towards meeting that burden. But, if no one needed to prove that jbr was sexually assaulted or otherwise abused prior to the night of her murder then we would have no need for expert opinion.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

As we've pretty much exhausted this conversation, I'll move slightly off topic. It's commonly believed that the paintbrush was used to sexually assault JB, and that it was probably the missing piece that was used to do it. Does anybody know exactly how large the missing piece would have been? Would it have been long enough to inflict the internal damage in her vagina? Seems like the piece used on the garrote was about 5" and the piece in the tote was probably another 3" or so. I can't see that missing piece being much more than about 3" and if it was used as a weapon, at least an inch would be required as a handle. Has anybody done research on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

I tried, but was not successful at attaching a photo. You can see it here: http://tinyurl.com/opwryv2

The white paper laid over the brushes represents the garrote handle. IMO, the paint brush in the middle is the same size as the paint brush handle used by the killer.
...

AK