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

[Anti-K]

Yes, that's rather obvious at this point!



Fine. Whatever.



And I'm saying that's bulls**t!



RIGHT! Now we're getting somewhere.



Oh, but there is:

MONEY!

http://weknowmemes.com/tag/coyote-paying-sonic/

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.

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

 

[Anti-K]

I'm sure YOU don't.



How about involuntary sexual battery?



There are a number of reasons for that, other than what you're implying.

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.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If strangulation was not part of staging then they can't claim accident. If they claim head bash was from a fall and the autopsy says it did not happen that way and there is also evidence of sexual abuse, wouldn't that lead to an arrest? For poor/ middle class parents, at least?

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. Openly that faking an accident is what people do when faced with such circumstances. And, that faking an accident involves lees risk and effort and without (unnecessarily) creating any self-incriminating evidence or contradictory evidence.
...

AK

 

[InstantProof]

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?
...

AK

Both parents would be arrested if they tried to pass a murder off as an accident, no?

 

[icedtea4me]

Ok, you'll do if no one else wants to claim it.

So, if the prior sexual abuse is eliminated as evidence, (and let's face it, it's by no means proven) what then do you have as the beginning or motivation for RDI?

You could still have sexual abuse as a trigger motive. What if Patsy had witnessed JonBenet performing fellatio on a condom-covered John? (I go back and forth after that. On one hand, I think the confrontation and the head blow could have come right then and there with John present. On the other hand, I think an angry and humiliated Patsy could have gone back to her bed, waited for John to come back and fall asleep, and then went and had a show-down with JonBenet, her competition.)

 

[OliviaG1996]

Ok, you'll do if no one else wants to claim it.

So, if the prior sexual abuse is eliminated as evidence, (and let's face it, it's by no means proven) what then do you have as the beginning or motivation for RDI?

In my opinion, a six year old with half of her hymen eroded with signs of abuse 48 hours prior to her death is proof enough for me. I want to know why some IDIs disregard that.

There are a number of motivations for the beginning of RDI (for me, that is the head bash) that have nothing to do with the prior sexual abuse, my theory included. The abuse is just another building block of my theory, not the entire reason behind it. In fact, the only sexual abuse I believe happened that night was with the paintbrush (after death). I've read that some RDIs believe this happened because the Ramseys wanted to make it seem as though a pedophile committed this crime. Although I personally don't believe this is the reason behind it, there are many RDIs whose theories don't include the prior sexual abuse at all.

 

[questfortrue]

For me, the fact that this family cared so much about showing off and what the outside world thought about them- all the while being dysfunctional- is a huge piece of the puzzle. I think JB died as the result of their dysfunction- even if somehow by accident- and they could not bring themselves to admit to this. Add sexual abuse to the mix, and all the more reason to blame someone else. I think this is why friends were called over, to hear about the kidnapping and how they had nothing to do with what happened to JB.

InstantProof, I’ll be a little more “wordy” here, but you get it and explained it well and succinctly.

It’s the total picture.

In however one chooses to explain why a violent domestic event occurs, all the ingredients for it were simmering within this family: cancer; enduring grief over the death of a daughter; knowledge that AG might be sold by LM, and a position of money and prestige could be lost; overfocus on one child (the Mega-JonBenet thing); testimony by a housekeeper and friends of the family as to JB’s toileting issues far outside the norm for a six year old; and a hyperactive lifestyle which did not allow time to tackle the very significant internal issues the family carried and to address certain behavioral issues of the children.

Nevertheless, since I do trust the opinion of those who saw the colposcopic photos and who have earned background in pediatric sexual abuse I’ll add the following. First, I would not call the prior abuse a catalyst exactly, as in a proximate cause. If the molestation that night is placed into the framework of prior abuse, then the escalation of certain behaviors comes into play. Also, consider the terminology “family dynamics” in connection to the topic of prior abuse.

In addition to the escalation of coercive behaviors, prior molestation indicates victimization within the family which will cause shifts in family dynamics. This subject is covered in many books. Sometimes within a family, it’s difficult to know whether someone attempted to correct the behavior, made a decision to ignore it/became disenfranchised from it, or even wasn’t paying attention and didn’t realize the extent of it, but the signs of a child’s victimization are there, and so is the impact on the family’s interactions with one another. (InstantProof nails it with the term dysfunction.) The folks like Holly Smith who had an understanding of how prior abuse fits into a pattern and plays a role in the dynamics of a family were unfortunately pulled off the R case and not permitted to speak (or write) about it.

If one or more family members besides the perpetrator do have knowledge about the coercive behaviors, i.e., the abuse, it would be kept secret, particularly in a family with this kind of stature within a community. A cover up of what occurred the night/early morning of JB’s death simply exemplifies the usual and accustomed pattern of conduct: handle in secrecy.

 

[Anti-K]

In my opinion, a six year old with half of her hymen eroded with signs of abuse 48 hours prior to her death is proof enough for me. I want to know why some IDIs disregard that.

There are a number of motivations for the beginning of RDI (for me, that is the head bash) that have nothing to do with the prior sexual abuse, my theory included. The abuse is just another building block of my theory, not the entire reason behind it. In fact, the only sexual abuse I believe happened that night was with the paintbrush (after death). I've read that some RDIs believe this happened because the Ramseys wanted to make it seem as though a pedophile committed this crime. Although I personally don't believe this is the reason behind it, there are many RDIs whose theories don't include the prior sexual abuse at all.

Hi OliviaG1996,
I don’t mean to speak for all of IDI, but I think that many IDI simply do not accept the evidence for prior abuse being as certain as it is most often presented; that is, there is some cause for uncertainty in the evidence; also, they make note of the contrary evidence. I’ll get to this in a minute.

For the sake of discussion my own position has always been to accept that prior abuse did indeed occur. I just don’t see where that takes us. No one has been able to say what form that abuse too, who was responsible for it or who knew about and no one has ever presented a reasonable argument for connecting the abuse to the child’s murder.

That’s a problem.

Okay.

I present the following in an effort to show why some IDI do not believe that prior abuse did occur. I don’t really want to discuss this or defend it because, as I said, for the sake of argument my own position has always been to accept that prior abuse did indeed occur. I ‘m just presenting this as FYI.

First, a couple quote just to show that there is some uncertainty regarding the AR. BBM

Dr Richard Krugman, “told the media that on the basis of what he’d read in the report, Jonbenet was not a sexually abused child. The he added, ‘I don’t believe it’s possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone.’” PMPT; p. 557

“Detective Harmer...reviewed the medical findings about JonBenét's vaginal injuries. Several well-known experts had concluded that the child's hymen was torn weeks or even months before her murder, Harmer said, but other experts had said the tear was recent. Broken blood vessels inside the child's vagina clearly indicated that she was penetrated that night, but there was no conclusive evidence of a sexual assault before that time.” PMPT; p. 781

“The results, however, were not what is known in the legal world as “conclusive” – which means that there can be no other interpretation...” Thomas; p. 254

Medical Examination for Sexual Abuse: Have We Been Misled?
Lee Coleman*
ABSTRACT: There are serious difficulties in diagnosing sexual abuse on the basis of an ano/genital examination. Nevertheless, medical conclusions are often used in court to provide evidence for abuse. The support for the alleged physical indicators of abuse has been based on opinions and claims unsupported by research data. Recent research by John McCann on the ano/genital anatomy in nonabused children has established that findings often attributed to sexual abuse are found in many normal children. McCann's findings were applied to 158 children who had been medically examined in cases of alleged sexual abuse. Nearly all the findings attributed to sexual abuse were present in McCann's sample of nonabused children. More baseline studies are needed, including those comparing nonabused children to children where there is convincing evidence of abuse. In the meantime, the courts need to modify their current practices concerning evidence from ano/genital examinations.
<snip>
At a meeting in San Diego in January, 1988, sponsored by the Center for Child Protection of the San Diego Children's Hospital, McCann reported on this research. Three hundred prepubertal children, carefully screened to rule out prior molest, were examined, and it was found that many of the things currently being attributed to molest are present in normal children. Here are some conclusions:
• Vaginal opening size varies widely in the same child, depending on how much traction is applied and the position of the child while being examined. Knee-chest position (Emans, 1980) leads to different results from frog position.
• Fifty percent of the girls had what McCann calls bands around the urethra. He has heard these described as scars indicative of molest.
• Fifty percent of the girls had small (less than 2 mm) labial adhesions when examined with magnification (colposcope). Twenty-five percent had larger adhesions visible with the naked eye.
• Only 25 percent of hymens are smooth in contour. Half are redundant, and a high percentage are irregular.
• What are often called clefts in the hymen, and attributed to molest, were present in 50 percent of the girls. Commenting on his team's mistaken assumptions at the outset of their study, McCann said, "We were struck with the fact that we couldn't find a normal (hymen). It took us three years before we found a normal of what we had in our minds as a preconceived normal ... you see a lot of variation in this area just like any other part of the body ... We need a lot more information about kids ... we found a wide variety ...
.

And, on we go.

So, as it turns out, the certainty that jbr was the victim of prior abuse as based on physical findings alone is somewhat questionable (I still accept it as being true for the purpose of discussion).

IDI also take into consideration the fact that the family was investigated and that the investigation found that the parents were, as Kolar recently stared in his AMAA, loving and doting. IDI tend to think that the fact that Burke was not removed from the home is telling.

Of course, there are some who argue that bedwetting, soiling, etc also tells a tale, but this, too, is open to debate For example: bedwetting/soiling as indicator of abuse vs bedwetting/soiling as merely consistent with abuse.

Anyway, I hope this comes some ways towards understanding the difference of opinion. Sorry for the length.

BTW, there are IDI who believe that there was prior abuse.
...

AK

 

[tovarisch]

In support of AK`s above post I want to add only simple observation from the IDI`s position. JB`s inner thighs showed wiped blood.
Blood comes when virginity breaks ( read hymen breaks).

In comes only one time. She was virgin (in the sense her hymen was in tact) before the object was inserted.
Was she abused in other form than full intercourse prior to the death? Who can tell it with certainty?

Common, people it`s old as a world, blood on the inner thighs. Everybody knows what it means. It`s nonsense to even discussed it in details.

 

[OliviaG1996]

In support of AK`s above post I want to add only simple observation from the IDI`s position. JB`s inner thighs showed wiped blood.
Blood comes when virginity breaks ( read hymen breaks).

In comes only one time. She was virgin (in the sense her hymen was in tact) before the object was inserted.
Was she abused in other form than full intercourse prior to the death? Who can tell it with certainty?

Common, people it`s old as a world, blood on the inner thighs. Everybody knows what it means. It`s nonsense to even discussed it in details.

The paintbrush was broken when it was inserted. The sharp, broken end of the paintbrush would make anyone bleed, virgin or not. Her hymen wasn't intact, either.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Hi OliviaG1996,
I don&#8217;t mean to speak for all of IDI, but I think that many IDI simply do not accept the evidence for prior abuse being as certain as it is most often presented; that is, there is some cause for uncertainty in the evidence; also, they make note of the contrary evidence. I&#8217;ll get to this in a minute.

For the sake of discussion my own position has always been to accept that prior abuse did indeed occur. I just don&#8217;t see where that takes us. No one has been able to say what form that abuse too, who was responsible for it or who knew about and no one has ever presented a reasonable argument for connecting the abuse to the child&#8217;s murder.

That&#8217;s a problem.

Okay.

I present the following in an effort to show why some IDI do not believe that prior abuse did occur. I don&#8217;t really want to discuss this or defend it because, as I said, for the sake of argument my own position has always been to accept that prior abuse did indeed occur. I &#8216;m just presenting this as FYI.

First, a couple quote just to show that there is some uncertainty regarding the AR. BBM

Dr Richard Krugman, &#8220;told the media that on the basis of what he&#8217;d read in the report, Jonbenet was not a sexually abused child. The he added, &#8216;I don&#8217;t believe it&#8217;s possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone.&#8217;&#8221; PMPT; p. 557

&#8220;Detective Harmer...reviewed the medical findings about JonBenét's vaginal injuries. Several well-known experts had concluded that the child's hymen was torn weeks or even months before her murder, Harmer said, but other experts had said the tear was recent. Broken blood vessels inside the child's vagina clearly indicated that she was penetrated that night, but there was no conclusive evidence of a sexual assault before that time.&#8221; PMPT; p. 781

&#8220;The results, however, were not what is known in the legal world as &#8220;conclusive&#8221; &#8211; which means that there can be no other interpretation...&#8221; Thomas; p. 254

Medical Examination for Sexual Abuse: Have We Been Misled?
Lee Coleman*
ABSTRACT: There are serious difficulties in diagnosing sexual abuse on the basis of an ano/genital examination. Nevertheless, medical conclusions are often used in court to provide evidence for abuse. The support for the alleged physical indicators of abuse has been based on opinions and claims unsupported by research data. Recent research by John McCann on the ano/genital anatomy in nonabused children has established that findings often attributed to sexual abuse are found in many normal children. McCann's findings were applied to 158 children who had been medically examined in cases of alleged sexual abuse. Nearly all the findings attributed to sexual abuse were present in McCann's sample of nonabused children. More baseline studies are needed, including those comparing nonabused children to children where there is convincing evidence of abuse. In the meantime, the courts need to modify their current practices concerning evidence from ano/genital examinations.
<snip>
At a meeting in San Diego in January, 1988, sponsored by the Center for Child Protection of the San Diego Children's Hospital, McCann reported on this research. Three hundred prepubertal children, carefully screened to rule out prior molest, were examined, and it was found that many of the things currently being attributed to molest are present in normal children. Here are some conclusions:
&#8226; Vaginal opening size varies widely in the same child, depending on how much traction is applied and the position of the child while being examined. Knee-chest position (Emans, 1980) leads to different results from frog position.
&#8226; Fifty percent of the girls had what McCann calls bands around the urethra. He has heard these described as scars indicative of molest.
&#8226; Fifty percent of the girls had small (less than 2 mm) labial adhesions when examined with magnification (colposcope). Twenty-five percent had larger adhesions visible with the naked eye.
&#8226; Only 25 percent of hymens are smooth in contour. Half are redundant, and a high percentage are irregular.
&#8226; What are often called clefts in the hymen, and attributed to molest, were present in 50 percent of the girls. Commenting on his team's mistaken assumptions at the outset of their study, McCann said, "We were struck with the fact that we couldn't find a normal (hymen). It took us three years before we found a normal of what we had in our minds as a preconceived normal ... you see a lot of variation in this area just like any other part of the body ... We need a lot more information about kids ... we found a wide variety ...
.

And, on we go.

So, as it turns out, the certainty that jbr was the victim of prior abuse as based on physical findings alone is somewhat questionable (I still accept it as being true for the purpose of discussion).

IDI also take into consideration the fact that the family was investigated and that the investigation found that the parents were, as Kolar recently stared in his AMAA, loving and doting. IDI tend to think that the fact that Burke was not removed from the home is telling.

Of course, there are some who argue that bedwetting, soiling, etc also tells a tale, but this, too, is open to debate For example: bedwetting/soiling as indicator of abuse vs bedwetting/soiling as merely consistent with abuse.

Anyway, I hope this comes some ways towards understanding the difference of opinion. Sorry for the length.

BTW, there are IDI who believe that there was prior abuse.
...

AK

Thank you for the research, Anti-K! It was an interesting read.

 

[tovarisch]

The paintbrush was broken when it was inserted. The sharp, broken end of the paintbrush would make anyone bleed, virgin or not. Her hymen wasn't intact, either.

Unless serious injures in vagina had been done other than to the hymen . Prove that JB`s vagina besides hymen had serious cuts.

We are talking about JB not anyone. What do you know about her vaginal injures that made her blood run down her thighs?
How do you know her hymen was not intact?

 

[OliviaG1996]

Unless serious injures in vagina had been done other than to the hymen . Prove that JB`s vagina besides hymen had serious cuts.

We are talking about JB not anyone. What do you know about her vaginal injures that made her blood run down her thighs?
How do you know her hymen was not intact?

From The Bonita Papers:

In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation&#8217;s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

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. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in &#8211; not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

 

[Anti-K]

Something else that&#8217;s bugging me.

We often hear it said that without the ransom note then all we would have is a &#8220;sexually abused murder victim in the basement.&#8221;
As if removing a major piece of evidence such as this would not have any impact on the rest of what was presented. How could that be?

If we remove the ransom note than we are removing the intent to report and stage a kidnapping. So, we don&#8217;t need to hide the victim in the basement anymore (we still can, but we don&#8217;t have to).

The tape and the wrist ligatures are part of the kidnapping, so they can go, too.

Right?

Of course, that&#8217;s right. No ransom note = no kidnapping = no kidnapping elements.

Can we remove anything else?

Yes! Of course we can. Why not? When we remove the ransom note we alter the whole dynamic.

Right?

Of course, that&#8217;s right.

The asphyxiation and the sexual assault were deliberate and intentional acts that occurred very, very close together, probably simultaneously (garrote is hands-free after quick, hard pull). Neither act fits in with the kidnapping scenario, so maybe we can leave them, but there is no reason why we have to leave them. so, we can remove them, too.

IMO, if we are going to remove elements of the crime than we really need to take things back to the beginning. Because, this is likely where decisions begin to be made. So, if we&#8217;re going to remove the note (fake kidnapping), then we should remove everything else.

Now, we&#8217;re back to the head blow. She&#8217;s been struck.

She&#8217;s down for the count. What do we do now (or, do we act without consideration because we are panicked?).
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

Something else that&#8217;s bugging me.
[snip]

IMO, if we are going to remove elements of the crime than we really need to take things back to the beginning. Because, this is likely where decisions begin to be made. So, if we&#8217;re going to remove the note (fake kidnapping), then we should remove everything else.

Now, we&#8217;re back to the head blow. She&#8217;s been struck.

She&#8217;s down for the count. What do we do now (or, do we act without consideration because we are panicked?).
...

AK

Respectfully snipped by me.

Yes, the head blow, either accidental or unintentional. (It must be the head blow first (for RDI) because it's unlikely the strangulation was accidental/unintentional.)

Now we are back to the prior sexual assault.
Without this, there is no motivation for anything else.

Take away prior sexual assault and you have nothing.

No previous history of sexual assault.
No previous history of violence.
In fact, the children were rarely chastised let alone punished (even according to LHP).

In 1996, many children were incorrectly diagnosed as having been sexually assaulted, according to the evidence and medical opinion of the day.
Now, physical findings alone are not taken as evidence of sexual assault without corresponding environmental evidence when investigating familial abuse.
The two go hand in hand and finding an eroded hymen in a prepubescent girl has been proven not to be conclusive evidence of sexual activity, but can be simply a variation of normal physiology.

 

[tovarisch]

From The Bonita Papers:

In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

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. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

Expert was unsure where the blood originated ? There were no visible lacerations ? Do you have an idea where blood originated? I eager to hear your version.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Expert was unsure where the blood originated ? There were no visible lacerations ? Do you have an idea where blood originated? I eager to hear your version.

I'm surprised that's all you got from what I posted, but I'll answer your question. The blood originated from where she was stabbed with the paintbrush... her vagina. Where else would it come from?

 

[DeeDee249]

In support of AK`s above post I want to add only simple observation from the IDI`s position. JB`s inner thighs showed wiped blood.
Blood comes when virginity breaks ( read hymen breaks).

In comes only one time. She was virgin (in the sense her hymen was in tact) before the object was inserted.
Was she abused in other form than full intercourse prior to the death? Who can tell it with certainty?

Common, people it`s old as a world, blood on the inner thighs. Everybody knows what it means. It`s nonsense to even discussed it in details.

There isn't THAT much blood when virginity is lost. Certainly not enough to necessitate her thighs and pubic area being wiped down. Aside from that, the coroner did not report a torn hymen. He reported an eroded hymen- which meant it was rubbed or worn away, not broken or torn. The erosion didn't happen that one time (or even that one night). The coroner expressed his opinion to those present at the autopsy that there had been prior sexual assault- some of the bruising in the vagina was at various stages of healing- and some would have taken a few days to heal. The autopsy found both acute injuries (meaning happened that night at or near the time of death) and also chronic injuries (meaning they happened at least 24-28 hours before and possible longer). It is also nonsense to assume the blood means only one thing- loss of virginity- in light of the FACT that bruising was seen as well as wood splinters inside her, and the recent confirmation that a piece of the wood paintbrush was found inside her vagina. So I'd say the blood on the thighs means much more than loss of virginity. The coroner also reported to police present at the autopsy that he did not feel her injuries were consistent with penetration by a penis, but rather digital penetration.

 

[tovarisch]

I'm surprised that's all you got from what I posted, but I'll answer your question. The blood originated from where she was stabbed with the paintbrush... her vagina. Where else would it come from?

What part of the vagina? There were no visible lacerations, couple small bruises and broken hymen. What part of injured vagina produced blood that run from inside of vagina down her thighs?

 

[OliviaG1996]

What part of the vagina? There were no visible lacerations, couple small bruises and broken hymen. What part of injured vagina produced blood that run from inside of vagina down her thighs?

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.