'Splain' this 1 for me please....About Bedwetters:

[julianne]

I have to admit before I hit "submit reply" to my 1st post on this topic, the memory of some movie or TV show in which each member of a 'female sexuality support group' were given hand held mirrors and told to go home and in the privacy of their own boudoir to 'explore their being'...

For a split second, I wished for a powerpoint slide show orchestrated by my OBGYN "from his point of view, up close and very personal of me, with film copyrighted no later than 1972.

It would have been nice, being a female, to have had a friggin clue about the appearance and structure of my own gender's most treasured subject.

OK..enough...delving into the personal arena of my mind!

Back to contemplations........Julianne

Isn't that the truth, angelwngs. I have given birth to 3 children & read just about every single book, magazine, or article on conception, childbirth & such, and never got an education like I did while reading the stuff from the AAFP. Just goes to show me that just when I think I know it all, or even most of it all, I clearly don't.

 

[julianne]

SuperDave wrote:

They asked Dr. McCann that question. He and seven other sex abuse experts said that this was not masturbation.

How can a doctor determine that a partially perforated hymen is NOT self-induced? How would the physical results be any different if somebody else performed the "act" versus JonBenet performing the act? I know it's been said that 7 "sex abuse experts" came to the conclusion that this wasn't masturbation, but what reasons are they basing that on? Did they ever state "This wasn't due to masturbation because___________________, and masturbation wouldn't cause ___________________. Or did they ever state "This was a result of sexual abuse because _____________, and masturbation wouldn't cause _____________? I just wonder if they made the statement of what it wasn't and that was the end of the story, or if they were able to justify WHY they made that determination?

What physical findings PROVED that it wasn't self-induced?

Again, I'll insert my ever present disclaimer that I am not arguing. I'm not even neccessarily disputing what these 7 sex abuse experts said---but IF they can make the statement of what it is NOT, surely they can give reasons that support that? Maybe that information is already out there and I'm just not aware of it?

 

[Jolynna]

As Patsy has stated, JonBenet usually was damp and at times would develop "diaper rash". She would apply the Desitin on her and I assume that would have taken care of the problem

If you had a child prone to diaper rash and if for whatever reason you didn't put her on the potty, would you NOT use the pull-ups instead of letting your daughter maybe have to sleep in wet clothes all night? Especially those baggy size 12 bloomies stuffed under tight leggings. Can you imagine what those huge wrinkled up soggy wet panties stuffed into tight heavy wet leggings would be like?

I also asked about wearing party jewelry to bed. I would never do that. What woman wears her party jewelry to bed?

 

[Jolynna]

The jewelry that JonBenet and Patsy had to have not seemed comfortable to sleep in. The LE detectives that interviewed Patsy on in 1997 were MEN and THEY thought it unusual enough to question Patsy about it.

 

[sandraladeda]

I am totally guessing at the answer to your question (so basically, it's worthless, teehee) but my GUESS is this. The angle of one's own reach is limited, so the effects of masturbation on the hymen would likely be limited to a certain angle. In some of the reports, the hymenal area in question is referred to as "at 7 o'clock" or whatever. My guess is that changes observed at certain positions (again, one o'clock, 2 o'clock, etc) are consistent with masturbation, others are consistent with someone else performing the act. make any sense?

A second measure might be that the person performing the act on oneself will know what hurts and what does not hurt, and would stop short of inflicting pain on oneself, and will therefore stop short of inflicitng the sort of injury which leads to "changes". The person performing the act on another is not constrained by this pain response, and may, in fact, be doing the act in order to inflict pain (for their own pleasure orfor corporal punishment, as has been speculated in this case) Therefore, the injury/scar tissue/"changes" may be a different degree in the case of abuse. Make any sense?

To steal a phrase from SuperDave I'm just "spitballing".....

 

[julianne]

I am totally guessing at the answer to your question (so basically, it's worthless, teehee) but my GUESS is this. The angle of one's own reach is limited, so the effects of masturbation on the hymen would likely be limited to a certain angle. In some of the reports, the hymenal area in question is referred to as "at 7 o'clock" or whatever. My guess is that changes observed at certain positions (again, one o'clock, 2 o'clock, etc) are consistent with masturbation, others are consistent with someone else performing the act. make any sense?

A second measure might be that the person performing the act on oneself will know what hurts and what does not hurt, and would stop short of inflicting pain on oneself, and will therefore stop short of inflicitng the sort of injury which leads to "changes". The person performing the act on another is not constrained by this pain response, and may, in fact, be doing the act in order to inflict pain (for their own pleasure orfor corporal punishment, as has been speculated in this case) Therefore, the injury/scar tissue/"changes" may be a different degree in the case of abuse. Make any sense?

To steal a phrase from SuperDave I'm just "spitballing".....

Oh, it's definitely not worthless! All I do is guess...all ANYONE here does is guess, really...so if your guess is worthless, then all our guesses are worthless, too. Seriously, though, this WS group has some real smarties here. (As in intelligent, not smart-alecs, LOL)

It does make sense...I totally see what you're saying. That very well COULD be a reason they came to their conclusions. Does anyone know if they did give any reasons as to why they came to their conclusions?

 

[julianne]

Jolynna posted:
If JonBenet was in enough pain and had enough of an irritation for Patsy to use an ointment why would she not have used pullups on JBR to give her a chance to heal. She said in one interview that she was not using the pullups so that JonBenet would experience being wet (as bedwetting training, I think she meant). But, obviously JonBenet was sore "down there". Letting her be wet so she would be in pain to train her not to wet her bed doesn't sound very caring or empathetic to her child's problem.

From what I remember, Desitin acts as a barrier to wetness. It is extremely thick and messy---but it does prevent wetness from getting to the affected area.

 

[Jolynna]

From what I remember, Desitin acts as a barrier to wetness. It is extremely thick and messy---but it does prevent wetness from getting to the affected area.

It does, but it wasn't applied on the 25th. Even if JonBenet had been wiped down there still would have been traces on either her body or the clothes. Pathologists would have noted it, you can't miss the smell. Patsy's words to the police investigators were that she had stopped using the pull-ups because she thought letting JonBenet get wet would discourage the bed wetting.

Only Patsy didn't even take her to the potty before bedtime. Or get her up later. JonBenet had been dressed in the baggy bloomies stuffed into tight leggings, too. Those bloomies had to have gone halfway down her legs and felt awful all wet and soggy inside the leggings. If she had lived, I would think JB would have had a rash down the insides of her thighs as well as on her other areas from spending a whole night being pressed against the WET CRUMPLED bloomies inside those WET leggings.

 

[JMO8778]

As for the vaginitis,IMO,I suspect PR got too rough in wiping and cleaning up JB whenever there was an accident.I'm betting that's why she called the Dr. those 3 times within a few mins.JB was probably sore and in a lot of pain from it.
As for the abuse the night of her death,I agree with a lot of ppl that it was from the paintbrush after her death,to cover and/or make it appear to be from sexual abuse.
As for the chronic abuse,I don't have a firm opinion on it either way,but I suspect it could have been from sexual abuse of some form.

 

[Mama-cita]

It does, but it wasn't applied on the 25th. Even if JonBenet had been wiped down there still would have been traces on either her body or the clothes. Pathologists would have noted it, you can't miss the smell. Patsy's words to the police investigators were that she had stopped using the pull-ups because she thought letting JonBenet get wet would discourage the bed wetting.

Definitely, any parent can attest to the unmistakable strong odor of Desitin! Since it is also a waterproof barrier as julianne mentioned, it is extremely difficult to wash off so if it was present, they would've found some trace of it, either in the undies or on her. (Off topic but on the subject of Bum creams, I prefer PINXAV for my kids, it has a stronger smell -- eucalyptus oil, and it is bright pink but it works wonders, makes any semblance of a rash gone after one application. But BOY does it ever suck to get it off your hands; my hubby the pharmacist always says "Wipe it off completely with a towel, then wash thouroughly with soap and water." I still always feel a little greasy for a while afterwards...)

 

[julianne]

It does, but it wasn't applied on the 25th. Even if JonBenet had been wiped down there still would have been traces on either her body or the clothes. Pathologists would have noted it, you can't miss the smell. Patsy's words to the police investigators were that she had stopped using the pull-ups because she thought letting JonBenet get wet would discourage the bed wetting.

I definitely agree that even if she was wiped down, there absolutely would've been traces of it, as you & Mama-cita said. That stuff is near impossible to get off.

 

[Jolynna]

Didn't one of the housekeepers say Patsy was rough with JonBenet when cleaning her up after accidents?

 

[julianne]

I've heard people say that on here before, but I don't know where/when/how it originated. Are there LE transcripts of interviews with her available on the web?

 

[Nova]

My son was in pull-ups at age 5.I don't know as that's so unusual.Dr said not to dwell on it,and that he would go when he was ready.He was just a strong-willed child and that was his way of controlling us.Once we stopped trying,he started to go on his own.

Good for you and for your doctor! (Seriously, you sound like a wise parent.)

But how many beauty pageants has your son done in his pull-ups?

I'm not condemning the Rs for letting JBR do pageants. But I have trouble reconciling (i) PR is sufficiently concerned with "presentation" that she believes pageants are worth the trouble, with (ii) JBR soiling her pants is no big deal.

 

[Jolynna]

Peter Boyle interviewed both Hoffman-Pugh and the former housekeeper Linda Wilcox. While Boyle is obviously not IDI, the housekeepers are using their own words and I believe were honest about what they saw. Their impressions of the family and experiences are similar.

Then Hoffman-Pugh WAS interviewed for the grand jury and her testimony was sealed. Her interviews were given before the grand jury and she has been prevented from giving out information about her testimony there although Hoffman-Pugh did sue to have that info opened.

There are two interviews transcripts available online with Hoffman-Pugh and one with Linda Wilcox.

 

[angelwngs]

Quote found @ acandyrose.com from an interview quoting Patsy Ramsey:

Pressed for further details of that night, Patsy responded like a woman who has had lawyers in her life for too many years: "It was 4 1/2 years ago. I have not rehearsed or reread my previous statements."

This PR quote says it all........

 

[BBB167893]

"I'm still on the fence, though, because haven't other 'experts' refuted that very statement? I don't know...."

Not really. Werner Spitz was the only one who didn't agree that there was chronic abuse, and even then, he didn't say there was none. He said he couldn't say for certain.

"Geez, I feel the love...not! Be nice, SuperDave. Don't make me unleash SuperJulianne."

You do that, and I'll make sure Werewolf Dave sees the full moon! LOL

In all honesty, I didn't mean anything by it.

"I'm sure he most likely is aware of those writings, and I don't think he just fell off the truck. Somebody pushed him off."

Care to explain what THAT means?

How can a doctor determine that a partially perforated hymen is NOT self-induced? How would the physical results be any different if somebody else performed the "act" versus JonBenet performing the act? I know it's been said that 7 "sex abuse experts" came to the conclusion that this wasn't masturbation, but what reasons are they basing that on? Did they ever state "This wasn't due to masturbation because___________________, and masturbation wouldn't cause ___________________. Or did they ever state "This was a result of sexual abuse because _____________, and masturbation wouldn't cause _____________? I just wonder if they made the statement of what it wasn't and that was the end of the story, or if they were able to justify WHY they made that determination?
What physical findings PROVED that it wasn't self-induced?

To wit:

I am totally guessing at the answer to your question (so basically, it's worthless, teehee) but my GUESS is this. The angle of one's own reach is limited, so the effects of masturbation on the hymen would likely be limited to a certain angle. In some of the reports, the hymenal area in question is referred to as "at 7 o'clock" or whatever. My guess is that changes observed at certain positions (again, one o'clock, 2 o'clock, etc) are consistent with masturbation, others are consistent with someone else performing the act. make any sense?
A second measure might be that the person performing the act on oneself will know what hurts and what does not hurt, and would stop short of inflicting pain on oneself, and will therefore stop short of inflicitng the sort of injury which leads to "changes". The person performing the act on another is not constrained by this pain response, and may, in fact, be doing the act in order to inflict pain (for their own pleasure orfor corporal punishment, as has been speculated in this case) Therefore, the injury/scar tissue/"changes" may be a different degree in the case of abuse. Make any sense?

Those are probably it, julianne. But I am looking

"To steal a phrase from SuperDave I'm just 'spitballing'"

Go ahead! Steal it!

"That very well COULD be a reason they came to their conclusions. Does anyone know if they did give any reasons as to why they came to their conclusions?"

I think they did, but they weren't mentioned in the summarized write-ups. They probably would answer those questions at a trial.

"Didn't one of the housekeepers say Patsy was rough with JonBenet when cleaning her up after accidents?"

Yeah. LHP in her book chapter.

 

[Toltec]

I did not say Patsy applied Desitin on JonBenet that night...just saying she would apply it on her if she complained of rash or soreness.

 

[julianne]

"I'm sure he most likely is aware of those writings, and I don't think he just fell off the truck. Somebody pushed him off."

Care to explain what THAT means?

Well, I thought I already DID explain it in the sentences that directly followed, but it's certainly not evident in your quote of my post because you stopped my statement where you did and didn't include the rest of it.:waitasec:

So, I have recopied it in it's complete form. See below.

In response to your statement regarding him "falling off the truck"....I replied:

"I'm sure he most likely is aware of those writings, and I don't think he just fell off the truck. Somebody pushed him off. Sorry, I couldn't resist....on account of I'm feelin' a tad squirrly today." (Post #95 of this thread)


See, I was injecting what I thought was HUMOR in my reply to you, just as you have also done on occasion, I might add.

Apparently my thoughts were wrong.

Please accept my apology.

 

[Linda7NJ]

If you had a child prone to diaper rash and if for whatever reason you didn't put her on the potty, would you NOT use the pull-ups instead of letting your daughter maybe have to sleep in wet clothes all night? Especially those baggy size 12 bloomies stuffed under tight leggings. Can you imagine what those huge wrinkled up soggy wet panties stuffed into tight heavy wet leggings would be like?

I also asked about wearing party jewelry to bed. I would never do that. What woman wears her party jewelry to bed?

Personally, I think Patsy was LAZY and didn't care much about Jon Benet's hygiene or comfort.

I also think Patsy had some mental issues. Perhaps they is why she couldn't manage to care for her child as a normal parent would.