True or False?

[BlueCrab]

Another thing that I've recently wondered....Patsy goes to lengths to make sure that we know (via DOI) that she took time to wash out a jumpsuit of JB's, outside JB's bedroom in the sink area.

Nehemiah,

In regard to the jumpsuit, that's not the info I have. Patsy didn't rinse it out. From the 1998 interviews:

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember -- remember laying the little red jumpsuit of JonBenet's over the ironing board, because it had a few spots on it, so I was thinking when I came back from the lake I was going to take that to the dry cleaners, and decided to lay that under there somewhere."

TOM HANEY: "Was that -- it wasn't something you were going to take to the lake?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No, no, it was something she had worn to a Christmas performance. It was a little Christmas thing."

TOM HANEY: "When had she worn that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "She had worn it -- well, she wore it, some of her pageant girls performed together in a group, some Christmas songs and things, down in a mall in Denver, she wore it for that."

BlueCrab

 

[RedChief]

Nehemiah,

Am I really in Dubai, you ask.

Not at liberty to say.

TOP SECRET

 

[Nehemiah]

Nehemiah,

In regard to the jumpsuit, that's not the info I have. Patsy didn't rinse it out. From the 1998 interviews:

PATSY RAMSEY: "I remember -- remember laying the little red jumpsuit of JonBenet's over the ironing board, because it had a few spots on it, so I was thinking when I came back from the lake I was going to take that to the dry cleaners, and decided to lay that under there somewhere."

TOM HANEY: "Was that -- it wasn't something you were going to take to the lake?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "No, no, it was something she had worn to a Christmas performance. It was a little Christmas thing."

TOM HANEY: "When had she worn that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "She had worn it -- well, she wore it, some of her pageant girls performed together in a group, some Christmas songs and things, down in a mall in Denver, she wore it for that."

BlueCrab

From the 1997 interviews:

PR: ...John was still in the bathroom and went, uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area (the Ramseys had a small washer-dryer setup on the second floor near JonBenet's room, and a larger laundry area in the basement). And I remember the ironing board was up, I think, and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet's 'cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and, uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area...."

I thought I had read somewhere that she washed out the jumpsuit. Apparently, I mistook "fussing around" with the jumpsuit as washing/rinsing it. I'll have to look in PMPT but I don't have it right now. Not sure what "fussing around" actually means here in this passage.

 

[RedChief]

I thought I had read somewhere that she washed out the jumpsuit. Apparently, I mistook "fussing around" with the jumpsuit as washing/rinsing it. I'll have to look in PMPT but I don't have it right now. Not sure what "fussing around" actually means here in this passage.

Nehemiah,

You know I, too, was under the impression that Patsy claimed to have rinsed out the red jumpsuit. Don't know whether I read that in a book, or interview or on this forum or got it from a media source. That would be a good thing to get pinned down. BTW, why is she "fussing" with that article of clothing when she's supposed to be in a big hurry to get things packed in the plastic bags preparatory to their departure; also has to get the coffee boiled and get the kids up. Seems her priorities were out of whack.

I think the jumpsuit has been confused with the red turtleneck from time to time. If the turtleneck is described as being balled up on a counter in the bathroom, the impression for some may be that it has been rinsed. If the turtleneck is confused with the red jumpsuit then some may think the jumpsuit has been rinsed.

This is the best I can do at the moment.

amazed in Amazonia...

 

[RedChief]

JonBenet's hymen was torn?

JonBenet's vagina was scarred from previous sexual abuse?

 

[sissi]

JonBenet's hymen was torn?

JonBenet's vagina was scarred from previous sexual abuse?

Ah, a starting point for a free for all!

hymen 1c*1c..interpreted by sissi as intact
bruising, abrasions, I have no idea what they mean, but they strongly suggest an acute vaginal assault at the time of the murder
sissi is not a gynecologist

Chronic inflammation, (don't hit me) sounds like a side effect of bedwetting /bubble bath/overuse of antibiotics..knowing this , I would have to think it was not caused by previous sexual molestation. However, I have considered this possibility, and am open to be converted entirely if anyone can present a fair case.

 

[RedChief]

Ah, a starting point for a free for all!

hymen 1c*1c..interpreted by sissi as intact
bruising, abrasions, I have no idea what they mean, but they strongly suggest an acute vaginal assault at the time of the murder
sissi is not a gynecologist

Chronic inflammation, (don't hit me) sounds like a side effect of bedwetting /bubble bath/overuse of antibiotics..knowing this , I would have to think it was not caused by previous sexual molestation. However, I have considered this possibility, and am open to be converted entirely if anyone can present a fair case.

sissi,

Beuf was a pediatrician, and he said he saw no sign of sexual abuse during any of his examinations. I'm inclined to think he was fairly thorough, because some mothers accused of him of being too thorough; perfoming unnecessary exams. Guess you can't please everybody. Give the guy a break; he's a rocket scientist.

The chronic interstitial inflammation could be attributable to vaginitis, which in turn could be attributable to poor hygiene and the things you mentioned.

There was no mention of a torn hymen in the autopsy report. I don't think that would have been something the coroner would leave out; too important.

There was mention of an abraded hymen (1 cm area: need another dimension to get area= cm2) and some abrasion in the vagina in proximity to the 1 cm area, fore and aft.

Don't think there was any sign of prior abuse; certainly not scarring. It was a one-time deal.

That's what I think.....

 

[BlueCrab]

sissi,

Beuf was a pediatrician, and he said he saw no sign of sexual abuse during any of his examinations. I'm inclined to think he was fairly thorough, because some mothers accused of him of being too thorough; perfoming unnecessary exams. Guess you can't please everybody. Give the guy a break; he's a rocket scientist.

The chronic interstitial inflammation could be attributable to vaginitis, which in turn could be attributable to poor hygiene and the things you mentioned.

There was no mention of a torn hymen in the autopsy report. I don't think that would have been something the coroner would leave out; too important.

There was mention of an abraded hymen (1 cm area: need another dimension to get area= cm2) and some abrasion in the vagina in proximity to the 1 cm area, fore and aft.

Don't think there was any sign of prior abuse; certainly not scarring. It was a one-time deal.

That's what I think.....

RedChief,

Sorry my friend. You are wrong.

Beuf never gave JonBenet an internal examination; no pediatrician would do that to a six-year-old unless it was absolutely necessary. It would have been extremely painful. Beuf's examinations were external.

The autopsy report didn't mention a torn hymen because JonBenet didn't have much of a hymen remaining:

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions."

JonBenet had indeed suffered prior sexual abuse. This was affirmed by all of the pathologists who studied the autopsy report and the slides taken during the autopsy. These pathologists were:

Dr. David Jones
Dr. James Monteleone
Dr. John McCann
Dr. Cyril Wecht
Dr. Ronald Wright
Dr. Richard Krugman, and
Dr. Werner Spitz.

Krugman and Spitz made qualified reports, but they didn't deny the sexual abuse.

BlueCrab

 

[BlueCrab]

Okay, but you are still 100% wrong. I didn't quote Schiller; I quoted the autopsy report:

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions."

There is no hymen. You can't tear something that isn't there. The rim of mucosal tissue "represents" where the hymen once was.

With respect to the panel of doctors who were appointed by the BPD to examine the autopsy results to determine whether or not JonBenet had suffered past sexual abuse, are you challenging their findings? If so, may we please have your source? Thank you.

BlueCrab

 

[RedChief]

RedChief,

Okay, but you are still 100% wrong. I didn't quote Schiller; I quoted the autopsy report:

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions."

There is no hymen. You can't tear something that isn't there. The rim of mucosal tissue "represents" where the hymen once was.

With respect to the panel of doctors who were appointed by the BPD to examine the autopsy results to determine whether or not JonBenet had suffered past sexual abuse, are you challenging their findings? If so, may we please have your source? Thank you.BlueCrab

No, BlueCrab,

You are misinterpreting the description of the hymen; it may be a normal hymen. The hymen is an extremely variable piece of equipment from individual to individual; go to any reputable website and check it out for yourself. If you'd like, I will recommend one to you. I found a description yesterday, on a site devoted to the detection of sexual abuse, of a normal hymen that was just the REVERSE of JonBenet's.

No, the rim of mucosal tissue DOESN'T represent where the hymen once was; you got that from Schiller; he planted that idea in your brain. He misinterpreted the coroner's report also. He said "what remains of the hymen is a rim of mucosal tissue..." blah, blah, blah. You're repeating his mistake.

If the hymen had been torn in this incident, the tear would have been discovered at autopsy and noted in the report. That's too important a piece of evidence to leave out. Call John Meyer and ask him. The only injuries to the vagina were those noted in the report. The rim of mucosal tissue (that's what a hymen consists of) was not what remained following the acute injury. That's totally false. That's a false inference.

If you want to think that part of the hymen is missing (for no good reason, I might add) then you can speculate that it was injured at some time in the past. But, don't attribute what you think is a torn hymen to this incident. That is totally misleading.

Futhermore, it's not unusual for little girls to injure their hymens; especially little girls who are quite physically active and ride bikes. An injured hymen is never proof positive of sexual abuse; in fact, it hardly ever is.

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions." That's right; he's describing the hymen, not the aftermath of any injury.

The torn hymen is a myth. I think we should start a thread--"myths of the Ramsey case" and clear up some of these misperceptions.

Wecht is a media .

That's how I see it.....

 

[skybluepink]

Q: In theory, would stungunnning affect a 45-pound child differently from the way it would affect your basic adult? Also, IF one were to stungun a 45-pound child, would the fact that the child had wet pants at the time affect the effect?

(Ah so, "RedChief" as in "Ransom of"; beddy amusing.)

 

[RedChief]

Q: In theory, would stungunnning affect a 45-pound child differently from the way it would affect your basic adult? Also, IF one were to stungun a 45-pound child, would the fact that the child had wet pants at the time affect the effect?

(Ah so, "RedChief" as in "Ransom of"; beddy amusing.)

Sky,

If you attempted to stun her thru the wet pants, you'd short-circuit the gun. Urine is an electrolyte. It would act as a shield.

Stunning a 45-lb child could kill her; whether she would succumb to stunning would depend on where you stunned her, how long you stunned her, and with which gun? Stunning the child probably wouldn't knock her out. It might be possible to stun her at just the right spot and paralyze her diaphragm. If that happened, she'd asphyxiate. JonBenet's asphyxiation, however, wasn't caused by stunning.

Just as the adult would very likely scream, so would the child.

If JonBenet was stunned, such stunning probably didn't take place in her bedroom.

The stunning matter is hotly debated--was she or wasn't she--like several other aspects of this case.

There's a thread about stun guns; you might want to check it out, if you haven't already.

TWO DESPERATE MEN

 

[sissi]

Just to refresh our memories, and not to include anyone's "opinions'..

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violent discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified.

 

[RedChief]

Hey sissi,

What's the big idea of "misinforming" us with an excerpt from the autopsy report. (grin) What's the big idea of confusing us with the facts.

Next you'll be "misinforming" us with an excerpt from the 1998 interview.

I know what's coming next--those slices of vaginal mucosa; they tell the whole story; they tell us who murdered JonBenet.

Uh, oh....I forgot about the mystery DNA in the panties.

Back to the drawing board....

PS: It's a good point you bring up about the opinions. We have data, and we have opinions about the data. It's good to remember that they are separate and distinct.

RedChief

 

[sissi]

I copied and pasted, I am not to be responsible for "violent"...and my reasons were a bit selfish..cm2!
Although,sometimes we do have to step back in order to separate what we know from what we think we know

 

[BlueCrab]

RedChief,

Please post your source that contradicts the findings of the board certified forensic pathologists who, as a group, verified that JonBenet had been chronically sexually abused.

 

[sissi]

There are many BC who have suggested she was chronically molested ,however there are many,who, based on "EVIDENCE" are unwilling to take that leap!

 

[RedChief]

sissi, et al

Would it be helpful to ignore some of the evidence (pretend for the purpose of this exercise that it doesn't exist) and see how that changes our perceptions? It seems to me that we have conflicting evidence; i.e., a galaxy of evidence that doesnt make sense to some of us.

Toward that end, let me suggest erasing two items--the vaginal injury and the supposed wiping; in other words, the overt sexual aspect of the crime. Then we'd have a body in a blanket in the room in the basement, behind a closed and latched door, in urine-stained clothing with a cord around her neck and wrist and her arms stretched (maybe) beyond her head. Maybe we should go one step further, and ignore any equivocal "evidence", such as the posture of the arms or the nature of the knots or the nature of the "abrasions".

Maybe we should go one step further and ask ourselves, what is our first impression when we first step through the door and switch on the light? What are our early impressions? At that point we can't see the urine stain, nor the head injury, nor the bruising, nor the shoulder petechiae, nor the mystery mark on the right side of the cheek, nor the scratch-like marks on the leg, nor the mystery marks on the back, etc. When we first switch on the light, there is a lot of evidence we can't see, but what we can see is that, there she is; what in the world is she doing here!?

Take away one item or aspect, and see how it affects our perceptions.

Worth a try?

 

[gaia]

This is a great idea. I really like your limber brain!

Let's see. I'm called by Patsy and told her daughter has been kidnapped. I arrive at the house and others are there too. Friends and police. Patsy is extremely distraught and John seems withdrawn. We wait. A policewoman tells John and his friend to take another look around. John goes down to the basement and finds JB. I'm right behind him. He opens the door and walks in and finds her. She's displayed the way you have described, Red Chief.

I am immediately stunned by what I see. It's her! She's covered and not moving. She's dead is my thought. I'm thinking, "Now wait a minute, she was kidnapped! Huh? What's she doing here in the basement - dead?" This is unreal. NO way this child is here. How can this be? Something is really incongruent about this situation. Kidnapped? What's she doing here? I just can't get beyond that. I'm stuck. I can't go on unless I get some info about kidnappers. Have they called? Did John rush out and get the money? He was drinking. I know he was upset earlier, but what's the deal? He went out of the house earlier. How come the police allow this? John and Patsy are separate - very separate.

I just can't put a kidnapping together with this result.

 

[BlueCrab]

There are many BC who have suggested she was chronically molested ,however there are many,who, based on "EVIDENCE" are unwilling to take that leap!

sissi,

Who are they? And what is their evidence?