Undoing

[Ames]

Chronic means more than one isolated event of violation. The erosion is explained by the fact it was again not an isolated event but rather it was chronic abuse, the question is not was the abuse repetitive but who was the abuser and what was used that created that erosion, was it digital or by a douche applicator or what are the other possibilities ?

See, that's why I am still on the fence...a douch applicator could not only cause the enlarged opening, but also the eroded hymen...and then...on the other side of the coin, we also have the bedwetting, and the soiling of her pants during the day.

 

[4sure]

rashomon,

Coroner Meyer in his autopsy report and verbally tells you unambiguously that JonBenet prior to her death was subject to sexual contact. He also suggested that her vagina displayed signs of digital penetration, now he was present, he conducted the autopsy, everyone else used photographs.


.

Where?

 

[JMO8778]

UK,how could he *know that for sure? How could say *for sure* that it wasn't caused by a douche? B/c I understand that the cells can be looked at and chronic inflammation can be noted,but how could Cor. Meyer say for sure whether she was subjected to sexual contact or not,*right b/f her death? It could have come from staging also,couldn't it? b/c that's an acute injury,just as sexual contact right b/f death would be.

 

[Tober]

1) Do you believe JonBenet had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse?

Yes, I've always found Cyril Wecht's analysis helpful in seeing how the autopsy findings support this: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/9101/wecht.html

 

[coloradokares]

Has it ever been reported elsewhere that it was well known in some circles that douching was happening? What I mean is, all I have ever read is that it is just supposition that this COULD have been happening. This is the only place I have ever read that a poster has reported this as being a fact to some people. And if it was indeed well-known, is there any documentation that this was reported to LE? Links?

Let me speak to this as I am coloradokares and the ONLY one to report this as absolute fact is IDI trying to trip up an RDI by reporting this as fact > We none of us can say that is unless we have been there and seen it and I was not. It was a high suspicion I think that started with LHP and the evidence and the screaming and with Steves theory on the cororal punishmet etc. Do I beleive it.... I am suspicious but can I prove it absolutey no and I choose not to keep repeating this and fiind myself sued as the starter of this theory as a fact. I WAS NOT IN THE ROOM WITH THEM!! Lets have discourse but lets not hang labels when I had heard this long before I knew of these discussion forums. I have no 8x8 glossies to prove the suspicion, Close as you'll get to what Id call documentation is Steves theory of corporal punishment and the testimony of LHP What we know is the sexual abuse officers were called out for some reason. CK

 

[eleven]

Let me speak to this as I am coloradokares and the ONLY one to report this as absolute fact is IDI trying to trip up an RDI by reporting this as fact > We none of us can say that is unless we have been there and seen it and I was not. It was a high suspicion I think that started with LHP and the evidence and the screaming and with Steves theory on the cororal punishmet etc. Do I beleive it.... I am suspicious but can I prove it absolutey no and I choose not to keep repeating this and fiind myself sued as the starter of this theory as a fact. I WAS NOT IN THE ROOM WITH THEM!! Lets have discourse but lets not hang labels when I had heard this long before I knew of these discussion forums. I have no 8x8 glossies to prove the suspicion, Close as you'll get to what Id call documentation is Steves theory of corporal punishment and the testimony of LHP What we know is the sexual abuse officers were called out for some reason. CK

Well, I had to read your first sentence a couple of times to understand it, but I still don't think I understand it completely, but oh well. What my post was referencing is a post by the poster solace on page one of this thread, where it says : Colorado said it was well known in some Colorado circles that douching was happening. So, of course you don't have proof and you WEREN'T IN THE ROOM WITH THEM, I just questioned it because I had never heard it said that it was well known by some that the douching did occur. Doesn't mean I am not believing it, there are plenty of things about this case I don't know, I will readily admit that. I don't have alot of spare time to read up on all the facts that are out there, so when I come across something that I have never heard before I just want clarification. That's all. I don't understand your telling me to not "hang labels"... please point out where I "hung labels" in my post, but first tell me what you even mean by that, because I am confused and not understanding your hostility towards my post. I merely asked about a statement made by another poster. For the purpose of discussion. Because this is a discussion board. There is no need to be hostile simply because I never heard this before that it was well known in some circles and the first time I have read or heard that was from a post from you. You're awfully quick to assume that I am judging the validity of your statement, when I am not doing that at all.

 

[UKGuy]

Where?

4sure,

Here:
Ramsey warrant dated January 30, 1997
http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

At approximately 11:20 hours on December 27, 1996, Det Arndt informed Your Affiant of the following information:

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed entangled in the hair of the child a green substance. Based upon her observations while at the residence on December 26, 1996, she believed that the green substance observed in the hair of the child was consistent with the green garland like decorative Christmas material that she had observed to be decorating the spiral staircase inside the child's home.

Det. Arndt stated to Your Affiant that she was present and observed a visual examination by Dr. Meyer of the shirt worn by the child. She observed and Dr. Meyer preserved dark fibers and dark hair found on the outside of the shirt

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, used a black florescent light the view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh. Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result of the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer swab these florescent areas. Dr. Meyer was also observed by Det. Arndt to obtain vaginal, oral and anal swabs from the child's body. (According to examination conducted at the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, no semen was located on the body, panties, or clothing of JonBenet Ramsey).

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

JonBenet Ramsey autopsy report
http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996autopsy.htm

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular
congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The
smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the
vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with
underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red
blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is
birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate
is not seen.

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
VI.vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa


.

 

[UKGuy]

UK,how could he *know that for sure? How could say *for sure* that it wasn't caused by a douche? B/c I understand that the cells can be looked at and chronic inflammation can be noted,but how could Cor. Meyer say for sure whether she was subjected to sexual contact or not,*right b/f her death? It could have come from staging also,couldn't it? b/c that's an acute injury,just as sexual contact right b/f death would be.

JMO8778,

I guess because a douche would leave a different kind of physical trauma, more than likely without any congestion, since JonBenet would have been cleansed internally.

Also:

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.

I think Coroner Meyer is referring to signs of an increased blood flow (hyperemia) that is associated with increased metabolic activity of the vaginal wall, possibly caused by digital penetration?

Any acute injury and sexual contact will be separate issues. In both the verbal and written aspects of the autopsy report Coroner Meyer does not identify the cause of her acute injury, nor does he state that there was any vaginal laceration. He notes a couple of abrasions e.g. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1x1 cm hymenal orifice. , note the recorded hymenal size, which is roughly the size of your average male finger.

Sexual contact would produce vaginal mucosa that would display a different chemical signature from that caused by staging, particularly after she was dead. I think this is the significance of the reference to hyperemia in his report?

That is a staged assault would show itself as just that an assault but without any vaginal inflamation or congestion, and postmortem possibly display a coloring due to hypoxia?

After all that you the have to consider the pathologists experience, how many sexual abuse/assault cases has he conducted, if he has seen the phenomenon of an enlarged pediatric hymen before in association with molestation or how many in association with douching?

Patently his experience allowed him to confidently assert sexual contact probably via digital penetration, now this is for the period just before her death. The enlarged hymen and heymenal erosion then indicates a chronic molestation, a conclusion reached by other professionals, but which is not conclusive.

So although I may be misreading the autopsy report, its details, and any of Coroner Meyer's verbal remarks, my understanding is that he is saying JonBenet was being molested just prior to her death?

.

 

[lilywhite]

"Consistent with" does not mean "conclusively caused by," though. Not that I'm saying you're wrong -- I have no way to know that -- I'm just pointing out that this is by no means the conclusive "final answer" on the issue.

And what on earth leads you to conclude "male finger"? I mean, if we're going to agree it was a finger (which I'm not yet ready to do), why does it have to be male?

 

[UKGuy]

"Consistent with" does not mean "conclusively caused by," though. Not that I'm saying you're wrong -- I have no way to know that -- I'm just pointing out that this is by no means the conclusive "final answer" on the issue.

And what on earth leads you to conclude "male finger"? I mean, if we're going to agree it was a finger (which I'm not yet ready to do), why does it have to be male?

lilywhite,

Sure, but I'm only restating what the coroner said, and the average male finger is larger than the average female finger so includes both, it does not have to be male, and that it is a finger is from Coroner Meyer's remark e.g. digital penetration!

Digital means finger, and not paintbrush, so unless you have evidence that the coroner never witnessed, I simply accept his opinion, since he was present, and he is qualified, neither of which apply to me.

.

 

[Tober]

2) If yes, who do you think was her sexual abuser?
2' ) If it wasn't Patsy, do you think she knew who was JonBenet's sexual abuser?

Family collusion = family secret. In essence, the cover-up is to protect the family secret and not the homicide in and of itself. Pursuing the homicide would reveal the family secret, thus the plan of protection was initiated to provide an obstacle to slow down or stop this. As an example, forensic evidence links John to the 12/14 Bloomies Jonbenet was found in, but Patsy colludes by offering an invalid excuse for them, i.e. she claimed they were in JonBenet's bathroom drawer, but as LE pointed out to her, only size 4/6 were in that drawer. She is providing an excuse for why JonBenet would be wearing them, claiming she placed the package in JonBenet's drawer and that JonBenet would have opened the package and put them on, but her claim loses credibility because they weren't in the drawer. The collusive efforts of the occupants of the home indicate they know full well who the molester is. Notice also the Ramseys are completely uninterested in the chronic abuse and won't touch it, other than Patsy saying "I'd like to see where it says that." Similar to her initial reaction to the pineapple info, she isn't the least bit shocked or surprised.

 

[Albert18]

Family collusion = family secret. In essence, the cover-up is to protect the family secret and not the homicide in and of itself. Pursuing the homicide would reveal the family secret, thus the plan of protection was initiated to provide an obstacle to slow down or stop this....

So Patsy sat there with splayed fingers that morning and was grief stricken because she was worried it might be discovered that JonBenet had been sexually abused before that night?

John was pacing that morning and trying to get the family out of town because it might be discovered that JonBenet had been sexually abused before that night?

 

[sister]

See, that's why I am still on the fence...a douch applicator could not only cause the enlarged opening, but also the eroded hymen...and then...on the other side of the coin, we also have the bedwetting, and the soiling of her pants during the day.

Bedwetting can be a sign of sexual or other abuse, but I don't think it's completely uncommon in children JonBenet's age. My niece wore pull-ups at night until she was seven. Question: was JonBenet actually soiling her pants during the day or were the stains in her underwear maybe from not wiping herself thoroughly after a BM? (this has happened with my five-year old before)

 

[coloradokares]

Well, I had to read your first sentence a couple of times to understand it, but I still don't think I understand it completely, but oh well. What my post was referencing is a post by the poster solace on page one of this thread, where it says : Colorado said it was well known in some Colorado circles that douching was happening. So, of course you don't have proof and you WEREN'T IN THE ROOM WITH THEM, I just questioned it because I had never heard it said that it was well known by some that the douching did occur. Doesn't mean I am not believing it, there are plenty of things about this case I don't know, I will readily admit that. I don't have alot of spare time to read up on all the facts that are out there, so when I come across something that I have never heard before I just want clarification. That's all. I don't understand your telling me to not "hang labels"... please point out where I "hung labels" in my post, but first tell me what you even mean by that, because I am confused and not understanding your hostility towards my post. I merely asked about a statement made by another poster. For the purpose of discussion. Because this is a discussion board. There is no need to be hostile simply because I never heard this before that it was well known in some circles and the first time I have read or heard that was from a post from you. You're awfully quick to assume that I am judging the validity of your statement, when I am not doing that at all.

First let me apologize I was not trying to be defensive. I was trying to be concise. I had a stroke, 3 actually with two bleeds into my brain only a few months ago, I was trying to convey that no one unless they were present could swear to the douching, I was told that info by a very credible sources as to what corporal cleaning could have meant. Actually some one else voiced that before me and I said that they were pretty close to right on the money from what I had heard from a very creidible source as well . Perhaps its time for me to go lurking if I cannot put my thoughts into more understandable wording. I am trying not to let what was posted get twisted into something it was not, intentionally or not. Thats all. I was trying to clarify not be all defensive etc. CK

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Bedwetting can be a sign of sexual or other abuse, but I don't think it's completely uncommon in children JonBenet's age. My niece wore pull-ups at night until she was seven. Question: was JonBenet actually soiling her pants during the day or were the stains in her underwear maybe from not wiping herself thoroughly after a BM? (this has happened with my five-year old before)

She was wetting herself during the day to the point where Patsy said JonBenet suffered from frequent infections that were hard to clear up because her underwear were always wet (PMPT.) Nedra Paugh told LE that twice JonBenet had come home from a play date with her best friend wearing borrowed undies, because her own were wet.

Nedra also said that JonBenet was very poor at wiping her bottom after a bowel movement, and needed to have her bottom washed by an adult. She referred to it as 'dirtying.' (ST)

A Boulder County Sexual Abuse team member discovered that almost every pair of underwear in JonBenet's drawers were stained.

JonBenet's problem wasn't just bed-wetting; she was wetting herself both day and night, and she didn't seem to be able to handle wiping herself. These issues at the age of 6 seem like red flags to me, but I don't know if the source of JonBenet's incontinence was a medical problem undiagnosed by the pediatrician, the result of sexual abuse, or the result of too much stress and responsibility due to the rigors of pageantry practice and competition.

 

[Tober]

So Patsy sat there with splayed fingers that morning and was grief stricken because she was worried it might be discovered that JonBenet had been sexually abused before that night?

http://www.zetatalk.com/beinghum/b80.htm
IMO, the post-crime behavior of the occupants of the home reflects a bizarre mindset in which they view JonBenet as better off dead. It's as if they blame her for her own death and the circumstances that led to it. They essentially appear to discard her as yesterday's news, wishing to move along with their lives while forgetting about her. I believe this situation to be representative of the dynamics of incest.

 

[Ames]

Bedwetting can be a sign of sexual or other abuse, but I don't think it's completely uncommon in children JonBenet's age. My niece wore pull-ups at night until she was seven. Question: was JonBenet actually soiling her pants during the day or were the stains in her underwear maybe from not wiping herself thoroughly after a BM? (this has happened with my five-year old before)

Good question...I will have to go back and read that part of Patsy's interview. Yep, I know that bedwetting is pretty common...but if she was soiling herself during the day...that's not common.

 

[sister]

She was wetting herself during the day to the point where Patsy said JonBenet suffered from frequent infections that were hard to clear up because her underwear were always wet (PMPT.) Nedra Paugh told LE that twice JonBenet had come home from a play date with her best friend wearing borrowed undies, because her own were wet.

Nedra also said that JonBenet was very poor at wiping her bottom after a bowel movement, and needed to have her bottom washed by an adult. She referred to it as 'dirtying.' (ST)

A Boulder County Sexual Abuse team member discovered that almost every pair of underwear in JonBenet's drawers were stained.

JonBenet's problem wasn't just bed-wetting; she was wetting herself both day and night, and she didn't seem to be able to handle wiping herself. These issues at the age of 6 seem like red flags to me, but I don't know if the source of JonBenet's incontinence was a medical problem undiagnosed by the pediatrician, the result of sexual abuse, or the result of too much stress and responsibility due to the rigors of pageantry practice and competition.

Thanks for the info.

 

[sister]

Good question...I will have to go back and read that part of Patsy's interview. Yep, I know that bedwetting is pretty common...but if she was soiling herself during the day...that's not common.

I agree. Thanks for looking into it........

 

[DeeDee249]

http://www.zetatalk.com/beinghum/b80.htm
IMO, the post-crime behavior of the occupants of the home reflects a bizarre mindset in which they view JonBenet as better off dead. It's as if they blame her for her own death and the circumstances that led to it. They essentially appear to discard her as yesterday's news, wishing to move along with their lives while forgetting about her. I believe this situation to be representative of the dynamics of incest.

Excellent insight. And I totally agree. It explains a lot of their behavior and why after a while they actually began to believe their own lies.