Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 35
  1. #1

    Exclamation Autopsy evidence of ONGOING SEXUAL ABUSE

    For some reason, the media has avoided this subject in the past, even stating the absolute opposite from the truth at times.

    That's odd; because if there is ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that should lead to the killer, it's THIS. Perhaps that's why Team Ramsey has denied and ignored this critical evidence from the beginning. But John Ramsey brought it up on the very day he spoke to the public the first time, on CNN on the day after his child was buried--denying it.

    It only takes ONE EXPLANATION of how an intruder got into the home and/or had a six year old girl all to himself before Dec. 25th without her parents noticing or hearing about it. Yet the Ramseys and their WORLD-CLASS INVESTIGATORS have yet to ever even mention this devastating evidence other than the child might have had one bubble bath too many or was a chronic masturbator. She also had "vaginitis", for which she was treated several times, documented and admitted by her own physician. She was SIX.

    She was also a chronic bedwetter. There were other reports that she had other toileting issues.

    From the chronic vaginal injuries she endured, JonBenet would have had blood in her panties from this abuse before Christmas night 1996, as her hymen was severely damaged. Who can believe her mother wouldn't have noticed her pageant princess was bleeding from her vagina?

    Patsy's dear friend Pam Archuleta told a reporter Patsy complained that JonBenet was "flirting" inappropriately. The child was six.

    Mrs. Archuleta also said JonBenet was showing signs of being depressed and tired, which concerned friends.

    I could go on, but to keep it simple for those who do not know about the sexual abuse of this child, here's an excerpt from "The Bonita Papers" we have in our case library, summarizing the LE investigation into this abuse and what the medical expert opinions were at the time of the early active investigation...allegedly.

    I say allegedly because this is a summary from a "document" shared by a member of our forum who did not present any open credentials or sources I've ever seen that I was able to research or test elsewhere.

    "Bonita" is alleged to have been a legal secretary of a lawyer who aided the Boulder Police Dept. in the investigation--again I have found no first-hand confirmation of her identity, job, or this story, so just FYI.

    The gist of the story is that she copied information from the case files, to which her boss had access, to write a book. Then her work was sold prematurely to a tabloid without her permission by a relative...allegedly.

    How our forum member got the "Papers" I have no idea. These are more of the blind items we've had to work through for 17 years to determine what's truth, what's fiction, and what's in between.

    However, much of what "Bonita" wrote has been independently confirmed from numerous other credible sources through the years. This section of the summary has proven to be believable and informative.

    In the final analysis, Dr. Cyril Wecht, among many others, has confirmed from reading the autopsy that the child was sexually abused before the night she was murdered. Dr. Wecht has gone on the record about this countless times, in great detail, in many media formats, including one of the earlier books on the case he co-authored, Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey.

    Steve Thomas also wrote about the the evidence of prior abuse in his book, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation. James Kolar's most recent book on the case addressed this, as well: Foreign Faction.

    It's not brain surgery. It's in the medical science of the autopsy. Now find out who had access to the child before the night she was murdered...who also may not be the killer.

    But the killer can be found once you know who was the sexual abuser.

    I may be whistling Dixie here, so don't trust me: I encourage readers who want to know the truth to research and evaluate the autopsy record themselves.




    From The Bonita Papers

    DR. MCCANN

    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.

    McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful
    because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area.

    McCann also noted that there appeared to be a bruise on the inner right thigh which he though might represent a thumb imprint from forcing the legs apart.

    Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.

    In discussing perpetrators of sexual abuse on children, McCann stated that the majority of children this age are molested by someone with whom they have close contact most commonly family members. He explained that if the molester is a stranger or someone else with whom the child is not close, the child will usually tell someone or psychological problems appear which create behavior changes observed by their parents. Common symptoms would be eating disorders, nightmares or a variety of behaviors indicating that something is bothering them. Commencement or increased bedwetting is also commonly seen in sexually abused children. When asked about JonBenet's sexualized behavior during her pageant performances, McCann said that this was not necessarily a sign of abuse, since this was taught behavior for the pageants. Also, with children's exposure to sexually explicit television programs, sexualized behavior is no longer considered to be an indication of possible sexual abuse.

    Dr. Andrew Sirotnack from Children’s Hospital in Denver was also asked to review the medical findings and autopsy photographs. He confirmed McCann's determination of acute vaginal trauma during the assault on JonBenet, but He had not yet concluded that there was chronic abuse. Sirotnack had examined over 2,500 abused children during his career at Children's Hospital and had testified in approximately 50 - 100 criminal trials regarding sexual abuse on children.

    In September 1997, the police department held a meeting with McCann and three other child sexual abuse experts to go over their opinions based on their review of the autopsy results. Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida stated that she observed fresh hymeneal trauma on JonBenet and chronic inflammation that was not related to any urination issues. Dr. Rau said, “In my heart, this is chronic abuse,” but feared that a defense argument would be made that this was only evidence of masturbation.

    Also agreeing with the findings of both McCann and Rau was Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis. Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.

    All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=4502

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #2

    Default More evidence of ongoing sexual abuse

    From a transcript of Patsy Ramsey being interviewed by Det. Haney of the Boulder D.A. Office in June of 1998:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=9945

    3 TOM HANEY: Did JonBenet ever
    4 complain about any inappropriate touching by
    5 anybody?
    6 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
    7 TOM HANEY: Absolutely sure?
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE).
    9 TRIP DeMUTH: Tom, just so I am
    10 clear, the Desitin or any ointment or cream you
    11 ever did apply was topical?
    12 PATSY RAMSEY: Topical.
    13 TRIP DeMUTH: So there was never
    14 any internal ointment?
    15 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
    16 TRIP DeMUTH: Or cream that you
    17 applied on JonBenet?
    18 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
    19 TOM HANEY: You made three calls to
    20 Dr. Buff 's office on December 7.
    [Haney probably said Dec. 17th; the transcriptionist worked from audio on videotapes.] Okay. Just--
    21 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE).
    22 TOM HANEY: Correct? Three in one
    23 day. One at 6:28 p.m., one at 6:50 p.m., and
    24 one at 6:59 p.m. Do you recall that day?
    25 PATSY RAMSEY: To the office or
    0580
    1 his home?
    2 TOM HANEY: To the office.
    3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't
    4 remember.
    5 TOM HANEY: Would that have been
    6 for something like this, to remember?
    7 PATSY RAMSEY: Seems like I would
    8 have remembered, you know.
    9 TOM HANEY: Three times in less
    10 than an hour?
    11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just
    12 don't --

    13 TOM HANEY: Seems like you call--
    14 PATSY RAMSEY: Did I have, is
    15 there, you know, a check-up report after that,
    16 as to what that was?
    17 TOM HANEY: Um, sure -- well, I
    18 would assume that his office made some sort of
    19 at a minimum a notation?
    20 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
    21 TOM HANEY: And or a chart entry, I
    22 don't know. I haven't seen that. That's one of
    23 the reasons I was asking you.
    24 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
    The child had 27 visits to Dr. Beuf in three years. The diagnosis for at several of those visits was vaginitis--in a little girl.

    Patsy called Dr. Beuf 3 times in one hour, after office hours, on Dec. 17th--she didn't remember why, oddly enough.

    Patsy spoke freely of JB's toileting issues, making light of them, REPEATEDLY comparing them to cancer. Bed-wetting was not a problem, said Patsy. But she had large diapers for the Big Red Boat trip coming up and washed sheets many mornings, according to witnesses and Patsy herself.

    Would she not have noticed blood in her daughter's underwear when the child had so many ongoing issues there?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #3

    Default

    Det. Haney told this to Patsy in the 1998 interview, no equivocating. Since we have the autopsy to back up his claim, we know he wasn't lying to trap Patsy.

    It's a fact of this case.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=9945

    25 TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are
    0581
    1 you aware that there had been prior vaginal
    2 intrusion on JonBenet?

    3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
    4 Prior to the night she was killed?
    5 TOM HANEY: Correct.
    6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.
    7 TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.
    9 TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?
    10 PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.
    11 TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?
    12 PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.
    13 TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?
    14 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.
    15 TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have
    16 been violated like that?
    17 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This
    18 is the absolute first time I ever heard that.
    19 TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you
    20 would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't
    21 know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?
    22 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely
    23 did not.
    24 TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--
    25 PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to
    0582
    1 see where it says that and who reported that.
    2 TOM HANEY: Okay.
    3 PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?
    4 TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it
    5 with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot
    6 of material, and we surely didn't bring all the
    7 photos, but--
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find
    9 that?
    10 TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think
    11 it's pretty significant?
    12 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn
    13 significant. You know, I am shocked.
    14 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom,
    15 that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper
    16 whether or not she represented what is true as a
    17 fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too
    18 much here about whether or not it's absolutely a
    19 fact. I just think that should be mentioned to
    20 be fair to my client.
    21 TOM HANEY: And based on the
    22 reliable medical information that we have at
    23 this point, that is a fact.

    24 PATSY RAMSEY: Now when you say
    25 violated, what are you -- what are you telling
    0583
    1 me here?
    2 TOM HANEY: That there was some
    3 prior vaginal intrusion that something --
    4 something was inserted?

    5 PATSY RAMSEY: Prior to this night
    6 that she was assaulted?
    7 TOM HANEY: That's the--
    8 PATSY RAMSEY: What report as -- I
    9 want to see, I want to see what you're talking
    10 about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am
    11 shocked.
    12 TOM HANEY: Well, that's one of the
    13 things that's been bothering us about the case.
    14 PATSY RAMSEY: No damn kidding.
    15 TOM HANEY: What does that tell
    16 you?
    17 PATSY RAMSEY: It doesn't tell me
    18 anything. I mean, I knew -- I -- I --
    19 TOM HANEY: Okay, for a second --
    20 PATSY RAMSEY: Did you know about
    21 this?
    22 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: I tried to stay
    23 out of the making of the record and inserting
    24 myself into the tape-recording of this
    25 interview. The newspapers have talked about
    0584
    1 this. Whether or not--
    2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they talk
    3 about a lot of things that are not true.
    4 ELLIS ARMISTEAD: And there has
    5 been a debate among the people who talked about
    6 the findings in the autopsy report as to whether
    7 there was a prior vaginal intrusion or not. So
    8 when you ask, either Tom or me or Trip or
    9 Jennifer, did we know that, there has been a
    10 debate about that. Even in the newspaper.
    11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I do not know
    12 of anything and I am very distressed about this.
    13 TOM HANEY: Who could have done
    14 such a thing?
    15 PATSY RAMSEY: I do not know. I
    16 don't have any idea.
    17 TOM HANEY: What is your best
    18 guess?
    19 PATSY RAMSEY: I couldn't begin to
    20 guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea. I
    21 am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe
    22 this.
    23 TOM HANEY: Would that knowledge
    24 change your answer to any question that you have
    25 been asked?
    0585
    1 PATSY RAMSEY: No, sir. I have
    2 answered every question you or anyone else has
    3 asked me to the best of my ability.
    4 TOM HANEY: Would that answer or
    5 would that statement, that information, would
    6 that lead you in any particular direction?
    7 Would you think about a particular person being
    8 involved or doing something, with JonBenet?
    9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't -- I
    10 don't -- I just am shocked is all I can say. I
    11 don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I
    12 just want to see where it says that.
    13 TOM HANEY: And prior to today, had
    14 you heard or read or seen anything about--
    15 PATSY RAMSEY: I had heard that
    16 the night she was killed that she may have
    17 had -- have been sexually assaulted. But not
    18 prior to that. Absolutely.
    19 TOM HANEY: Have you ever suffered
    20 any physical abuse?
    21 PATSY RAMSEY: Absolutely not.
    22 TOM HANEY: In childhood, you know,
    23 dating, your adult life?
    24 PATSY RAMSEY: (NO AUDIBLE
    25 RESPONSE).
    0586
    1 TOM HANEY: How about sexual abuse?
    2 PATSY RAMSEY: (NO AUDIBLE
    3 RESPONSE).
    4 TOM HANEY: How about anybody in
    5 your family ever suffered any physical abuse?
    6 PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my
    7 knowledge.
    8 TOM HANEY: Your sisters?
    9 PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my
    10 knowledge.
    11 TOM HANEY: Sexual abuse, have they
    12 ever confided in you that--
    13 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No. What's
    14 this got to do with JonBenet?
    15 TOM HANEY: What it has to do with
    16 first of all, is, whether or not you have ever
    17 really discussed things like this with people or
    18 somebody has confided in you?
    19 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
    Anyone who wants to believe a random intruder sneaked in and out of JonBenet's home, life, and body for days, if not weeks or months, without any of her family or guardians suspecting anything, isn't looking at the reality of the abuse the child experienced.

    She would have had fluid discharges, including blood, from her vagina. That would have leaked onto her clothing, particularly her underwear.

    How unlikely would it have been that Patsy, who dealt with changing JonBenet's soiled sheets and clothing many days out of the week, didn't notice her pageant beauty was bleeding vaginally?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Det. Haney told this to Patsy in the 1998 interview, no equivocating. Since we have the autopsy to back up his claim, we know he wasn't lying to trap Patsy.

    It's a fact of this case.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=9945



    Anyone who wants to believe a random intruder sneaked in and out of JonBenet's home, life, and body for days, if not weeks or months, without any of her family or guardians suspecting anything, isn't looking at the reality of the abuse the child experienced.

    She would have had fluid discharges, including blood, from her vagina. That would have leaked onto her clothing, particularly her underwear.

    How unlikely would it have been that Patsy, who dealt with changing JonBenet's soiled sheets and clothing many days out of the week, didn't notice her pageant beauty was bleeding vaginally?
    This is what I replied to heymom about KK, the fact Patsy Ramsey
    still had to look after her young six year old daughter in her bath and
    had to have noticed this little girl had to be suffering some internal pain
    from the description given after her death. I just can't find those posts! (?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  5. #5

    Default

    This all goes back to the “turning point” toward prosecution.”

    The threshold for prosecution, as defined by Boulder Deputy DA, Pete Hofstrom, in the early going of the Ramsey case, was as follows:
    “If experts could determine prior vaginal abuse, and we could get an expert to identify the author of the ransom note, then the investigation would have reached a “turning point” toward prosecution.”Steve Thomas,
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 244

    Both goals were met during the course of the investigation:
    ...we felt we had met the criteria set by Pete Hofstrom for prosecution.
    Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 317

    (For the sake of brevity, I won’t present the handwriting evidence.)

    Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

    "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
    Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
    Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.

    Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 253

    The panel of experts is identified here:
    Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis.
    Lawrence Schiller, Perfect Murder Perfect Town, page 563.

    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.
    http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

    Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét.
    He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.
    Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.
    Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.

    James Kolar, Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 61

    This from Dr. Cyril Wecht.
    At 6:15:
    Well guess what? The injuries are for the most part old, they're chronic.
    A good part of the hymen is, is absent, and that's an old, old phenomenon, it's been there for a while.
    Then the pathologist report, and I'm taking it right from the autopsy report.
    He reports, superficial erosion of the vaginal mucosa, that's the lining, the delicate lining of the vaginal canal, at the 7 o'clock position, and that's been there for a while, that's not acute.
    And then he finds microscopically, chronic inflammation, under the microscope.
    That means it's been there for days, and could be longer than days, but it's not fresh.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wJYiEN1OnI&NR=1

    Who had the type of unquestioned access to JBR that would lead a panel of pediatric experts to conclude that there was chronic sexual abuse?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Something happened on December 17th. Something important. If only we could get those records!!!

    I am convinced that those phone calls meant something, and Patsy and John did not act at that time to protect JonBenet. Maybe they were in denial - maybe Dr. Whatsit even downplayed whatever happened. But I will go to my grave swearing that if things had been dealt with properly that night, JonBenet would still be alive.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  7. #7

    Default ^^^----Look at my avatar

    Those are the size of the underwear found on the body of JonBenet Ramsey.

    This photo is from a model created by another FFJ member who spent several years putting together this demo experiment using a dummy modeled from a similar-to-JB, six year old child and actual packages of Bloomies underwear she purchased at Bloomingdale's herself in N.Y.

    Yet Patsy tried to convince LE she gave these to JonBenet and the child put them on herself, wore them to the White's party on Dec. 25th, and Patsy never even noticed how large they were when dressing a sleeping child for bed that night.

    Patsy being interviewed by Boulder LE in Atlanta attorney Lin Wood's Office in 2000:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=4666

    [The "snips" are where Wood argued with the L.E. lawyers about the questions being asked, etc.]

    18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start
    19 with what - I will make it very simple for
    20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you
    21 in possession of or what do you know about
    22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing
    23 at the time she was found murdered?
    24 A. I have heard that she had on a
    25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
    0078
    1 Q. The underwear that she was
    2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
    3 know where they come from as far as what
    4 store?
    5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
    6 Q. Who purchased those?
    7 A. I did.
    8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased
    9 them?
    10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.
    [snip]

    2 Q. Which of those two trips did you
    3 purchase the Bloomi's?
    4 A. The first trip.
    5 Q. Was it something that was selected
    6 by JonBenet?
    7 A. I believe so.
    8 Q. Was it your intention, when you
    9 purchased those, for those to be for her,
    10 not for some third party as a gift?
    11 A. I bought some things that were
    12 gifts and some things for her. So I
    13 don't --
    14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is
    15 your best recollection that the purchase of
    16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the
    17 week, was something that you bought for her,
    18 whether it was just I am buying underwear
    19 for my kids or these are special, here's a
    20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your
    21 intention that she would wear those?
    22 A. Well, I think that I bought a
    23 package of the -- they came in a package of
    24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
    25 I think I bought a package to give to my
    0081
    1 niece.
    2 Q. Which niece was that?
    3 A. Jenny Davis.
    4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
    5 you remember that they come in kind of a
    6 plastic see-through plastic container.
    7 A. Right.
    8 Q. They are rolled up?
    9 A. Yes.
    10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,
    11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your
    12 niece, and one for JonBenet?
    13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or
    14 two.
    15 Q. Do you remember what size they
    16 were?
    17 A. Not exactly.
    18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the
    19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your
    20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you
    21 can accept that as a fact, when she was
    22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit
    23 her. Were you aware of that?
    24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
    25 as a matter of fact --
    0082
    1 MR. LEVIN: I'm stating that as a
    2 matter --
    3 MR. WOOD: - for a six-year-old
    4 child?
    5 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
    6 a matter of fact.

    7 MR. WOOD: Don't fit her
    8 according to whose standard?
    9 MR. LEVIN: By --
    10 MR. WOOD: I mean, I have got an
    11 11-year-old boy, and he wears underwear that
    12 potentially hangs down to his knees, Bruce.
    13 I mean, I don't know how you can come up
    14 with that as a fact. That sounds to me
    15 like more of an opinion. Who states that as
    16 fact?
    17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your
    18 daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds;
    19 correct?
    20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    21 Q. She was six years old?
    22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    23 Q. What size underpants would you
    24 normally buy for her?
    25 A. 8 to 10.
    0083
    1 Q. Ms. Ramsey, would you say that it
    2 would, it is safe to assume that, if she is
    3 wearing underpants designed for someone who
    4 weighs 85 pounds, who is 10 to 12 years old,
    5 that those would not fit her?
    6 A. Those -- I mean, I am sure she
    7 could wear them, yes, but they wouldn't fit
    8 as well as a smaller pair.
    9 Q. And as a mother, you would know
    10 that someone who is 85 pounds is
    11 significantly larger than your little
    12 six-year-old?
    13 MR. WOOD: Can't we assume that
    14 as a matter of 85 is more than 45 without
    15 her having to document a mathematical fact,
    16 Bruce?
    17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) 40 pounds is the
    18 wrong size pair of underpants, would you
    19 agree?
    20 A. Yes.
    21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to
    22 understand is whether -- we are trying to
    23 understand why she is wearing such a large
    24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can
    25 help us if you have a recollection of it.
    0084
    1 A. I am sure that I put the package
    2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened
    3 them and put them on.
    4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought
    5 these sometime in mid to early December, is
    6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,
    7 you bought them in November?
    8 A. Right.
    9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing
    10 these? And I don't mean this specific day
    11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you
    12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in
    13 this package of underpants and had been
    14 wearing them since the trip to New York in
    15 November?
    16 A. I don't remember.

    17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the
    18 laundry for the family, that is part of her
    19 duties; is that correct?
    20 A. Correct.
    21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash
    22 clothes on occasion?
    23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.
    24 Q. Do you have any recollection of
    25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?
    0085
    1 A. Not specifically.
    2 Q. Was it something that, the fact
    3 that she is wearing these underpants designed
    4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and
    5 I will give you a minute to think about it
    6 because I know it is tough to try to pin
    7 down a couple of months of casual
    8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any
    9 conversations with her concerning the fact
    10 that she is wearing underwear that is just
    11 too large for her?
    12 A. No.
    13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it
    14 was, if it had caught your attention or came
    15 to your attention, do you think you might
    16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't
    17 fit, put something on that fits, that is
    18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,
    19 had come to your attention --
    20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the
    21 package had been opened, we made the
    22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and
    23 use them because, you know, we weren't going
    24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,
    25 so.
    0086
    1 I mean, if you have ever seen
    2 these little panties, there is not too much
    3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm
    4 sure even if they were a little bit big,
    5 they were special because we got them up
    6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they
    7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was
    8 fine with me.
    9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see
    10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?
    11 THE WITNESS: No.
    12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
    13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
    14 And I am not saying --
    15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
    16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
    17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
    18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
    19 help herself to whatever is in there.
    20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
    21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
    22 Jenny.
    23 THE WITNESS: Right.
    24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
    25 JonBenet's bathroom?
    0087
    1 A. Right.

    2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
    3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
    4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
    5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
    6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
    7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
    8 think I bought them with the intention of
    9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
    10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
    11 together, so I just put them in her, her
    12 panty drawer. So they were free game.
    13 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time,
    14 how old was Jenny?
    15 A. I don't know. Probably -- I
    16 don't know. She is older than JonBenet, but
    17 I don't know exactly how old she was.
    18 Q. Would these panties, size wise, be
    19 more appropriate for -- is she an older
    20 girl?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. And I assume a larger girl?
    23 A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I
    24 mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a
    25 young woman, but then she was a little girl.
    0088
    1 Q. How old is she now?
    2 A. She is now 15, I believe.
    3 Q. So she would have been about 12
    4 or somewhere --
    5 A. 11.
    6 Q. -- 11, 12?
    7 A. Yeah.
    8 Q. And based on the, I guess,
    9 dimensions that Mr. Levin has talked about,
    10 these would have been a size appropriate for
    11 her?
    12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    [snip]
    1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
    2 aware that these were the size of panties
    3 that she was wearing, and this has been
    4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
    5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
    6 that?
    7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
    8 Q. And how did you become aware of
    9 that?
    10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
    11 Q. And I will just state a fact
    12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
    13 taken out of, by the police, out of
    14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
    15 that where she kept -
    16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    17 Q. -- where you were describing that
    18 they were just put in that drawer?
    19 A. Yes.
    20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
    21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
    22 Would that have been about the size pair of
    23 panties that she wore when she was six years
    24 old?
    25 A. I would say more like six to
    0094
    1 eight. There were probably some in there
    2 that were too small.
    3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
    4 A. Not typically, no.
    5 MR. KANE: Okay.
    6 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you
    7 understand the reason we are asking this, we
    8 want to make sure that this intruder did not
    9 bring these panties with him, this was
    10 something --
    11 A. Right.
    12 Q. - that was in the house.
    13 A. Yes.
    14 Q. And we are clear that, as far as
    15 you know, that is something that was in this
    16 house?
    17 A. Yes.
    18 Q. -- that belonged to your daughter,
    19 these panties?
    20 A. Correct.

    21 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,
    22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of
    23 the underwear that your daughter was found
    24 in?
    25 A. No.
    [snip]
    23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, do
    24 you know whether or not she changed her
    25 underwear Christmas Day?
    0103
    1 A. I don't know.
    2 Q. We are going to assume the fact
    3 that she did not take a bath because you
    4 previously stated that. Would she change her
    5 underwear if she didn't take a bath on
    6 Christmas Day?
    [snip]
    12 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Do you know if
    13 she changed her underwear?
    14 A. I do not know.
    15 Q. Would it be her routine habit or
    16 practice, if she is going out for dinner at
    17 friends, for her to change from head to toe,
    18 including her underwear, getting dressed to
    19 go out for the evening, even if she didn't
    20 take a bath?
    21 A. I don't know that there is any
    22 particular routine. She may have. I don't
    23 know.
    24 Q. If she listened to mom, would she
    25 have done that? I mean, we are going out,
    0105
    1 you change from head to toe, wash up?
    2 MR. WOOD: You are saying if she
    3 had said that?
    4 MR. LEVIN: No. I am saying,
    5 this child was raised by Mrs. Ramsey, and I
    6 am assuming that, in the course of your
    7 raising your child, that it was JonBenet, we
    8 are going out, even if she hadn't taken a
    9 bath, you wash up, you change your clothes,
    10 and that would include if she hasn't bathed,
    11 change your underwear because she is running
    12 around and playing all day.
    13 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
    14 is what you do with your children?
    15 MR. LEVIN: No. I am asking
    16 her.
    17 THE WITNESS: I don't, I don't
    18 remember the course of events --
    19 MR. LEVIN: Okay.
    20 THE WITNESS: - really.
    21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) So you just don't
    22 know whether or not she changed her
    23 underpants?
    24 A. I don't know.
    [snip]
    12 Q. Okay. I am slightly confused,
    13 and I would like this clarified. When I
    14 first started to ask you about the purchase
    15 of the panties in November, I got the
    16 impression that you were somewhat unclear as
    17 to whether you bought two sets or one.
    18 In follow-up questions, I got the
    19 impression that you felt confident that you
    20 only bought one. Do you know?
    21 A. I really can't remember.
    22 Q. Do you recall that you did -- you
    23 never mailed this pair out to --
    24 A. Jenny, yes.
    25 Q. Okay. So if there was an
    0112
    1 unopened package, it would have been left in
    2 the house?
    3 A. Yes.
    4 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey,
    5 prior to going to the Whites, did you see
    6 JonBenet in panties? In other words, were
    7 you at any point, prior to going to the
    8 Whites, in the process of her getting
    9 dressed, did you ever see if she was wearing
    10 panties?
    11 A. I mean, I just probably didn't
    12 notice. I would, she must have had them on
    13 or I would have certainly noticed if she
    14 didn't have any on.
    15 Q. When you came home and you got
    16 her ready for bed, did you notice if she was
    17 wearing panties? When you changed her out
    18 of the black velvet --
    19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    20 Q. - type pants --
    21 A. Right.
    22 Q. -- and into the long underwear
    23 pants --
    24 A. Uh-huh, right.
    25 Q. -- the White ones, did you notice
    0113
    1 if she had a pair of panties on?
    2 A. Yes, she did. I believe she did.
    3 Q. Why do you remember that? I
    4 mean, what do you remember? I just want to
    5 know what you remember about that.
    6 A. Well, I took the jeans off and
    7 put the long leggies on.
    8 Q. And you noticed that she had
    9 panties on in that process?
    10 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    11 Q. You have to answer yes or no.
    12 A. Well, I noticed -- I mean,
    13 nothing was unusual. I mean, if she hadn't
    14 had panties on, it would have been unusual.
    15 So --
    16 Q. So there was nothing unusual
    17 there?
    18 A. Correct.
    19 Q. When you actually removed those --
    20 you have -- they are black velvet pants?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. And did the panties come down
    23 with them when you removed those pants, if
    24 you remember?
    25 A. I don't remember.
    0114
    1 Q. If they had, would you remember,
    2 or is that too long ago?
    3 A. It has been a long time.
    4 Q. But did you change -- did you put
    5 a fresh pair of panties on her at that point
    6 when you were getting her ready for bed?
    7 A. No.

    8 Q. (By Mr. Wickman) Mrs. Ramsey, I
    9 have a daughter myself, and kids do strange
    10 things, but was it her habit, when she
    11 changed clothes, did she have a routine to
    12 put them in a basket if they were dirty?
    13 How did that work?
    14 A. She usually probably dropped them
    15 wherever they came off.
    16 MR. WICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
    17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Was that pretty
    18 much her practice with most of her clothes?
    19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    20 Q. I mean, not just her underwear,
    21 just they are off, new pair?
    22 A. (Witness nodded head
    23 affirmatively).

    Large enough for a child aged 12-14; brand new, never washed; the remaining panties in the package mysteriously missing from evidence collection, never to be heard of again...until five years after the murder and two years after this interview when a package of Bloomies panties, size 12-14--minus one pair of Wednesday, I can only assume--magically reappears in the hands of Lin Wood, delivered to Mary "exoneration" Lacy in Dec. 2002. There it once again disappeared without so much as a fingerprint, cough, or sneeze analysis surfacing, magically locked away in some storage dungeon like Pandora's Box.

    This is so important, we have a thread stuck at the top of the forum dedicated to the subject of this evidence: but Team Ramsey ignores it, denies it, or makes excuses.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...?t=7107&page=6

    They hope you will, as well.

    But ask yourself: can you really believe this is all some cosmic coincidence, when the child had a paintbrush shoved up her the night she was brutally attacked, her skull cracked in half, left bruised and battered in the dark basement room after she'd been strangled with a ligature constructed with Patsy's paintbrush, beside her paint tray?

    By some lucky intruder who happens to write like Patsy, talk like Patsy, and spent hours in the Ramsey home writing various drafts of a ransom note on her pad, with her pen, using her paintbrush from her paint tray in her basement?

    And fed the child pineapple from the Ramseys own kitchen, without the child alering the parents there's a stranger in the house, while the Ramseys slept, never hearing one peep?

    Just how much "coincidence" can one make excuses for before reality dawns?
    Last edited by koldkase; October 25, 2013, 7:11 pm at Fri Oct 25 19:11:47 UTC 2013.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Sorry, I'm having issues on the forum posting today. Double post here. Do we have a ghost or something?
    Thanks for bumping this thread up.

    Obviously, Wecht should know the difference between the genitals of a normal child & that of a sexually abused child. If he believes she was sexually abused, I guess she was.

    I guess I forgot that part & only remembered the question of bedwetting & normal irritation due to the bubblebaths.

    Many children suffer from bedwetting without being traumatized or sexually abused.

    I think both these children were deeply unhappy & living in a household where outward appearances were everything. Very sad.

    Just wanted to add, no normal child would be comfortable wearing too large & bulky underpants under velvet pants. They'd bunch up & be too uncomfortable. She couldn't have worn them to the party!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    This is what I replied to heymom about KK, the fact Patsy Ramsey
    still had to look after her young six year old daughter in her bath and
    had to have noticed this little girl had to be suffering some internal pain
    from the description given after her death. I just can't find those posts! (?).
    Like I said...forum ghost!

    Yes, it's clear to me, at least, that JonBenet was being abused and was in deep trouble.

    The Grand Jury saw it that way, as well.

    I'm sure the Ramseys thanked their God for some nano-particles of partial DNA artifact He sent to help them stay out of prison.

    Now if only He might have told them who was molesting their child long before Dec. 25th, they could have simply pointed that intruder out to LE.

    Instead, all they could think to do was obstruct the investigation and IGNORE THE MOST PROFOUND EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    This all goes back to the “turning point” toward prosecution.”

    The threshold for prosecution, as defined by Boulder Deputy DA, Pete Hofstrom, in the early going of the Ramsey case, was as follows:
    “If experts could determine prior vaginal abuse, and we could get an expert to identify the author of the ransom note, then the investigation would have reached a “turning point” toward prosecution.”Steve Thomas,
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 244

    Both goals were met during the course of the investigation:
    ...we felt we had met the criteria set by Pete Hofstrom for prosecution.
    Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 317

    (For the sake of brevity, I won’t present the handwriting evidence.)

    Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

    "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
    Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
    Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.

    Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, page 253

    The panel of experts is identified here:
    Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis.
    Lawrence Schiller, Perfect Murder Perfect Town, page 563.

    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.
    http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

    Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét.
    He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.
    Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.
    Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.

    James Kolar, Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 61

    This from Dr. Cyril Wecht.
    At 6:15:
    Well guess what? The injuries are for the most part old, they're chronic.
    A good part of the hymen is, is absent, and that's an old, old phenomenon, it's been there for a while.
    Then the pathologist report, and I'm taking it right from the autopsy report.
    He reports, superficial erosion of the vaginal mucosa, that's the lining, the delicate lining of the vaginal canal, at the 7 o'clock position, and that's been there for a while, that's not acute.
    And then he finds microscopically, chronic inflammation, under the microscope.
    That means it's been there for days, and could be longer than days, but it's not fresh.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wJYiEN1OnI&NR=1

    Who had the type of unquestioned access to JBR that would lead a panel of pediatric experts to conclude that there was chronic sexual abuse?
    Thank you, cynic! I hoped you'd post on this. Whew! We're working like mules plowing through a field of Team Ramsey manure today, aren't we?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LI_Mom View Post
    Thanks for bumping this thread up.

    Obviously, Wecht should know the difference between the genitals of a normal child & that of a sexually abused child. If he believes she was sexually abused, I guess she was.

    I guess I forgot that part & only remembered the question of bedwetting & normal irritation due to the bubblebaths.

    Many children suffer from bedwetting without being traumatized or sexually abused.

    I think both these children were deeply unhappy & living in a household where outward appearances were everything. Very sad.

    Just wanted to add, no normal child would be comfortable wearing too large & bulky underpants under velvet pants. They'd bunch up & be too uncomfortable. She couldn't have worn them to the party!
    I totally agree. Even I can't wear underwear one size too big. They start slipping down and next thing, I'm pulling my pants up over and over, like an old cowgirl.

    I don't even know what to say about the lives that these children lived. Considering what we do know, it must have been a nightmare.

    PS: Edited to add I just found your post on this on another thread. Please don't think I started this thread for you. Not that I wouldn't be happy to have this discussion with you; but I heard so much disinformation on media reports today, and Lin Wood's repeated rhetoric, I couldn't bear it anymore so took my frustration at these "professionals" talking about this case not knowing the most basic evidence.

    I have to agree with DeeDee on this point with those who are geting PAID to report the actual NEWS with ACCURATE INFORMATION: there is NO EXCUSE that they don't know this stuff!

    So...here we are.
    Last edited by koldkase; October 25, 2013, 10:27 pm at Fri Oct 25 22:27:07 UTC 2013.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post

    Who had the type of unquestioned access to JBR that would lead a panel of pediatric experts to conclude that there was chronic sexual abuse?
    Patsy Ramsey



Similar Threads

  1. Prior Sexual Abuse ... Key To Case?
    By YumYum012 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: October 26, 2006, 10:40 am, Thu Oct 26 10:40:20 UTC 2006
  2. Ongoing Debate re Disclosure of GJ Testimony
    By Deja Nu in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 15, 2005, 11:23 pm, Sat Jan 15 23:23:33 UTC 2005
  3. Girl shoots father after kidnapping, alleged sexual abuse
    By "J_R" in forum Child Abuse and Children's Rights Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 3, 2004, 2:39 pm, Fri Sep 3 14:39:43 UTC 2004
  4. Sexual Abuse
    By Spade in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 4, 2003, 8:51 am, Tue Nov 4 8:51:59 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •