Chronic vaginal injuries

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, May 27, 2009.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    We've been discussing this topic at topix.com's JonBenet forum, and I think it's KEY to this investigation, so I thought I'd put a new thread on this here. It's important. Adding in the experiments with Jayelles' model of the Bloomies, I find this evidence CRITICAL in the investigation. Unfortunately, either Boulder LE has neglected this evidence or they're not talking about it. Since I don't believe there will ever be a trial, we are left to figure it out for ourselves.

    So in this case, here is a recap for those interested, from the topix. com discussion (I edited out the "quote" of posts to which I was responding, in the event the posters didn't want to be quoted on another forum):

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TIO09137MC4K7NMBR/p3




     
  2. Elle

    Elle Member

    You have been busy KK. This really is a tough one when we have experts arguing the toss as to whether it was sexual abuse, bubble bath or masturbation. The third one to me is absolutely ridiculous when used in the real sense of the word for a little six year old. I refuse to believe this.

    I do believe Patsy Ramsey was guilty of toilet rage on the night of the 26 December, 1996, but with this broken brush shaft coming into play. Why would there have been any need to use a broken destructive jagged edged shaft at all, other than to cause camouflage of the damage already present (?). Had there been no evidence of this broken shaft having been inserted, what are we left with? A bad tempered mother causing internal bruising? Even Patsy herself knew she couldn't get away with just that; therefore had to take the drastic steps of breaking her own artist paintbrush in two and using it as a treacherous weapon to make it look like
    a brutal killing.

    I don't think JonBenét Ramsey was murdered. I will stick to thinking JonBenét was accidentally killed when thrown around by Patsy Ramsey in a rage, with both Ramseys knowing they couldn't take JonBenét to the Emergency Room and face the real truth. They both knew JonBenét was never going to recover and was close to death before the garrote was created.
     
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, you could be right, Elle. I doubt we'll ever truly know the exact events of that night, though. Those who do know will never tell.

    Thanks for responding. It's a very slow season for forums, as people are getting out and about in the warm weather, vacations, etc.
     
  4. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Thanks for re-posting all that. I tend to agree with Elle. An accidental death covered up to look like a kidnapping/murder. And prior sexual abuse that needed to be covered up as well. That pretty much says it all.
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    It was good of you to try and revive this case, KK. I wish you all the best with helping to solve it elsewhere.
     
  6. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Yes, it does.
     
  7. AMES

    AMES Member


    I agree. I totally believe that this is what happened. I also believe that the scream that MS heard, was actually Patsy, after realizing what she had just done.
     
  8. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    koldkase,

    What a lot of work you have put into this. Thank you for doing it. You know that I've had this thought since the very beginning in learning of the numerous visits that JB made to the doc. For a seemingly healthy little girl and all her visits with vaginitis or cystitis or what have you....ummm why in the h#@L didn't that doc finally say after about the 3 or 4th visit, "Let's do a thorough exam on her under a tranquilizer in the hospital and get to the bottom of all of this?" That would have been a proper procedure to follow. He probably didn't even want to suggest any kind of foul play because it was "The Ramseys". But enough is enough. Who knows maybe he did suggest it and it was put down immediately by Patsy. This is something I simply can't get around. Little girls don't have vaginitis problems. Perhaps cystitis because of poor hygiene. Any thoughts on this? I blame that doc a lot for not following through with this from the very beginning. If he even thought of doing something like this and Patsy threatened to leave his practice and bad mouth him he should have been stronger and thought of JonBenet and not his pride. What a lump of protoplasm. Hurrrump
     
  9. AMES

    AMES Member

    And he is still practicing!!! Someone had said that thought that he had left his Practice...but, he hasn't. He is STILL there! I Googled it, and I also found comments from parents that think that he is WONDERFUL for some reason.
    I cannot believe that he hasn't had his license taken away from him.
     
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

    It's possible, Ames! (?). Not a cheep from the New Boulder team of Invesigators (?) [​IMG] I think we should have heard something by now, don't you?
     
  11. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member


    This wasn't poor medical treatment. It was a case of the pediatrician not wanting to come out and accuse the Rs of molesting their daughter. He played golf with JR, he was one of their circle who was dazzled by their wealth and persona. He was a personal friend, not simply JB's doctor. And he let that get in the way of what he was sworn to do.
     
  12. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Take a Bow, KK and Company!

    I think I feel a pulse.....:heart:

    This man is still practicing?! Why does that surprise me about this doc that I have never picked up anything other than Hinky Vibes about.....the stolen file from the Safe Deposit Box at the bank is another issue that I would love to see us go over and over about. And just what, how when and where did the tranq prescription get filled that he arranged for Patsy to have that day?????
     
  13. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    The Sexual Abuse Aspect....

    Since the Murder of JonBenet had a sexual abuse aspect, it would seem paramount in the investigation, and now in the reinvestigation, that this aspect be revisited thoroughly....

    A great deal of this case hinges on this aspect of the case, who may have been abusing JonBenet, who knew about it, who likely killed her after a probable near-death accident to cover it up.

    One wonders if this time around with the BPD reinvestigation of the murder, if the investigation team will re-interview some of the key case characters like Dr. Beuf, Linda their housekeeper, Grandpa Paugh, other close friends such as the Whites....People such as these who were in close contact with the Ramsey family weekly and who might have observed unusual events or relationships between JonBenet and another person who could have been abusing her sexually.

    I know that in real life, no one wants to think such a thing is occurring, especially in an otherwise stable affleuant family....Maybe that is why Dr. Beuf, the Whites and others who might have observed signs of abuse passed them off as mistaken.....

    Perhaps if some of these same witnesses to the Ramsey's lives were reinterviewed, in hindshight of what what occured, the murder and the Ramsey's actions afterwards, if those witnesses would remember other details that pointed to sexual abuse that might lead detectives down the trail to the final truth in this case.

    We know from the autopsy and from other expert testimony that JonBenet had PRIOR sexual abuse because of the errosion of her hymen and because of the enlargement of her vaginal opening....This is NOT caused by bubble bath irritation....

    There is even a chance, as indication by the input of other experts that the sexual abuse of JonBenet was CHRONIC....This observation because of the condition of the hymen with evidence of prior healing....This along with records from her pediatrition Dr. Beuf, and testimony from same, could give a clearer picture of when the abuse began and how frequently the irritation problems, possibly due to sexual abuse occured.

    Yes, a re-investigation of her medical records and her Dr. could be key in this case....I don't think Dr. Beuf should be off the hook as a future witness by any means...

    There were hints earlier in this case that the Colorado Child Welfare office might have had a record of some sort of call about the Ramsey children but that their case file either could not be found or could not be accessed for some reason...Does anyone remember anything about this case file and what ever came of this allegation? Surely the BPD this time around would investigate this aspect if indeed there was such a file on any sort of incident with the Ramsey children.

    Lots to be revisited in this case....No wonder it is taking so long. Of course we who have been studying this case for over a dozen years would like to be let in on some of the details as they are being uncovered....I doesn't seem like that is going to happen though.

    Voyager
     
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, here's the thing: if Patsy was the head-basher, accident or no, that still doesn't explain the molestation going on before that night. Or even that night.

    You see, a person has to have a REASON that comes into her head, a thought, something that causes the action. It's what behavioral analysis is all about. Where did the idea come from which led to the action?

    The most puzzling element of the crimes committed on JonBenet the night she was murdered, to me, has always been the paintbrush inserted into her. From the first moment I read about this, I thought, what in the heck...?

    It's not for any kind of "pleasure", unless the killer is a sadist. I believe all women, and any human with half a brain, can imagine how painful that paintbrush jab would have been. So the killer was not doing this for JonBenet to enjoy, obviously.

    I believe the evidence proves JonBenet was unconscious at the time, because the injuries to her do not include defensive wounds, so that's the only hope we have on this. So this was not done with a pedophile's usual intent (in his/her mind) for the child to enjoy.

    The point I'm trying to reach here is one of logic. Lay it out:

    1. Patsy, or John, or Burke--one of the three in the home--delivers or causes the fatal head injury. I'm going with the theory that this was done before she was strangled, because again, no defensive injuries to the body. So was the head injury accidental or intentional? It has to be one or the other.

    2. For the sake of argument, let's say it was accidental. So why garrote her? She's not dead. She's breathing. Why not take her to the hospital and get help? The scalp wasn't even lacerated. How did he/she/they know she had a fatal head injury? Well, whoever struck that blow, or caused it, if you will, HEARD it, too. A skull doesn't crack almost in two from such a force without sound. So at least ONE person knew JonBenet was in big trouble. No blood, no scalp laceration, but one could have felt along the scalp and felt the massive damage. Also, JonBenet might have convulsed immediately, etc. But again, why not call 911? Take her to the hospital for help? What law abiding citizen of the Ramseys' stature wouldn't do this as reflex?

    3. There was some mitigating factor that stopped someone in that house from getting JonBenet medical help, if all she suffered initially was a head injury from an accident.

    So you see, this leaves us with the questions we have and will ponder for the rest of our lives, doesn't it?

    But I propose the theory that the answer, in this scenario, is that the parent/s knew that JonBenet was being molested, and that this was the mitigating factor that stopped any aid from being sought for JonBenet.

    Now for the evidence to support this theory:

    1. No defensive wounds, so no struggle while being garroted and painfully injured with a paintbrush; thus, she was unconscious during these abuses, so the head injury came first.

    2. Chronic vaginal injuries found at autopsy: she was being molested by someone before that night, and that is what would have been discovered at the ER, no matter what the outcome the head injury.

    3. The number of reasons anyone would have used the paintbrush on a child in such a way are very few. I can only think of two, for a sane person capable of staging such a crime and getting away with it: sadism or to cover up the fact that JonBenet was being molested before that night.

    4. The body was wiped down in the genital area; why insert a paintbrush and abuse the child, causing such damage, and then take the time to clean up the blood on the body and redress her? Since obviously the perpetrator knows this acute vaginal injury is going to be discovered at autopsy, why take that time, what impetus is there to do this? John Douglas once wrote that when a loved one is murdered, the body is often "cared for", to cover up the crime, as well as to "undo" it psychologically. Also, the person/s doing this knew that the body was going to be found by someone else--LE/strangers, so perhaps this was to protect the child from intrusive eyes viewing this abomination of JonBenet's body as much as possible. The person who did this wanted to think like a cold-blooded killer, but in fact was not and couldn't. There was love in the cleaning and redressing, the wrapping of the body in the blanket and concealing it in the cellar room, awaiting "proper burial."

    So the question remains: who would have inserted that paintbrush and why? The only reasons I can imagine are: a sadist did it, a split personality who then turned to "undoing" the crime and caring for the body afterwards; a sadist did it, and then another person cleaned up after him/her; or it was done solely because the person who did it KNEW of the prior molestation and wanted to cover it up as much as possible.

    And this is where Dr. Beuf failed JonBenet miserably. He will never, ever tell if he truly suspected child abuse in all those "vaginitis" visits, because by law, he was supposed to report any suspicion. He didn't have to confront the Ramseys himself, all he had to do was report his suspicions and then Social Services and LE would have taken it from there. If there was nothing going on, that would have been determined and Dr. Beuf would have lost a patient and maybe a golf partner, angered the powerful Ramseys. So what? That was his JOB and his DUTY. The Ramseys were not going to tell their mutual friends about it, as even false suspicion in such a thing is damaging to a reputation. The doctor was bound to patient confidentiality, as well.

    Yes, it's a terrible thing to put an innocent family through that, but as you said, Zoomama, one simple exam at the hospital and questions involving the health and safety of a child would have been answered. As it turned out, in this case there would have been no innocent explanation, as the child was being molested. But we know that money and power and human nature often subvert duty, and so it did with Dr. Beuf. He is probably the one outside party who could have prevented the murder of JonBenet--had he only done his job. It would have taken courage, and he obviously didn't have it, so the child was murdered. I wonder if he ever thinks about that.
     
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Exactly. Well said.
     
  16. Greenleaf

    Greenleaf FFJ Senior Member

    My thoughts...

    I have always believed that the death of J.B.R. was unequivocally linked to sexual abuse. It is a delicate subject, akin to tip-toeing around on egg shells. Reluctance to explore such a distasteful subject is the crux of the matter, leading to this ambiguity. Either J.B. was sexually abused or she was not. The physical evidence certainly seems to suggest that she was indeed violated; yet, the debate continues. If the abuse was caused by anyone other than J.R., he would have most certainly acted differently. If the abuse had been caused by Andrew, Patsy would not have kept silent. Undoubtedly, (in my opinion) P.R. and J.R. were both responsible for J.B.R.’s demise. Their bizarre behavior afterwards was a testament to their guilt. J.R. was more offended by rumors of incest than by rumors of his involvement in murder. He would, in my opinion, do most anything to cover evidence of incest. It is important that we continue to keep this abhorrent subject-matter alive, while continuing to press for answers; encouraging LE to re-examine the voluminous Ram evidence in the dusty old files at Boulder; most of which, I believe, has been kept hidden from the public.
    Thanks to our brilliant Koldkase for starting this thread, and reminding us, once again, of the importance of this subject. I enjoyed reading all the excellent posts by our many great sleuths, here at FFJ.
    gl
     
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, I don't think it's a pulse. I think we've just become case ZOMBIES! (Hey, Moab, you don't have a zombie icon you can hook us up with, do you?)

    I was trying to remember the details of the "safety deposit box caper" yesterday. Another Team Ramsey red herring. It made NO SENSE at all, because you don't just waltz into the safe deposit box room and pull out the drawer. There are quite a few hurdles to cross there, and without some criminal mastermind spending a lot of time and money paying off the bank employees, it can't be done without being detected. There are cameras everywhere in banks, for one thing. Keys are needed, and ID, for another. Then you have to know certain information, be written into the contract that allows you access to the box, right?

    So what the heck was that all about? There were some accusations that a tabloid was the culprit, but then that was dropped, as I remember. So the question remained, What the heck? NO ANSWER that I ever saw.

    What I wondered then and wonder now is if this was "staged" to cover up yet another crime: tampering with evidence. What went "missing"? A record of the three Dec. 17th phone calls to Dr. Beuf from Patsy, after hours? Why did Patsy make those calls? She "didn't remember" when asked by LE about it in '98. Patsy mentioned the medical record, and Haney was vague about it.

    Okay, I'm looking for it in the '98 interview, and I keep getting distracted. So much in that interview...so much we have never discussed....
     
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I did find you the answer for this question, Rat. Here is what Patsy had to say about that, when asked in the '98 interview:

    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm


    One thing I notice about Patsy's speech patterns, her "tell" is when she stops herself and "confuses" the topic. At that point, I know she's either lying or covering something up, IMO. An example from above:

    When Patsy does this, she's RE-DIRECTING her thoughts AND ANSWERS.

    Now consider the topic: Dr. Beuf's presence at the Fernie's home, and his prescribing of medications for Patsy. She never answers the question, does she? WHO CALLED DR. BEUF? She's very slippery, isn't she?

    Now consider this, keeping in mind Patsy stops...halts again...and tries to re-direct her thoughts to conceal the truth:

    And again, she re-directs her thoughts and doesn't answer the question:

    You can find this pattern with Patsy throughout her LE interviews time and again. She's buying time, and we all do this in speech, but then she never answers the question, just diffuses it.

    She got better through the years with fending off questions she didn't want to answer--"I don't remember," "I'm not sure," and "I can't recall," became automatic for her. She'd been down this road many times and learned from her mistakes. But she was still a rookie in '97 and '98, and that's why her '97 and '98 interviews with LE are so telling, IMO.

    So let's put it together, and see what she's trying to cover up:

     
    Last edited: May 30, 2009
  19. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Okay, now let's look at the phrasing of Patsy's responses when she halts and re-directs her thoughts and words, because it's obvious she was going somewhere else before she changed her answers. When she realizes she's in trouble, she speaks in non sequiturs.


    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

    Haney directly asks Patsy if she or Barbara Fernie had called Dr. Beuf that day, because Dr. Beuf wrote the prescriptions for Patsy, didn't he? At least, that was the story. It's a simple, straightforward question.

    And Patsy PAUSES, and in that context, asks a VERY STRANGE QUESTION herself:

    Think about that question. What is Patsy talking about? WHEN would Patsy OR Barbara Fernie have called Dr. Beuf BEFORE "we found JonBenet AND ALL THAT"? Or is she confused about what Haney is asking because Dr. Beuf had been called MORE THAN ONCE, or by more than one of the parties about whom Haney is inquiring? Patsy is confused as to WHERE IN THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS did either she or Barbara Fernie call Dr. Beuf, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER "WE FOUND JONBENET AND ALL THAT" she seems to be asking.

    Maybe she's gotten confused as to when Haney is referring because she has knowledge he doesn't. Maybe she got confused if Haney was asking if SHE called Dr. Beuf...and maybe she called Dr. Beuf BEFORE "we found JonBenet"...and why would that happen?

    Now I'm wondering if something else happened before the fatal injuries, something that resulted in Patsy calling Dr. Beuf.

    Next, look at this obvious twisting of words by Patsy:



    What does THAT mean? "...after -- [pause] after, [pause] details like that...." What "details"? Haney mentions prescriptions for Patsy. What kind of "detail" is that, that she is then "out of it"? Her words are nonsensical. She completely subverts the topic. So what "DETAIL" is she talking about? The detail she just let slip? That she called Dr. Beuf BEFORE she found JonBenet? Or that after they found JonBenet, she was out of it? It's still a non sequitur, and she's not making a lot of sense.

    And then we have another completely derailed question and answer, caused by the halt in her original thoughts and wording:


    Patsy jumps the question of WHO called Dr. Beuf and gives the leading answer "...I think Dr. Buff

    10 came over to the Fernies..."
    , re-directing the question to avoid it, which she did and no answer to the question was ever given.

    But then she says almost gives it away again: "I may have called to -- to him." TO him? No, that's not common phrasing used to say you asked for medicine. What was she GOING TO SAY before she stopped her thoughts and words and RE-DIRECTED them? "I may have called to ask Dr. Beuf to help me..." or "I may have called to ask Dr. Beuf to come and help us..."? Fine. Why CHANGE HER ANSWER if it was innocent? Because it wasn't innocent, and she was covering up something. She had gotten confused initially and she was still trying to RE-DIRECT the question and MISLEAD the detective, IMO.

    Why would she do that if she had no guilty knowledge or this murder? Because she did. I can see right through Patsy Ramsey, and if her lips were moving, she was lying.i

    Oh, how easily these questions could have been laid to rest if only Hunter had gotten those phone records....

    This was a blatant cover up and Hunter was key. In fact, this entire '98 interview of Patsy and John was nothing but staging, as well, IMO. So much needed to be followed up on that wasn't. So much damning info, so completely ignored by Hunter.

    So as far as I know, we do not KNOW who called Dr. Beuf to come to the Fernies. But it seems he was called before then, before "we found JonBenet and all that...."
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2009
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member


    Yes, Greenleaf, very eloquently on target. When Team Ramsey works with such fervor to keep something hidden and obscured, spreading disinformation and rabidly attempting to lead all discussion away from the facts, I know that's where we have to look hardest.

    No one should get away with what was done to JonBenet, I don't care how many excuses can be made. This was evil.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice