The Significance Of The Big Bloomies...

I took a while to respond to this because I was looking for some good references and find my old post. I don't claim to be an expert on autopsies, sexual abuse or pediatrics, but I do know how to read and interpret a report or medical information.

First, I think this might be the past information I had posted, which is from this thread from May 2005.:
This was about the autopsy and posts that people had made that said the that the whole vagina was swollen and the vaginal wall and hymen were eroded and that only a small section of the hymen tissue was still present:

The autopsy is talking specifically there about the small piece of tissue that was sampled on that slide.

The experts who actually saw the material (slides, photos and reprts) don't even agree, so I don't think we are going to be able to come to a consesus on what is there, but maybe I can clarify why the experts might be divided.
WARNING: EXPLICIT MATERIAL in the links ahead.
This one has some good basic color drawings of normal anatomy of the hymen. Thinking of the word "erode", that sounds so harse, but that is just what happens to tissue all over the body. Things like fingernails break or get cut off because they are hard. Things like skin or mucous membrane erode(basically anyplace in th body that is moist, like the inside of the mouth, nose or vaginal area). It doesn't fall off; layers of the tissue just sort of get worn away over time. So, the normal hymen, does often get gradually eroded away from normal activity. When they see something that looks like more than normal erosion, that's when they start to think abuse (which, even though it involves the sexual areas of the body, might not be sexual abuse).

Here is an excellent article from the American Acadamy of family Physicians (WARNING: with explicit pictures) about looking for signs of sexual abuse in a child. One of the interesting things in that article is the picture that shows how the appearence of the hymen can change based on the little girl's position (something that can obviously be done with a live child, but not a dead one). The top picture shows her in the 'frog leg' position, with little of the hymen visible. The other picture doesn't look like the same girl, but it is, in the prone knee chest position (lying on the stomach with the knees underneath up to the chest).

US Dept of Health paper on Evaluation of Sexual Abuse in Children. It also makes the point that
"The diagnosis of child sexual abuse often can be made on the basis of a child's history. Sexual abuse is rarely diagnosed on the basis of only physical examination or laboratory findings. Physical findings are often absent even when the perpetrator admits to penetration of the child's genitalia. Many types of abuse leave no physical evidence, and mucosal injuries often heal rapidly and completely. In a recent study of pregnant adolescents, only 2 of 36 had evidence of penetration. Occasionally, a child presents with clear evidence of anogenital trauma without an adequate history. Abused children may deny abuse. Findings that are concerning include: (1) abrasions or bruising of the genitalia; (2) an acute or healed tear in the posterior aspect of the hymen that extends to or nearly to the base of the hymen; (3) a markedly decreased amount of hymenal tissue or absent hymenal tissue in the posterior aspect; (4) injury to or scarring of the posterior fourchette, fossa navicularis, or hymen; and (5) anal bruising or lacerations. .................
(my bold)The differential diagnosis of genital trauma also includes accidental injury and physical abuse. This differentiation may be difficult and may require a careful history and multidisciplinary approach.Because many normal anatomic variations, congenital malformations and infections, or other medical conditions may be confused with abuse, familiarity with these other causes is important."

Looking at the only thing we have, the autopsy report, it looks like the autopsy fits more in to the sort of unsure category, which is probably why some of the expert doctors, including Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Richard Krugman felt there was evidence of vagina penetration, but not necessarily sexual abuse. The 5 experts that were looking at the information did agree that the damage seen did not occur from JB masterbating.

As far as I can tell, the doctor who is the most vocal in saying JB was definately sexually abused (Cyril Wright) looked at the autopsy information for the Globe and did not actually see the autopsy materials, just the report and some of the photos that the Globe was able to obtain.

 

Can't say I have ever seen such explicit material as this before, Sue, and at this late stage in life makes me think of just how much I was never confronted with the true story of my own body. No way, would we girls ever have been taught anything about ourselves in school, with graphics like this, when I was a teenager. I believe times have changed a great deal. and this is good if the younger girls are learning more than I did, in my time. Of course, we now have the net where we can learn almost anything.

Thank you, Sue for your clear explanation about the 7 o'clock part just being related to the actual tissue sample, not the hymen itself.

 

You're welcome.
At least I'm used to looking at some pretty graphic/gross stuff, so I can find things that might be useful without other people having to search thru it.

I'm sure a lot of people don't understand the part about the tissue sample, because I have seen/heard lots of people saying there was only a small piece of hymen left and the rest of her hymen was 'eroded away'. It's easy for lay people to just focus on the words that are in regular English on reports and think they know what it means, without realizing that some of those 'regular English' words don't have the same meaning in the medical world.

I also think it's important to know which doctors saw the autopsy articles as part of an official request for their opinion and which saw them for a newspaper/news media.
The ones who reviewed the autopsy officially are (from what I know):
Dr. John McCann (a national expert on abuse/sexual abuse)
Dr. Andrew Sirotnak from Children’s Hospital in Denver
Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida
Dr. Jim Monteleone of St. Louis
Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School
Dr. Henry Lee also worked on the case officially, but I'm not sure if he reviewed the autopsy

If you look for these people on the web, they are not the typical 'talking head/experts for hire' that you see on the news shows. They were actually child abuse/sexual abuse experts before the fact.

The experts who are most vocal (and also most sure of sexual abuse) tend to be the ones who reviewed the case for news media. I have seen people quoting Cyril Wright's opinion as practically gospel, but we need to keep in mind that he reviewed for news media, has been a very active 'talking head' and very well may not have sees any more than what has been available on the internet (at least as far as I can find out).

 

<CENTER>

So, you think some of the doctors are out for just the publicity in crime Sue? ​

I quite believe you're right! It is difficult for we "lay people" to sometimes understand every little medical detail we read about. It is difficult to know who to trust? ​

My text set up of this text is acting up for me today (?). :-(​

​

​

Steve Thomas talks about Dr. Henry Lee - HB Pages145-147 ​

(Courtesy of Little - FFJ)​

​

</CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER>

 

Thank you, Elle.
That's very interesting.

 

Reviewing the molestor theory

Wow this thread is getting pretty long...

Anyways, getting back to the issues... molestation theory... What can be said in its favor?

It would certainly explain the prior injuries and maybe even provide a motive for the murder itself, but it also raises questions.

First off, and because I don't believe the intruder theory, we'd have three potential molestors to choose from: 1) Patsy; 2)Johnny-boy; 3) Burke.

Starting with Patsy, I find it weird but maybe Patsy was the molestor. Maybe she got a kick out of it, who knows. She would've had no trouble hiding it from John and had plenty of access to JB, when and where ever she wanted. She was also the driving force behind the whole kiddie pageant thing, which would've given here access to even more little girls. But if that was truly the case, it wouldn't provide a motive for murder, unless JB threatened to tell.

Next there's John. If John had been molesting JB, it certainly didn't start that night because there were "chronic" signs of abuse, so we'd have to assume he'd been doing this for some time. But how would he have kept it a secret from Patsy? She did, after all, take JB to the doctor dozens of times, I'm positive the doctor would've pointed out the injuries and their implications to her way before the night of the murder... so she would've HAD to have known. Even if the doctor was grossly negligent, Patsy inspected and surveyed every inch of that little girl from top to bottom for those pageants, I'm sure she would've noticed redness or swelling in the no-no area. Either way any mother would've put a stop to it immediately, and I suspect even a nutcase like Patsy would've confronted JR right away.

Also, if JR was molesting JB that night and was bent on keeping it a secret, he most likely would've waited at least until Patsy was asleep to do the deed. For him to attempt to do this while she was up and about packing, would mean that he was either extremely careless or that Patsy knew about it and didn't mind, if the latter is true, that means that the murder itself was caused by an entirely different reason, unrelated to the molestation. Why would Patsy swing a flashlight at JR if she already knew about the sexual abuse and didn't mind?

In supposing Burke was the molestor, we run into the exact same set of circumstances and doubts as with the case of it being JR... Quite simply, Patsy had to have known what was causing the abuse... she HAD to. She would've quietly put Burke into counselling or medication. Thus there would've been no motive for murder related to the molestation unless, again, JB threatened to tell.

So, in conclusion, for this theory to work, we have to believe that either: a) Patsy herself was the molestor; or b) John or Burke was the molestor and Patsy knew about it and was ok with it.
I don't see any other options.

I'm still skeptical and no, I'm not trying to downplay child abuse, I myself, am extremely familiar with it, but I just don't believe either a) or b)... although these are the only logical options. So, based on that, I personally don't accept the molestor theory.

I don't know exactly what happened that night, and although some of you may think that I'm ignoring the proverbial "elephant in the room" I still don't see how this theory is a slam dunk. The douche theory isn't a slam dunk either. They both raise more questions that answers and I find myself arriving at the same spot where I started: completely baffled.

Oh and cheers Elle! :toast:
Drinks for everybody! (You too KK )

 

But The Staging ...

I don't know, I keep going around in circles, but as so many truly believe (as I do) that this was a STAGED scene, then it's difficult to say if there ever was any prior molestation, the autopsy notwithstanding.

Perhaps there were elements of both toilet hygiene issues and a bit of sibling sexual experimentation. It's been reported that Jonbenet frequently went into Burke's bedroom, if she had wet her bed (he had twin beds in his room, as did she).

Suppose that evening that she went into Burke's room after an accident in her own bed ... could they have been horsing around & things got out of hand?

Jonbenet had an extraneous amount of visits to her pediatrician & that's somewhat disconcerting to me, however in considering everything I've garnered, I have to say that if there was prior molestation going on, then the staging would have been quite different, e.g. they would have staged it to look like something else.

Because, the way I see it, is this ... the staging was done to hide the fact that she had received what they considered to be a fatal blow & everything emanated from there.

Regards,
Mandarin

 

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/ex_abuse.htm

Steve Thomas' book - page 253*

"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."


PMPT - pg 432-33, 437
Dr. Werner Spitz was a consultant to the BPD

"Spitz examined the four slides of tissue taken from JonBenet's vaginal area . . . After viewing the slides, Spitz repeated his opinion: the injury to JonBenet's vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death--not earlier."


Experts' Opinions of Prior Abuse Was Present

PMPT - pg 437

Injury to hymen "dated from an old injury"

Dr. Cyril Wecht*

Dr. David Jones
Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics
University of CO Health Sciences Center

Dr. James Monteleone
Professor of Pediatrics
St. Louis University School of Medicine
Director of Child Protection
Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital

Dr. John McCann**
Clincial Professor of Medicine
Dept of Pediatrics
Univeristy of California at Davis

Injury to hymen occurred after death

Dr. Richard Krugman
Dean of Colorado University Health Sciences Center

Injury to hymen occurred at time of death

Dr. Werner Spitz

Dr. Ronald Wright
Former Medical Examiner
Cook County Illinois
Stated flatly that it was clear the girl's vagina had been penetrated. ... He too took issue with Krugman's interpretation: "
Somebody's injured her vagina. And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?" Wright asked.

PMPT - pg 361-362
*Cyril Wecht was indignant with and openly critical of Dr. Krugman's statements:
"How can anybody say, with the blood and the abrasions, that this was not sexual assault? What is he [Krugman] talking about?"

PMPT pg 361
**http://news.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mccann.html
Among his achievements in the field of child abuse, McCann established the standards for what is considered normal and abnormal in child and adolescent examinations. He also developed the "multi-method" examination approach that is now used throughout the western world. His research in the healing of anal and genital injuries in children also is used by examiners to determine evidence of child abuse. His study on postmortem perianal findings in children and adolescents is standard reference in the field, and he has jointly published a cd-rom atlas, called "The Anatomy of Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse," that is used as a reference among examiners everywhere. Moreover, based on his research and reputation, McCann is invited to speak throughout the world, from India to Sweden to England before the British Royal Society of Medicine about the field of child abuse.



Abuse or Not Summary
Precise summary of physicians' opinions on if there was prior abuse

Seven physicians on whether or not there was prior sexual abuse of JonBenet. All seven experts agreed there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse, although one appeared to be undecided.

Five of the medical doctors believed that prior sexual abuse had occurred:
1) Cyril Wecht
2) David Jones
3) James Monteleone
4) John McCann
5) Ronald Wright

Two of the medical doctors were unclear in their responses:
1) Richard Krugman
2) Werner Spitz

KRUGMAN
PMPT - 467
"JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused on physical findings alone."
Krugman added that the presence of semen, evidence of a STD, or the child's medical history combined with the child's own testimony were the only ways to confirm sexual abuse.

What Krugman has described are general guidelines to identify sexual abuse in a child. Krugman has not denied physical evidence of past sexual abuse, and goes on to describe how to generally identify chronic sexual abuse in a child.

This statement caused Cyril Wecht to publicly criticize Krugman's report. Wecht said "What is Krugman talking about?"

SPITZ
PMPT - pg 557 & 560
"The injury to JonBenet's vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death -- not earlier."

Spitz was referring to the acute injury to the vagina; that which had occurred that night, not the chronic injury. He made that acute injury conclusion based on Meyer's description of the vaginal mucosa,

"Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen"

, which means there were no white blood cells present at the site of injury, which means she died before the white blood cells could arrive at the site of the injury.

PMPT - pg 560
Spitz commented on the chronic injuries to the vagina by stating
"There is no clear indication of prior penetration."

Notice that Spitz did not say there was no prior penetration. He said there was no clear indication of prior penetration; he was cautious and undecided.

JTPF - pg 17
Internationally known forensic psychiatrist Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber studied the autopsy report and came to the conclusion that JBR's vaginal injuries, - new and healed - raised the chilling possibility that she had been the victim of sexual abuse in the past - in the weeks or even months prior to the murder.

---------------------------

Who is Cyril Wright? Do you mean Cyril WECHT?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/cyril_wecht/6.html
Cyril Wecht entered the case via a phone call from a supermarket tabloid, the Globe. He did not know the case he was being asked to review, only told that it was on the "west coast." When he got the photos, he realized the case was that of JonBenet Ramsey. From what he could see, he thought she had been bound with the intent to restrain, not kill. It even hinted of a sex game gone wrong. The fact that the killer had written a ransom note as an afterthought, rather than bringing it along, also seemed strangely unprepared for a kidnapping, as did the note's complexity, content and length. Wecht decided that molestation was the primary motive and that the death itself was accidental.

As he paid attention to the case and read the portion of the autopsy report that was released, he noted items that supported the likelihood of chronic sexual abuse—that is, her vaginal injury had not occurred at the time of the crime. It may have been done by a finger or some object, not via outright rape, but he believed it was clear that before the murder someone had behaved inappropriately with the child.

People both inside and outside of the investigation reacted to that statement.

Yet as more of the autopsy report was released, he felt more certain of his analysis, and recent events appear to bear him out.

"I have learned that the police called in three separate child sexual abuse experts," he reports. "They separately and independently came to the same conclusion that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. Not that I needed anybody to hold my hand, but for saying that same thing I took abuse on national television from self-appointed Ramsey defenders and sycophants. But it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, a little girl with half of the hymen gone and she's dead, and you've got a tiny abrasion, a tiny contusion and a chronic inflammation of vaginal mucosa. That means it happened more than 72 hours earlier; we don't know how long, or how often it was repeated, but chronic means it wasn't from that night. This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."

more...

Wecht went on to write a book about the case, Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?, to provide his medical opinion in much more detail. Contrary to more recent reports, he does not believe that the evidence supports the notion that an intruder perpetrated this deed.

Is this who you meant?

 

I have read that John Ramsey and his father-in-law were not on speaking terms. I have also read that Patsy's dad may have molested JonBenet in the past. Has anyone else heard this?

 

Interesting ....

You know .... I DO NOT think Patsy left coloring her hair to the afternoon of the 25th - NO WAY! Seems to me that this was a very convenient mention on her part, because she didn't know everything the police might have taken, etc.

Is it possible she was trying to color Jonbenet's hair the evening of the 25th prior to leaving for Charlevoix and that's when things got totally out of hand. In one of the Xmas pix, I think we can see Jonbenet's roots, so I think it would be more important for Patsy to have been planning to touch up Jonbenet's hair & not her own.

Besides, didn't she later say that her own bathroom was not working on the morning of the 26th .... and that's why she didn't bother to shower?

I just think that everything Patsy says has a self-serving reason & it's extremely doubtful that a former beauty queen would NOT REMEMBER whether or not she colored her hair on Xmas day .... it's something you remember and you have to set aside considerable time for it. They had a party on the 23rd and I seriously doubt that Patsy had not colored her own hair just prior to THAT party.

Sue, thanks for bringing this part of ST's interview to light .... somehow I completely missed that part of any interviews I've read.

Regards,
Mandarin

 

I agree with everything you are saying here, Mandarin. You state this was a very convenient mention on her part. I think there were convenient mentions all through the Ramsey's testimony. Bothof them with the help of DA Alex Hunter providing the RST with their latest reports, must have had many rehearsals to get it right, but we all know of their inconsistencies, don't we?

 

Elle ....

As a Monday morning quarterback here, it is easy to look back and see why LE and the DA's office were unsuccessful in getting ANYWHERE with the Rams ... But,of course, they didn't really know what they were up against at those precise moments in time.

We can all say that many things were missed, etc. etc. but this was HUGE ... a "one of a kind" type of crime in the annals of history.

The ransom note AND the body being found during what was allegedly a kidnapping on Xmas, was something even more experienced LE and other agencies had not, as yet, come across.

So I think, even if it happened in say, Los Angeles, the outcome would have been the same if the Rams lived in an exclusive area there.

Regards,
Mandarin

 

Yes, as I watched the re-play of the Today Show on MSNBC, from 9/11 2001, I listened as Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw yapped and yapped, and mostly didn't know what the heck was happening...They sounded so calm, so detached, in retrospect. I suppose they were trying to stay calm and just report, but I was stunned at how emotionless they were. At the time, as I was watching, I was crying and cursing and pacing.

Today, I was yelling at the TV "It was TERRORISTS!!!" but at the time, the news anchors were simply confused, didn't even know that the second plane WAS a plane, or that the first tower was GONE after it had obviously disappeared. At the time, we all were in shock, and they were trying to fill the empty space with talk while they figured out what was happening.

I think that is kind of what the Ramsey situation was - we can look back now and see exactly what should have been done, it is obvious to us, but at the time, it was fumble, fumble, and stumble.

Heymom

 

Yeah. A lot of to-do has been made over the ABC movie that, to hear Dems tell it, blames Clinton for allowing it to happen. But as tempting as it is to follow that, even a die-hard like me admits that if he had nailed bin Laden, he would have been tagged as a racist and would have likely jeopardized his hope to broker peace in Israel. (He needn't have bothered, apparently.)

 

Not to hijack the thread...I didn't watch the movie, watched CBS special on the French filmmakers who were doing a documentary on how a rookie firefighter becomes a veteran, and ended up getting everything on tape, even the first plane strike. There is plenty of blame for everyone, in both parties, in many layers of government. To me, it is beaurocracy that screwed this up. Rules against assassination were in place from the 70's, I think. So they had to get presidential orders.

I just wish the unity we had on 9/12/01 had lasted. And for leaving that opportunity behind, I can hold President Bush to task.

Heymom

 

Well, we've certainly discussed the theory that Patsy's father was a generational molester and he was the one causing the prior vaginal injuries. If he had also molested Patsy and/or her sisters when they were children, that might explain a lot. Det. Haney asked Patsy about this very topic when he interviewed her in 1998, so we didn't just make it up to have something to talk about.

But I doubt anyone will ever know the truth, if that was the situation. As Marilyn Van Derbur illustrated in her book on incest and child molestation, this is a taboo that people take to their graves with them. I personally know of two families who protect their incestors to this day, victims as well. It's so sad. One of those families lived next door to my family as I was growing up. I had a few encounters with that vile man, and my guardian angel was talking to me, because I always had that "run" instinct kick in and never had the misfortune of being his victim. But those encounters and the subsequent events when I "told" now are revelations about how the family of such perverts protect them. The wife/grandmother whom I told about his awful language and actions asked me a few intent questions about whether he touched me, and when I said no, she just said ok and turned and that was that.

Decades laters, the old sicko was in his 70s-80's and was found across the street in some woods molesting a little girl--from his own family. My mother still lives next door, and that's how she knew about it. Do you think the old b@stard was ever arrested? Never.

Marilyn Van Derbur wrote about how she thought she was her father's only victim. Then when she went public with the molestation, AFTER he had died, turned out ONE of her sisters had ALSO been molested by him ALL HER LIFE UNTIL SHE LEFT HOME, just like Marilyn. We're talking about their molestation from 5 (the average beginning age of young girls who are molested is 5/6) up until they were 18. Then, when she went public, Marilyn had numerous women come to her from the social and school and neighborhood community of her youth who told her the SOB had molested THEM as well on occasion. Marilyn recounts how she even noticed in his coffin, his middle finger was still "specially manicured" just for molestation. He was about 70 when he died.

Marilyn's mother was ready to disown her and called her a liar who wanted attention when Marilyn finally told her, and we're talking when Marilyn was about 50. Only when Marilyn's sister backed her up did the mother have to accept the truth. Otherwise, as the man was a very rich and powerful philanthropist who was even popular in community theatre participation, Marilyn would have been called a liar to this day. Marilyn was devastated when her mother attacked her instead of believing her.

Remember that this man had a wife, a lifelong mistress for whom he had an office attached to his, and molested no telling how many children before he died. Not once did he ever have anyone call LE on him. Not once. Even Marilyn's husband, who knew what he'd done to Marilyn, went to holidays and family get-togethers, etc., without ever once even speaking to the monster about what a sick pervert he was. Her husband did that at Marilyn's request, but how it must have eaten at him.

I don't think people understand exactly how this type of abuse works in the dynamic of the family, the psychology of a culture built on secrets and lies.

Which is all by way of saying, whatever LE and their consultants were thinking when they gave Haney those questions, it wasn't something they pulled out of thin air. The parallels of Patsy and Van Derbur are not hard to see: some may not know that Van Derbur won the Miss American pageant even as she was still in denial about her own abuse. Van Derbur was brought in as a consultant early on in this case, as well. She grew up in Denver, and her father's lifelong business, politics, and child abuse all took place right there.

And let me mention the hardest thing to understand here: Marilyn had a close relationship with her father all his life. She loved and respected him. He mentored her. She went to him for advice. She had psychologically compartmentalized the abuse at night into her "night child." Her life during the day was one of deep denial, her "day child" who strived obsessively to be the best at whatever she did, because in her buried secrets, she felt guilt and shame, "dirty" and constantly living in fear: fear of having anyone discover her secret; fear of the next time he'd come in to her bedroom. Marilyn developed lifelong physical pain and debilitation from her 13 years of trying to stop her father's sexual abuse by contracting her muscles in her body as hard as she could literally every night of her life from age 5 to age 18 to keep him out. She also lived with severe panic attacks which only grew worse with age. Even into her later age, she had to have very special locks and security protection in her home, even when her father was dead, before she could rest. Sleep has been a hell for her. Can you imagine your own bed being a place you fear your whole life, even as your body must sleep to survive?

I don't know why I'm writing this. It's not my story. But in this case, Marilyn Van Derbur's story is a revelation. Whether Patsy's father was involved or not, Marilyn spends the second half of her book speaking to the statistics and realities of child sexual abuse in this country. Brothers are far and away the largest category of abusers of younger siblings, for example.

What we do know that I've been able to discern about the month before JonBenet was murdered, that may or may not have anything to do with it:

-Patsy and John went to New York City with the Stines after Thanksgiving and up until Dec. 6, 1996, then JonBenet was in the Christmas parade in Boulder and her parents were still in New York. They were back by the 7th, a Saturday, when John held the annual Access Graphics Christmas party that evening.

-JonBenet and Burke stayed with the Paugh grandparents during this New York trip. The Ramseys had spent Thanksgiving in Atlanta, before the New York trip. Were the children still in Altanta with their grandparents during that trip? Who took them back to Boulder and on what day, to participate in the Christmas parade on the 6th? Whose house they stayed at and whether any other children/adults were together during that time when JonBenet could have been abused, like the Stine's son and/or nanny, JAR or any of his frat friends, I do not know. Was JAR in Atlanta during Thanksgiving to be with both families? I do not know.

-Patsy called Dr. Beuf's office three times in one hour on Dec. 17, I believe, but I could be off on that date.

-JonBenet competed in a Christmas Pageant contest early in December.

-JonBenet performed in a mall on Dec. 23, I think it was.

-JAR's departure from Boulder was largely ignored by LE once Thomas "cleared" him so that his mother, John's ex-wife Lucinda, would speak with LE. The best I can recollect is that JAR was said to have left Boulder on Dec. 19th, and arrived in Atlanta on Dec. 24th, the same night as grandpa Paugh flew to Atlanta. Where JAR was between the 19th and the 23rd, I have never seen anyone say. Did he leave Boulder or not on the 19th, or is that just something put out by the RST to protect him? We have no way of knowing. JAR was 20 and his college friends are on record shortly after the murder as saying he talked often about how beautiful his little sister was and how much he loved her. They were concerned because JAR had not returned to school yet and none of them had heard from them. When the reporter called the family to follow up on this, one of the aunts was, understandably, short with the reporter, saying JAR was with the family and his friends should leave him alone, more or less. JAR had been arrested for underage drinking that fall. He was also busted again that spring. His bedroom was the one right next to JonBenet's. His suitcase with his bedcover, with semen, and a child's book, was the one which figures prominently in the case, under the window, which Smit believes the killer tried to put JonBenet in because the fibers were thought by the CBI to be consistent with the fibers in JB's crotch. But the FBI said no, they weren't. John's dark shirt fibers were said to be consistent with those by LE in Atlanta 2000. (It's amazing how nothing in this case is simple science, isn't it?)

-Grandpa Paugh went to the airport to get a standby seat on Christmas Eve, and flew to Atlanta that night. Nedra commented that she was glad he wasn't in Boulder on Dec. 25th. I find that odd, if only because I'd be thinking if my husband had been there, maybe something would have been different and JonBenet would still be alive. But on the other hand...with the facts being what they are, I can understand her being relieved her husband was not under suspicion of the murder. Grandpa Paugh has remained one of the true shadows in this case, as we know little about him and he has never spoken out publicly.

I'll check a few of these dates. I believe ACR has a timeline, as well, and that might help.

Patsy told LE she did not remember why she called Dr. Beuf three times in one hour that Dec. What a surprise.

 

As you stated KK, we know little about Don Paugh, and it's time he was interviewed AGAIN! About Don Paugh and John Ramsey not being on good terms. I wonder is this was resolved after Patsy died (?).

 

Great posts, all.

Thanks, sue, Elle, and DrDetect, for your extensive work on this. However, I am going to have to work up to opening those links with pictures you provided, sue. I've seen rape kits carried out on a 2 and 3 year old, neither under anesthesia, and I was so traumatized, I can't imagine how the little girls felt. I just prayed their age would protect them and they'd have no memory of it later. I cried more tears as a volunteer at a rape crisis center, I can't tell you....

I know you disagree with Wecht, sue, but I don't believe he can be accused of not knowing the language of autopsies. Also, we had a surgeon on another forum who had done her internship rotation in the autopsy suite, and she also interpreted the autopsy to state that the hymen was eroded and not present in the same way Wecht did. So again, we're left with various interpretations.

So I have to go to what we know: that for some unknown reason that no one can otherwise explain to my satisfaction, something was shoved up JonBenet the night she was murdered. The sliver of material found in the vagina matches the paintbrush materials, which was flaking paint, which has a tip missing, and which can be linked to the murder through the garrote handle. It seems quite logical to me to then conclude the paintbrush was the instrument shoved up JonBenet at some point during an attack which ended in her murder. I cannot see any reason a kidnapper/child molester would do that, and neither can Smit and the RST, so they label the intruder "sadistic." But they cannot explain the child's prior vaginal injuries, so they deny they existed.

Could the painbrush have been broken and the garrote applied, then a finger inserted and the sliver of birefringent left in that manner? Of course. But remember that the garrote was pulled from behind by the cord/handle. So if that scenario is what happened, let's walk it through:

The child is laid on her back, her pants pulled down. The paintbrush is broken. A finger is inserted. She is wiped down and the pants are pulled back up and then the child is turned over, a green paint chip from the brush being broken adhering to her chin, which is on the floor. The paintbrush handle is tied on and pulled. Her longjohns are soiled in the front crotch outside the cellar room when she dies.

Or: the child is laid on her stomach. The garrote is tied on. The paintbrush is broken and tied onto the handle. Her pants are pulled down and a finger inserted from behind. She is strangled from behind. She is turned over and wiped in her genital area. Her pants are pulled back up.

While I guess we can't really know when exactly the vaginal injuries from that night happened, whether before, at, or close to the time of death, what does bother me is the green paint chip on the chin. The green paint chip found on her chin at autopsy matched green paint found in the paint tray. Only two ways it got on her chin: either when her chin was resting on the floor, or it could have fallen on her chin if she was on her back when the paintbrush was broken. When she was strangled, someone had to hold her down from behind to pull the cord. Otherwise, she'd have just floppped off the floor from the tension of the cord being pulled. There had to be a counter-force for the cord to be tightened around her neck so tight. (I know some don't believe the cord was tightened to strangulation, but just for the sake of argument, stay with me.) If the green paint chip was stuck to her chin so that it stayed there while her body was carried into the cellar room, while John ripped the duct tape off her mouth, carried her upstairs, Arndt moved her again, the coroner moved her for photos at the home, she was moved into a body bag, zipped up, then transported on a gurney to a vehicle, then moved into the morgue, into the cooler, out again to autopsy, body bag unzipped, and found at the exam...it SEEMS to me that this paint chip would have to have been stuck to the chin with more force than simply falling on it. So at some point, the paint chip would have been pressed into the chin, I am thinking. That could have happened after the paintbrush was broken over her body, fell on her chin or just on the floor and she was then turned and on her face, had considerable pressure put on her which caused it to stick to her chin. Or it could have happened if she was on her back and the paintbrush was shoved up her, she was wiped down, then it was broken and she was turned over and her face came into contact with the paint chip on the floor then.

OK, I'm sure you see the problems here: she had to be on her back when the paintbrush was broken, or even not on the floor at all. If she was on her stomach already when the paintbrush was broken, when the garrote was possibly tied in the back at the neck, but was surely pulled from the back, as it was found in that position, how did she get the paint chip on her chin if the brush was broken while she was face down already? It seems logical that the paintbrush was broken and the chip was on her chin or on the floor before she was laid there on her stomach and the garrote cord pulled, with her being held down and the chip sticking into her chin.

Now think about the blood smear on her thigh. Her pants had to be pulled down for that, otherwise, the smear would have been inside the longjohns in a corresponding stain, as well. Meyer found no corresponding blood stains on the underwear to those found on JonBenet's body, either. She'd been wiped down, we know that from the dark fibers found on her. This blood smear, which turned out to be JonBenet's own blood, was originally thought to be semen. It wasn't. So how did that blood smear get on her thigh? Not in the pants. They had to be pulled down or removed.

If we look at the size 12/14 Bloomies, with a few drops of blood on them, but not corresponding to blood found on the body...how did that happen, if she was not wearing them already, as we suspect because they were too large to even stay on her body, if the killer got them out of the upstairs drawer and put them on her? The killer took off her longjohns and regular underwear, inserted finger or paintbrush. I can't see this happening from behind. With the blood smear on the leg, it seems to me she would have been on her back. The position of the vaginal injuries also corresponds to her being on her back rather than her stomach, Wecht argues: 7 o'clock position from an above angle.

Now how did the blood spot on the panties which don't match any found on the body happen? The panties were on her. Blood spots leaked into the undies. The panties were removed and she was wiped down, then they were put back on?

Which brings me right back to the oversized Bloomies. Wouldn't you know it?





Various experts cannot agree. I believe they were only responding in a professional and thoughtful analysis which they would be willing to testify to in court.

What we know now certainly carries great weight, however. The child was murdered and something inserted into her vagina during that event, meant to mutilate, not to arouse.

 

Hi KK, Here's a previous post with some dates, etc from the Big Bloomies sticky (Aug 7):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranberry
Hi KK, In the 6/98 PR interview (line 236) Haney asked if JBR had day of week panties and PR confirms it. (Not narrowed down to new panties though) Also it says (line 579) Dr Beufs office was called 3 times on Dec 7 @ 6:28, 6:50 and 6:59. So it looks like the Dr was called before the Christmas Party? and the day or day after they returned home from the NY visit. PR couldn't remember why he was called 3 times though. Also I wonder if the exact times of the calls were from PHONE RECORDS or the Dr's records. Sorry I don't know how to post the lines from the transcript - thank you ACandyRose again for the site and resources and Why Nut's site is literally moving with the video evidence. All of you help us noobs enormously in your own way. Thanks to all @ FFJ.


Thank you, Cranberry! Great. I have the NE book and can look that up. You saved me a lot of time. And you caught an error I made with my recap, as well as a discrepancy between Thomas' information that Patsy called Beuf on the 17th, but Haney said to Patsy it was on the 7th. Either there's a typo in one of those, or in transcribing the interview tapes for the NE, the 7th was substituted for the 17th--so that means we need another source to pin that down. Let me check PMPT.

What I'm looking for now is old information about when the Ramseys were in New York with the Stines. I didn't remember that until I read this transcript again from the 2000 interview.

But Dec. 7 was a Saturday. So if the true date of Patsy's phone calls is the 7th, that would have to be the day they returned from New York and the calls would have gone to an answering service, I think.

 

I had written and then cut and pasted some things.
I ended up with a combination of Cyril Wecht and Ronald Wright's names.
It was a long post, a long time looking up things, writing thing, deciding I had written too long and then deleting.
Way too long, way too late. Way to many names.......