Autopsy evidence of ONGOING SEXUAL ABUSE

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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

  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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:

    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?
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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.

    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?
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    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! (?).
  5. cynic

    cynic Member

    This all goes back to the “turning point†toward prosecution.â€

    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.â€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.,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.

    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.

    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. heymom

    heymom Member

    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.
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    ^^^----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:

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

    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.

    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: Oct 25, 2013
  8. LI_Mom

    LI_Mom Member

    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. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Like I ghost! :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.
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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?
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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! we are.
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2013
  12. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Patsy Ramsey</respectfully>
  13. heymom

    heymom Member

    So you think John would protect Patsy if he found out that she had been abusing JonBenet? I think that's ridiculous. Even if the didn't know before, he would have found out once the autopsy report showed abuse and the police questioned Patsy and him about it, and I can tell you for 100% certain, any parent who suspected the other one of sexual abuse would have hit the roof and gone after the predator full-force.

    However, both of them would protect Burke. And Burke would have had plenty of access to JonBenet.
  14. cynic

    cynic Member

    A pleasure, as always but it shouldn’t be this way. The talking heads out there should maybe think about earning some of the $$$$$$ that they make and actually investigate the facts of the case. Perhaps they should study Charlie Brennan.

    Things like this make my head hurt. (From Nancy DisGrace’s FB page.)
    6-yr-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey is found murdered in the basement of her home - no one has ever been held responsible for her death! Court documents just released reveal a secret grand jury wanted to indict the Ramsey's! Grand jury believed JonBenet's parents even knew their daughter's killer, even acting to help cover up the crime! However, the district attorney decided not to file charges at the time because of insufficient evidence, and in 2008, he then said DNA completely cleared JonBenet’s parents. What evidence led the jury to make this claim? #JonBenet
  15. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    The question cynic asked was

    So you think Burke had "unquestioned access" to JonBenet? Fine with me.

    To answer your question, yes, I think John would have protected Patsy under the circumstances of her cancer and the treatments she underwent; because not protecting her would have adversely affected the family's social status; because it would be a personal embarrassment for him, Burke, and other family members; because they had to maintain a facade of being a perfect family; because he couldn't stand the thoughts of her dying in a prison.
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I think several of the family members had this kind of access, not restricted to the three people in the home that night, for that matter.

    I rule out none of them.

    I also agree that John Ramsey would have protected Patsy, and vice versa.
  17. heymom

    heymom Member

    I think you judge Ramsey much too kindly. Did he help Patsy during her treatments? She was alone, as far as I have ever heard. A personal embarrassment for him if Patsy had abused JonBenet? No, I think he would have reveled in the injustice of it all and been happy to throw Patsy under the bus. He was not protective of Patsy.
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I'm afraid I disagree with your blanket belief that no parent would ever cover for the other.

    I am familiar with a personal friend whose mother protected a step-parent's sexual abuse of her--from ages 12 to 18, when she finally ran away to escape his violent abuse and control over her life. When she was 13, she not only told her mother, her mother blamed her.

    There are so many cases of parents covering up for all kinds of terrible things the other--or both--have done to their own blood children, I am rather surprised you don't know of any.

    I'm sorry to say, turns out it's that kind of world.
  19. heymom

    heymom Member

    Oh, I know of that kind of thing, I'm not naive and didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday!

    I still don't think John or Patsy would cover up for the other. I just don't. John seems too detached and just self-centered, and Patsy...well, she could really get into the role of the wronged wife, don't you think??

    I don't know, the world just seems to be getting worse and worse. It's depressing, it really is.
  20. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    BBM. I don't rule out any family member either KK but I see Patsy as the one having unquestioned access. Maybe it is the questionable access that is the problem.

    One thing that concerns me is what Priscilla White said about wanting to approach Patsy after Christmas about the "Mega-JonBenet thing." Patsy claimed that she was JonBenet's mother yet knew nothing so how could Priscilla know anything (or words to that effect). I'd love to know what was meant by that.

    My second big hang-up is how three detectives (Arndt, Kolar and Thomas) could come up with three suspects, Kolar and Thomas in particular with Kolar seemingly believing Burke was responsible and Thomas plainly stating he believed Patsy was the killer, although I never quite decided exactly what Kolar was saying.

    All the evidence known to the public fits in my mind as suggesting Thomas was correct. What precipitated the event that killed JonBenet is where I believe Burke fits-in, if he fits at all.
  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