The Significance Of The Big Bloomies...

I agree that no one knows what happened.
I have not tried to portray that I might, just that there might be another explanation for some things than the most obvious one.
I think (besides the obvious ways that the investigation was handicapped) that it was handicapped by lack of imagination.

To pull out some things:

None of those things would be untrue of using douches on a 6 yr old.
One of the problems with expert examiners is that they tend to see what they are used to seeing.
Some did look at the injuries to JB and say that maybe it was not so straight-forward as just being a case of sexual abuse.
One was Dr. Richard Krugman who said " Was she sexually assaulted? Did she die because of the cord buried deep in the flesh of her neck, or because of her severely fractured skull?
Krugman isn't sure of the answer to either question. But he said he is certain that she was physically abused.
"I know nothing that I have seen that would make me think the primary finding is sexual abuse,'' Krugman said."
Dr. Lee has said it appeared to him to be a domestic accident.

I think that if sexual abuse is looked at as the only way that some of the injuries occured, only certain paths have been followed and it is possible that the truth lies down a less familiar path.

 

Well, I get your point, sue, but here's the thing: if the chronic vaginal injuries were caused by Patsy giving JonBenet douches, that in and of itself is physical abuse. Sexual? Arguably, IMO. Just because a mentally ill mother sticks things up her little daughter for reasons other than sexual pleasure, that doesn't change the fact that the vagina is by its very function part of the reproductive organs of females. That makes it sexual abuse, if not abuse for sexual pleasure, which doesn't change, IMO, because a very sick mother thought a six year old needed such a thing done to her outside of medical intervention prescribed by a pediatrician if needed, and which should have been administered by no less than a nurse, IMO, as well.

But here's the other problem with the "douche" theory: if Patsy didn't think that giving JonBenet A DOUCHE was wrong...why wouldn't she have just taken her to the hospital, called 911 immediately after the head blow? Why stick a paintbrush up the child even then, if Patsy believed that giving a six year old a douche was fine?

It won't wash...no pun intended. Whatever was going inside JonBenet, there was no legitimate reason for it that any medical records have ever turned up, that Patsy ever told LE, and there was no residue in the vagina from any solution that might have been used that night, as per the autopsy slides.

No, someone was molesting this little girl, and she died for it, IMO. Perhaps the head blow was an accident, but the rest was cover up to keep the molestation hidden so that someone in the family wouldn't be taking a trip to get booked on child molestation, IMO.

 

Amen and amen. I've been waiting for someone to say this:

 

Well, again, if Patsy was giving JonBenet douches, why didn't she tell Dr. Beuf if she thought it was fine or meant no harm? What parent taking a child to the doctor 30 times in two years, SOMETIMES with chronic vaginal infection, wouldn't think TO ASK about whether the DOUCHES were good treatment or not, as well, if she really only meant to help the child and not hurt her?

And when asked about "prior sexual abuse" by LE, why wouldn't Patsy have said, "Oh, I did give JonBenet a douche to treat infections she had sometimes, so could that be what caused that?" Patsy could have said SOMETHING. I mean, HER CHILD WAS MURDERED. If she gave her a douche innocently, why wouldn't she tell LE when NOT telling could make it harder to catch the intruder who murdered the child?

I'm sorry. I think sometimes we forget that THE RAMSEYS are the ones who tell us what the truth is, even if it's by NOT being open and honest about what any parent...ANY INNOCENT PARENT...would clearly make EVERY EFFORT TO RESOLVE if told YOUR MURDERED CHILD WAS BEING MOLESTED BEFORE THAT NIGHT.

Not Patsy. What?! Who said that?! I never heard that! I want to see where it says that! NEXT!

 

Good grief, who in their right mind would administer a douche to a little six year old KK? I agree! This is physical abuse. I do not believe this at all! I believe the vigorous cleaning was Patsy's punishment to this little girl, but this would not enlarge her vagina. This 911 call was not made when her head was injured. WHY? WHY? WHY?

I just feel the Ramseys could not face the humiliation that waited for them in the Emergency Room, when this little girl was examined from head to toe. Her body was whisked away as fast as lightning to Atlanta, and no way would John Ramsey consent to having her body exhumed. She was at peace, he said. Is it too late now for someone to overule John Ramsey?

 

Well, a parent who paints up her 6 year old and makes her prance around on stage, winking and blowing kisses can't be playing with a full deck to begin with, so I wouldn't be surprised if she used a douche on her.
Patsy was overbearing and abusive anyway, I don't think it would much of a stretch to consider that a possibility.

Not necessarily true Elle. Inserting a douche in a child that small (who probably had frequent infections) could cause swelling.
The reason the 911 call was not made when the injury was inflicted was because it wasn't an accident per se, it was intentionally inflicted to cause harm but not to kill (IMO), hence the guilt.

Even if Patsy was using the douche to "help" the child, she may have been very well aware that such methods were not exactly a medically condoned practice but, like so many mothers out there, she may have thought she knew better.

I don't understand why sexual abuse is considered by many as the "only explanation", it isn't. In fact, many rape victims, within 24 hours of being raped, have no injuries or abrasions. I think Sue's theory is perfectly plausible and should be taken seriously.

I don't like the Ramseys, I think they're as guilty as guilty can be, but I'm not going to accuse them of every heinous crime out there. They're liars and murderers, I believe that wholeheartedly, but that doesn't make them pedophiles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're absolutely NOT molestors or that JB was not molested, but there just isn't enough evidence to swing either way. The more plausible options and theories we put out there, the closer we can come to determining what is most likely.

JMO

 

I have read all the posts in this very interesting
thread.

What buffles me though is this:
Where is John Ramsey while all these things between PR and JB are happening?

a) He has fallen asleep, so when he wakes up
he has no clue what happened and believes what
Patsy tells him about the ransom note etc.

But then why to go with the lie that JB had fallen
asleep in the car and carried her to her bedroom?

b) He was awake and saw what happened.

But then why to participate in the cover up with Patsy?

 

Well, PS, if you're saying that Patsy was a monster mother who did all this behind closed doors all on her own, and when she hit her a leeedle...no, a LOT too hard in the head one night, decided that maybe her secret douche treatments of JonBenet might not be received with understanding of the love she felt when she administered them, so she garroted her and wrote a ransom note, using the paintbrush to cover up DOUCHES...it's a theory.

And we've heard it before. Of course.

Who knows? Like I said, without some evidence, nobody can prove it. No douche equipment in JonBenet's bathroom. No one in the family has come forward to help in the case by admitting it's a standard family routine for little girls...or that Patsy asked them about it...or that they noticed something once...or that JonBenet mentioned it....

Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But again, it wasn't part of what happened that night, because there was no residue or odor found in the vagina to indicate that any solution had been used in such a way.

Could Patsy have just used water in her crazy mind, not even thinking about treating infections, just straight out sick torture or mentally unstable reasoning? It's possible.

But without something to indicate this was going on, I'm not going to dream up stuff that isn't in some way linked with evidence. What we do know is that something was going on with JonBenet's vaginal tract, and it was going on before that night. Since she had a paintbrush inserted into her, that indicates GUILT to me, AND KNOWLEDGE OF PRIOR ACTS OF MOLESTATION.

If it were only Patsy using a douche, why would she be worried about that being discovered, and therefore insert the paintbrush to cover it up? Did she know she was breaking her child's hymen? Injuring her in an abusive way? In order to make that argument, you have to go straight to Mommie Dearest.

Was Patsy Mommie Dearest? If she was, we have no way of knowing, as anyone who has a clue is either dead or not talking.

So if you want to think of every possible weird thing in the world that is POSSIBLE in this murder, go ahead. We've done it, too. I can't prove you wrong. And who knows, you may be right.

But the other poster is right, too. Why would John Ramsey lie about the broken window? That's one I truly haven't come up with an explanation before, because he's all over the place with that one.

Which is pretty much the MO of this entire murder, now that I think about it.

Throw everything into the mix and hope it's confusing enough to cover up the truth.

It worked like a charm, didn't it?

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, Elle. Who IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would do such a thing? No mother I know would give their little daughter a douche. The next questions are, who in her right mind would clobber her daughter over the head, and who in her right mind would strangle her little girl? Was Patsy crazy? She didn't appear to be crazy to me. I personally think Patsy Ramsey was too damn lazy to even make sure her daughter bathed. Why would she be concerned with douching? To think Patsy, in a rage, would target JonBenet's genitals for punishment for wetting or messing, and sticking douche equipment up her just because she was mad at her doesn't make sense to me. Was Patsy really that sick in the head?

I don't know, I suppose, in our wildest imaginations, it could have happened, but why go to such extremes to find a reason for this, when the zebra is right in front of us - sexual abuse. No one knows what went on behind closed doors there. No one advertises the fact that he is committing incest against his child. Many little girls and boys grow up being sexually abused by a parent or relative, and nobody ever knows about it, because it happens behind closed doors. No one can say that neither Patsy nor John had a history of sexual abuse, because no one outside of their immediate family ever lived with them. Some kids carry this secret around with them their entire lives.

I don't know what happened, but I've never given much credence to the vigorous cleansing some people think might have happened. There would have been more signs of it - chafing on her vulva, for one, from harsh rubbing with a washcloth, redness on her skin.

 

PS, I have never known any mother who has resorted to this type of treatment with a young six year old. I had three sons, but had friends who had little girls, and never heard them mention douche; however, I feel it's possible this procedure may well have been common place while she was being brought up by Nedra, her domineering mother. It's possible she was continuing in the same vein.

Maybe one of the medical posters, Texas or JustChillun. could inform us as to whether a douche could enlarge the vagina of a little six year old, if it was used on a regular basis (?).

Texas or Justchillun (?), just recently posted this information not too long ago. It is good to read of their medical experience. I was quite stunned when I read this. It would pay to call 911 immediately, for those poor victims who are raped.

You could be right PS. I would honestly prefer to hear this crime was an innocent doctor game gone wrong with Burke and his friends, than think JonBenét was sexually molested on a regular basis. One could forgive the former than the latter. I just don't know (?).

Allowing for all this innocent sexual exploration, PS, it still doesn't leave us with answers when it comes to the ransom note and garrote.

We have Delmar England exlaining to us why the garrote was not a working tool, which told him straight away it was staged, and of course Patsy Ramsey seems to be all over this ransom note.

I'm quite willing to believe the Ramseys were not sexual molesters, PS, but when it came to the staging of JonBenét's body, to make it look like a pedophile was the perpetrator, what are we truly supposed to think of them?

 

The only answer I can give you, is that I too don't personally know any mothers who use douches on their kids, but I also don't know any mothers who've bashed their kids in the head...

I agree. That would be most useful.

Agreed although it doesn't contradict it. The garrote and Ransom note were designed to cover up the crime itself, not necessarily the abuse.

That could be explained by a) trying to cover up the genital abuse; b) to paint the perp as a boogyman pedophile in an attempt to confuse the police; or c) both.

 

I apologize for boring you.

Point well taken.

Thanks for giving me permission to think for myself KK.

Sure.

 

Elle,
You said a mouth full and I agree. :rose: :thumbsup:
Something got wayyyyyyyyy out of hand that night in the Ramsey house and the Ramsey's were not going to allow anything or anyone to ruin the outward appearances of a happy, rich, little family....even if one of the family members was now murdered.:shutup: :steamed:

 

You know, PS, this is the second time you have gotten snippy with me, and the first time it was over a post not even addressed to you. I don't know why you take offense when I obviously take a lot of time responding, but I think you have a bone to pick with me, so either pick it in private messages or just ignore me and I'll do the same for you.

In the meantime: :kmg:

 

I'm with you. It had to have been very difficult to stuff a paintbrush up her as an attempt to hide what was known to have happened to her internal genitalia. I can't see doing something like that just to make it look like a pervert killed her... leaving her stripped from the waist would have done that just as well. No, the paintbrush was used to disguise something, and I simply cannot believe it was douching.

Why would Patsy think douching would be appropriate to "clean" JBR because she was having poopy accidents? Female babies poop in their diapers all the time until they're potty trained, and I've never known any mother to worry about poop getting up there and feeling the need to clean it out with a douche. I can't imagine Patsy would have been douching JBR from the moment she pooped her first nappy. The only way I could possibly believe that Patsy was douching JBR and that's what caused her internal injuries before the murder was if for some reason she felt it necessary to do so since she was an infant. What's the difference in her pooping her nappies when she was an infant and pooping her pants as an older child? She was born with a vagina, so poop coming into contact with it would have been going on since the day she took her first poop in her diaper.

 

I think

maybe some believe the douching wouldn't be meant to clean but a form of punishment. Kind of like that case Sybill (sp)
I would say that douching could alter a child's hymen but maybe not as much as JBR's was enlarged.

 

Just out of curiousity, and not to be disgusting, but anyone here actually seen a douche? The part that goes up inside is the size of some sex toys. If Patsy was sticking something like that up JBR, that blatant sexual abuse, and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind believing otherwise. To do something like that to a six year old is just plain perverted. No way Patsy douched her without the poor girl screaming bloody murder in pain.

 

I agree, DrDetect. It is possible, though, that someone did try to clean incriminating evidence out of JB's vagina after her death by douching using plain water. If I remember correctly, there was watery blood inside her vaginal vault.

 

That I can agree with. But the prior injuries coming from douching... that I'm just not buying (not to say it isn't possible, but it certainly isn't probable).

 

very good points.
One of the reasons I have kept up with posting about the 'douching' on this thread though is that many people are seeing the zebra - sexual abuse - going the next step to sexual abuse = John was sexually abusing her. And that (John abusing her) drives the all possible scenarios that are looked at and drives how people interpret the evidence that we do know.

I wanted to keep out there that WE DON'T KNOW what happened and there are things that could cause something that looks like sexual abuse without being what is traditionally thought of as sexual abuse. Just because someone posting has never heard of it or would not do it doesn't mean it could not have happened. I don't personally claim that douching is the answer, but if it might be a piece of the puzzle...........

Ps: there are other people who decided that the zebra = sexual abuse = an intruder did it.

I am a medical person. I am an RN (Registered Nurse) and have worked in an inpatient Psych unit with children who are emotionally disturbed. I worked with many kids who were abused - sexually, physically, emotionally. I've also visited people who were abusers in their homes as part of their court ordered follow up. I have seen and heard things that many people can't imagine. We can't put our "I can't imagine it/imagine doing that" as a litmus test of what is possible.

I have seen this written before and want to point out that JB's (or anyone else's vagina can't be enlarged. It is a potential space. The walls of the vagina normally are held close to each other. When something is put into the vagina, the walls move to make room for it. If they didn't, babies would not be able to come thru the vagina to be born. And, once the 'something' is removed, the walls of the vagina go back into their usual place (if they didn't, any woman who had ever had a baby would be walking around with a 'baby' sized vagina).
Here is a good simple website about the vagina.

And for those (females) who say they have never douched and never knew anyone who did, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a fact sheet about douching that mentions

It is not something that health professionals recommend (in fact, most recommend against it).

For people who don't know what a douch looks like, here are some pictures of a do-it-yourself douch kit from this website.
Look at the pictures and then decide if using something like that on a 6 year old could cause damage or not.
Besides the do-it-yourself kits, there are premade kits (the Massengill picture), readily available in drug stores. Those are packaged in a bottle similar to enemas.
Using one would have not left any signs (they are not heavily scented, are colorless, have a PH that is similar to the vagina and look like water). I'm not sure that an autopsy would find evidence of a douch, even if they were looking for it. And, if an accident occured in the process of taking JB to the bathroom, she may not have had a douch that night.
I'm also quite certain that even if they found a case of douches in Patsy's bathroom, they would not have noticed them because they were looking for things that met their definition of sexual abuse.

Again, I don't claim that this is the way that things went down, just that there might be different kinds of zebras out there than the obvious ones.