The Significance Of The Big Bloomies...

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Ploppy_Slopper, Aug 24, 2006.

  1. wombat

    wombat Member

    Sue -

    Great post, Sue.

    Have you met with people who were doing something to their child that they didn't "realize" was abusive? Someone who was fixated on the child's sexuality and paying too much attention to her sexuality, and doing something to her that the abuser thought was the "right" thing to do?

    As part of her cancer treatment, Patsy had that radical hysterectomy, her vagina had been surgically altered, she had no cervix (nat'l cancer institute and had a great big scar running vertically from her breastbone to bikini line.

    That's pretty mind-altering stuff, believe me. Patsy wrote extensively about the chemo, but not about the operation and how it changed her. We have no evidence, to my knowledge, that she got therapy (the Klonopin doesn't count!) to deal with this castrating operation. JonBenet was three the cancer started, she regressed around that time, and when she died she was still wetting and soiling the bed.

    Sue, in your experience, have you seen something like this before: a deeply feminine woman has her feminity nearly destroyed, and sublimates the rage about it by abusing her little girl. I am in the group that believes the pageant crap was abuse all by itself - could the sexualization of JonBenet by her mother have included sexualization under her dresses? That's not really too much of a stretch, no matter how gross.

    Also regarding douches - I have the impression that this practice isn't as widespread as it used to be. In olden days it was common; my doctor even recommended it. You couldn't get monistat etc over the counter, so the standard treatment for yeast infection was a vinegar douche. Patsy was a few years older than me and I'm sure she used douches for, um, "personal maintenance."
  2. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Sue, I appreciate your posts on this subject as I think it's good to look at all possible avenues of what really happened in this case. The one thing we do know is that the Ramseys version of what happened to JonBenet IS A LIE. Ergo, there must have been a REASON for that lie.
  3. Masker

    Masker Member

    Isn't it possible that the birefringent material found in JB's vagina was deposited indirectly, for example from the finger of someone who had just been handling the paintbrush, instead of the paintbrush itself being inserted?
  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    That's what I think happened.
  5. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    And that's what I've wondered as well.

    Just because the microscopic piece of birefringent material found was consistent with the paintbrush doesn't mean it had to have come from INSERTION of the paintbrush. It could have been transferred by other means. And it didn't necessarily have to be a bare finger, but perhaps, a latex-gloved finger which easilys picks up transfer material. Since Patsy bleached JonBenet's hair, I'm sure Patsy had some latex gloves in the house to handle the chemicals.
  6. That's mature.
  7. sue

    sue Member

    Patsy dyed her own hair (can't remember where I read that, but I remember reading it - I believe it was in one of the police interviews). Anyway, if she used hair dying kits either for herself or for JB, the kits come with one pair of gloves for use when using the kit.

    It does sound reasonable that a material consistent with the paintbrush might come from it being on a finger from breaking the paintbrush for staging and then be transferred into the body rather than from being from the paintbrush itself being inserted.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2006
  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I responded in kind. You'll get that here.
  9. sue

    sue Member

    I have been out of the field of psychology and dealing with abuse for quite a while (that was too dark a job to be in once I had children), so I may not be up on what is happening now, but I can share some things that I know from the past.
    A lot of people I saw were doing what had been done to them when they were growing up by their own parents. To them it was 'normal' because they thought that other people/families had the same experience as they did, so they really did not look at what they were doing as abusive (although interestingly, some of them remembered how they had not liked having it done to them).
    I was aware of a 15 yr old boy who was a pedophile. It came out that his mother had masterbated him from the time he was an infant. His family looked pretty 'normal' until he sexually abused a little girl he was babysitting. His family was very active in their church and he was especially religious (he walked around the mental health center with a Bible all the time and was constantly reading verses to the other kids - they thought he was a 'goody-goody' because he was constantly 'tattling'
    on the other kids). Before the little girl reported the abuse, he had been a popular babysitter in his neighborhood. Despite knowing what he had done (and being told he had done the same thing to his sister), the mom still allowed him to babysit his younger sister (until the county social worker got an order forbidding him to be in a room alone with any underage females).
    Link to the another page about hysterectomy, theMayo clinic page about hysterectomy.
    Most of the women I know who experienced hysterectomy did the operation because of symptoms (like pain or excessive bleeding), not cancer. Many of those women are sort of happy to have a hysterectomy because it means an end to their symptoms, even if they are somewhat depressed about their loss of femininity.
    I was looking for any study I could find that talked about hysterectomy in cancer. It was hard to find any (most are about hysterectomy in general), but here's one looking at hysterectomy in 30 women with cancer compared to 30 women without cancer. The study reported that "only 9 [of the 30 cancer patients] referred to having experienced the loss of the uterus as a traumatic event for their femininity." I think that almost 30% is a pretty big number, but apparently the investigators expected a higher number.

    Many of the articles indicated that the woman's feelings about hysterectomy were related to her feelings about her femininity. I don't think it would be a big stretch for an uber female, beauty queen to be really upset by the idea.
    This site had some interesting books, one had the thought provoking title of Hysterectomies and Ovarian Removal:
    What Every Woman Should Know:
    The Ultimate Rape?
    (obviously, the author would have been one of the 30% of women viewing hysterectomy as a traumatic event.)
    I remember lots of ads for douching stuff in the late 60s and 70s, but it's been a long time since I've seen any.
    The CDC Fact sheet that I linked to in a previous post gave an estimate of 20-40 percent of American women aged 15-44 douching regularly. They don't indicate where they came up with that estimate or how old it is, but the date on the bottom of the fact sheet is Dec 2005. Here's a link to another article from 2001 about douching. It does note that the numbers are down, but when the article was written, sales of douching products still totaled more than $144 million a year. That's a lot of douches!
    The article also notes that "According to Kendrick [a CDC Epidemiologist quoted by the author] , some 16 million American women, or 27 percent of those ages 15 to 44, douche regularly; other estimates put the number closer to 40 million. The rate is highest among African-American and Southern women, such as McGhee [a woman quoted at the beginning of the article who reported douching because her mom did], and among those with little education."
  10. [​IMG]

    I'd like to make peace... you up for it?
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Yes, Patsy said she did dye her hair that Christmas day. It has been speculated that she used those gloves on JonBenet. I have used home hair treatment kits myself a few times, and I wonder about the dye being on the glove and therefore leaving traces on the body. I guess she could have rinsed them off. Or maybe she didn't actually use them. But her hair was dark, so it seems she'd have had dye on her hands if she didn't use the gloves.

    Was the birefringent on a finger rather than the paintbrush? It's a good question. I guess there is no way to know the answer. I probably do jump to the conclusion the paintbrush was used because I am not resolved that Patsy was a "Sybil" type mother. I am projecting my own sensibilities here, for sure. I have thought that the paintbrush was used because the parents didn't WANT to use their hands in such a manner. Even if you think about John being the one doing the "intrusion" for staging, even if you think he's the molester...why bother "using a finger" at all if there was some kind of accident related to JB being molested that night, when a "finger" was already used? I am not sure, but I don't believe anyone has made the argument that there had been any intercourse with JonBenet. It's common for molesters to begin with young girls being less invasive than that, using a finger, for example. I have always thought that was the best argument on that possibility.

    So I guess I am looking at the zebra and thinking "zebra." Paintbrush: impersonal instrument used to inflict vaginal trauma NOT related to a finger used by a molester; staging for brutality to point AWAY from the family TO a killer intruder.

    And I'm right back where I started and I'm going around in circles. What is the purpose of the paintbrush at all? The strangulation could have been accomplished without such a garrote, without the handle. So why tie up something like that to strangle her? Staging alone? I guess in the back of my mind, I have always thought that the handle on the garrote was created in part to use the paintbrush in a way to incorporate its original purpose: to inflict vaginal injuries NOT associated with the REAL VAGINAL INJURY, which came from some abusive behavior towards JonBenet.

    And strangling the child with your hands might have been too hard. To put your hands around your child's neck and do that? Maybe the cord and handle were the answer to two problems: strangulation without using the hands; intergrating the use of the paintbrush so that its sole function of hiding prior vaginal injuries was also clouded. How could he/she/they know the birefringent material would be left behind? Remember the tip was missing, as well. I always thought that was removed because of the tissue and blood on it. Was that an attempt to hide that it was used?

    OK. Now this line of thinking has led me to a new place: maybe there WAS NO MOLESTATION EARLIER THAT NIGHT, none that led directly to the head blow, for instance. But the killer knew that there had been prior molestation. So the injuries that night had to be created to cover the prior molestation. The new part is that the paintbrush was used to "create" fresh vaginal injuries to cover OLD injuries...because there were none from that night, so ALL THERE WOULD BE would be THE OLD ONES if new ones weren't staged as cover up, as well.

    So that puts the idea of what triggered the "accidental" head blow in the bed-wetting, tired, pure accident, etc., debate. But clearly, whoever was the one doing the staging and strangling and whatever was shoved into JonBenet that night, knew about the prior vaginal trauma and wanted to cover it up, however it came to be.

    Sorry if I'm all over the place here. I can't believe I'm even discussing this anymore, I'm so sick of this topic. But I do believe it is THE KEY to this murder, and to the identity of the killer.

    I have bookmarked a long thread on this topic here from long ago, sue, and I do appreciate your expertise in this area which you share with us. I believe you also once didn't see the hymen as eroded? I'm probably getting the terms mixed up, and memory is faded, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on that now if you'd care to share. Not being a medical person, I have to rely on the various arguments made by those who are, and it varies. Thanks in advance.

    I am familiar with douching equipment, even way back with the old water bottles. I don't see how Patsy could have been consistently using that on JonBenet without significantly damaging the hymen from the first use. Even the more modern and less rigid implements would do considerable damage, I'm thinking. Perhaps you have seen this kind of douching damage in children, sue, and can explain that? I know it's asking a lot of your professional experience. I apologize if I'm over-reaching.

    A number of pediatric experts did analyze the autopsy results and one thing I have always wished is that we could ask them these questions.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2006
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I'm always up for peace. :toast:

    I'd also like to say something to all those who are new and/or having a hard time with us old cranky people.

    The last month has been a very difficult time. We've been on an emotional roller coaster for years, and the Karr fiasco was one of the worst rides in a while. After seeing Patsy sainted and praised as a victim for a long time, her death was times 100 in the BS we had to endure. Then to have Tracey shove ANOTHER crock of lies into the media, times 100, even seeing the ARREST of a bus victim as the non-existent intruder, we have been loaded for bear.

    So please forgive us if you got caught in the crossfire.
  13. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member


    Yes, the vagina is elastic, it would return to original size if stretched but we were talking about the hymen which can be torn/enlarged.
  14. sue

    sue Member

    i was talking specifically about several places where I have seen people post that the "vagina was larger than it should have been for a child her age".
  15. Elle

    Elle Member

    As a mother of three girls, WY, it must have been awful for you to have gone over this part. This douche business just seems so far out when it comes to a little six year old. I think Dr. Beuf should be questioned about this. I think he was too close to the Ramseys as friends, and didn't tell all.
    I really hate reading about little mites being sexually molested by their relations, and feel parents need to be more careful as to who they leave with their children with. Those who can afford a video camera should set one up.

    There just had to be a reason for not calling 911 WY - right!? The Ramsey staging could not hide what the coroners found. This must have been a shock to Patsy and John, and put Patsy into her academy award performance, where she wanted to see where it stated that JonBenét had been sexually molested.

    Patsy may have been putting on another performance when she denied knowing anything about JonBenét having a bath, or not. It certainly did put the label of "neglectful mother" on her, but Patsy Ramsey used a lot of psychology in this crime, and for her to get her point over about not knowing this-n-that seemed to apply to almost every question she was asked. She couldn't recall or remember too much about her little girl.

    So much has happened these last two weeks WY and put all of us in a spin. What next, I wonder?
  16. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member


    I didn't see that part. Of course you are correct and it is good to clarify that.
  17. Elle

    Elle Member

    Forgive me for laughing at your white flag. On this site we sometimes have boxing gloves on PS. However, no one bears a serious grudge here with anyone. I think this case brings out the worst in all of us.

    I'm sure you'll get on just fine with KK. She has a great sense of humour/humor Am. sp :)

    Have a drink on me, the pair of you! :toast:
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Normally that part is quite smooth, but into a little girl of six? That would be abuse to me PD. I have never heard of this in my whole life, and I have been around a long time.
  19. sue

    sue Member

    I found where I saw about Patsy dying her hair. It is from a police interview with Patsy in April 1997. ST doing the interview is Detective Steve Thomas and TT is Detective Tom Trujillo. Here is the quote:

    "ST; Uh, quick quick question. Give me some more detail Patsy, if you will, on, on the daytime and afternoon of the 25th. Um, we sort of moved quickly to that evening but, but uh. . .
    PR: Yeah.
    ST: . . .walk me through that day.
    PR: Well, we opened our presents and uh, try to have them do it slowly so it doesn’t it’s not over with in five minutes, you know, and we all opened our things and then we had breakfast and uh, I was packing, as well as wrapping gifts that day. We were, we were going to go to the lake on the 26th so I was putting a few things together for that trip and um, and trying to get the presents together to take up there and then I was packing our suitcases to go, we were going to go on a Walt Disney cruise on. . .
    ST: Big Red boat?
    PR: Bid Red boat. On my birthday, the 29th. So I was, had summer clothes, trying to get all that ready, so uh, and packing and uh, I think I colored my hair that afternoon, like with one of those quick, you know, uh. . .
    ST: Everybody stayed home.........."

    and another quote from the same interview:
    "PR: Uh, and the kids were playing then I, you know, got them dressed and then we, they were in play clothes and so we changed and got cleaned up to go over there.
    TT: Um hum.
    PR: And I think I colored my hair. I think I told you that.
    TT: Um hum. So that was in the afternoon?
    PR: Yeah."

    So, if she colored her hair, she thinks she did it the afternoon of the 25th. During the course of doing hair dye (not that I dye my hair, mind you ) :blush:
    the gloves would have gotten a considerable amount of hair dye on them. Part of the process involves working dye thru the hair, sort of like shampooing. If she had used the gloves to color her hair (and later used the used gloves on the staging) I would expect there would at least be some residue of hair dye transferred from the gloves to some of the things touched. Hair dye usually has a kind of ammonia smell (although many brands now advertise that they don't contain ammonia).
    If she didn't dye her hair and just took the gloves out of a kit that she had, she could have poured the solutions down a drain and then thrown the kit into the trash or she could have just put the kit back where ever she stored them. I don't think male police officers (who probably had never been around hair coloring) would think of looking for any gloves in a hair dye kit. It seems obvious from the interview that they didn't, since neither detective asked any more questions about it.
  20. I mentioned this in another thread in I think another forum (Tricia's WS JBR forum... or was it in this thread farther up the line? Eh, can't remember. In any case, I mentioned that Patsy said this in her inverview about dying her hair that day possibly because she used the rubber gloves from a hair dying kit to stage the crime scene and just dumped the chemicals from the kit down the sink. Wasn't it mentioned that there was an odor in her bathroom of hair dye chemicals? I've dyed my hair for 20 years, and the chemical smell only lingers in the bathroom for a few hours. If she dyed her hair before going to the White's that smell would have been gone. But, if she used the gloves to wear during the staging and dumped the chemicals down the sink, there may still have been a lingering odor since that would have taken place far sooner than her having dyed her hair before going to the White's.

    If it's just a rumor that there was a lingering odor of hair dye in her bathroom, then it's possible that she used the hair dying gloves to dye her hair but pulled them out of the trash and washed them off well before using them to do any staging. Of course she would have washed them off because as someone familar with hair dye knows, any little bit of dye left on the gloves could cause stains to clothing and skin. She probably even rinsed them off well before throwing them in the trash to begin with to keep from getting any dye on the insides on the trashcan and so the chemical smell doesn't linger in the bathroom. I always rinse me gloves off well before throwing them in the trash for these reasons... and also because I have a dog who is known to pull interesting stinky things out of the trash.

    I'll have to look back at the search warrants and see if they took any hair dye related things into evidence. I have a feeling though, that those items went the way of other incriminating evidence that exited the house under the noses of BPD.
  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