Intruder probability more, less, or same?

Did probability of intruder change with DNA evidence?

  • Probability went way up.

    Votes: 17 28.3%

  • Probability went up somewhat.

    Votes: 9 15.0%

  • Probability went down.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Probability was unchanged.

    Votes: 34 56.7%
  • Total voters
    60

New Posts

Holdontoyourhat said:
You were wrong and I don't mind telling you. JBR could've spoken to anybody in clear terms while she was alive. She didn't, and that IS significant. Don't downplay it. Why don't you ask your prosecutor friend how common child testimony is in child abuse cases.



So he could contradict himself? Do you think he's stupid or had no connection between his observations, thoughts, and his final diagnosis? Maybe you need to read the final diagnosis again: MANY injuries listed, NONE listed as prior.




Duh, JBR could've complained or pointed. Chronic inflammation, remember? You are pigeon-holeing everything and not even considering basic possibilities.



For publicity no doubt. Meyer was the coroner.



...and she should not have been in there in the first place, if she had already decided guilt. She's not the coroner, she's not an MD. IF LA made a remark that attempts to draw a conclusion about an autopsy observation, its an armchair remark for sure.


This is wrong. Chronic inflammation could've just started. You don't even know what caused chronic inflammation. Its common, and even if JBR was previously abused, its more likely to be the result of soap, or infection, or something unrelated like that. RDI is WAY over the top with chronic inflammation. If she had a stuffy nose, what could you conclude? Cold, allergy, dirt? Crime? I don't think so, its absurd.
Click to expand...


Bruising and hymenal erosion do not come from soap or infection.
 
Hey .I have not been following up on this case anymore really and that brings me to the topic of this board how can anything be more or less likely I do live in canada and ya i prolly dont get the news coverege some of you do but i do watch nancy and jane every night and i have not heard a thing about any ramsey since the mom died and even then it wasn't as much about patssy and JBR as it was a rumor .maybe some one knows if its true or heard it also but that is that john ramsey was seeing i think it was NHolloway's mom i think thats who it was he was rumored to have been seen with but anyway more to my point theres been absolutly no news so how can anything be more or less likely it would have to remain the same wouldn't it..OH and from a post above i don't know if he did the autopsy or just commented on it but ceryl wecht sorry if thats spelled wrong thats a hard one to spell .He agreed that it was long term sexuall abuse he also agreed that the marks the too dots were consistent with my beliefs of a stun gun being used..
 
Now with the paintbrush being inserted couldn't this cause bruising and hymenal erosion,still trying to understand all this....I know we don't have the actual TOD but Meyer did see JonBenet at 8:00am on the 27th,so would this affect anything during the autopsy...
 
Ravyn said:
Now with the paintbrush being inserted couldn't this cause bruising and hymenal erosion,still trying to understand all this....I know we don't have the actual TOD but Meyer did see JonBenet at 8:00am on the 27th,so would this affect anything during the autopsy...
Click to expand...

Of course, it would cause bruising, and could have been the source for the vaginal bleeding. It could have also been the source for the cellulose found in her vagina. But it would not cause vaginal erosion. The erosion had to happen over time. It was a rubbing away, not an acute injury.
 
DeeDee249 said:
Of course, it would cause bruising, and could have been the source for the vaginal bleeding. It could have also been the source for the cellulose found in her vagina. But it would not cause vaginal erosion. The erosion had to happen over time. It was a rubbing away, not an acute injury.
Click to expand...

Nice armchair reporting.

I wonder what 'epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion' REALLY means. Plus, 'a small amount of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material.' This clearly suggests NOT over time, so I'll easily disagree with your reporting.
 
HOTYH....it is SOOOOOO apparent to me that YOU need to write a book about this case. YOU. You are the most logical about this case, IMO. Try as they might, the RDI's cannot adequately refute your statements. There are people will go to any lengths to attempt to support their opinon....even if it is beyond ridiculousness.

One day, the truth WILL come out. WRITE THE BOOK.
 
eleven said:
HOTYH....it is SOOOOOO apparent to me that YOU need to write a book about this case. YOU. You are the most logical about this case, IMO. Try as they might, the RDI's cannot adequately refute your statements. There are people will go to any lengths to attempt to support their opinon....even if it is beyond ridiculousness.

One day, the truth WILL come out. WRITE THE BOOK.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words of support.

Also, I believe you're absolutely right, one day the truth will come out.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Nice armchair reporting.

I wonder what 'epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion' REALLY means. Plus, 'a small amount of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material.' This clearly suggests NOT over time, so I'll easily disagree with your reporting.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I do try to do my research.

Epithelial erosion is pretty self-explanatory. Epithelial cells are found on a lot of internal surfaces in the body. The vagina and cheeks are some examples, but they also cover many organs. When erosion is noted, it means a layer of these cells has been worn away. This erosion doesn't happen by itself- something has to contact the cells to wear them away.
The capillary congestion just means inflammation or irritation. It also does not mean erosion, but it is associated with erosion. An example on another area of the body would be if you had braces on you teeth that rubbed the inside of your cheek. There would be erosion of the epithelial cells there as well as irritation, and reddish areas (hyperemia) would be seen if your dentist looked in your mouth. Something causes it. It doesn't happen by itself. Only the words "eroded" or "erosion" mean erosion. And you know that, as well as knowing that is what I meant. Erosion doesn't mean "happened that night". It means happening over time. That's not armchair reporting. That is simply what erosion means.
Obviously the foreign material does not represent erosion nor did it happen over time. It was the result of something being deposited in the area, either directly or on a finger or some other object. And you knew that I was not saying the foreign material represented erosion. The foreign material is an indication that something was put into her vagina. It does not indicate WHO deposited it there. Since I don't know that answer any more than you do, it is my opinion that her parents do know, just as it is your opinion that they do not. Your sarcasm is wearing thin, but that's all you have, I guess.
 
eleven said:
HOTYH....it is SOOOOOO apparent to me that YOU need to write a book about this case. YOU. You are the most logical about this case, IMO. Try as they might, the RDI's cannot adequately refute your statements. There are people will go to any lengths to attempt to support their opinon....even if it is beyond ridiculousness.

One day, the truth WILL come out. WRITE THE BOOK.
Click to expand...

I also hope the truth will come out one day. But it won't be because of any book. It will have to be the result of REAL investigation without political pressure and legal threats and hindrances from parties with a reason to keep the events of that night from being known.
 
DeeDee249 said:
Thanks, I do try to do my research.

Epithelial erosion is pretty self-explanatory. Epithelial cells are found on a lot of internal surfaces in the body. The vagina and cheeks are some examples, but they also cover many organs. When erosion is noted, it means a layer of these cells has been worn away. This erosion doesn't happen by itself- something has to contact the cells to wear them away.
The capillary congestion just means inflammation or irritation. It also does not mean erosion, but it is associated with erosion. An example on another area of the body would be if you had braces on you teeth that rubbed the inside of your cheek. There would be erosion of the epithelial cells there as well as irritation, and reddish areas (hyperemia) would be seen if your dentist looked in your mouth. Something causes it. It doesn't happen by itself. Only the words "eroded" or "erosion" mean erosion. And you know that, as well as knowing that is what I meant. Erosion doesn't mean "happened that night". It means happening over time. That's not armchair reporting. That is simply what erosion means.
Obviously the foreign material does not represent erosion nor did it happen over time. It was the result of something being deposited in the area, either directly or on a finger or some other object. And you knew that I was not saying the foreign material represented erosion. The foreign material is an indication that something was put into her vagina. It does not indicate WHO deposited it there. Since I don't know that answer any more than you do, it is my opinion that her parents do know, just as it is your opinion that they do not. Your sarcasm is wearing thin, but that's all you have, I guess.
Click to expand...

While you're appreciating my sarcasm, I'm appreciating that you have no idea what you're talking about, really. The erosion could happen over 5 minutes. The coroner noting foreign material and red blood cells at the eroded surface should've been a clue, but I can see it went right over more than one head.

RDI feels completely free to speculate, heck even state as fact, that a parent previously sexually assaulted JBR. Its more than evident that RDI uses the autopsy report as a springboard for these theories by simply assigning their own meaning and interpreting in any fashion that suits them. To heck with what the coroner was actually reporting.

In reality any claim of either parent previously abusing JBR is baseless, and yet RDI figures somehow that they have something when they obviously have nothing. Don't take my word for it, find the latest authoritative press release that refers to prior sexual abuse, or even prior injury. They're just not there.
 
DeeDee249 said:
I also hope the truth will come out one day. But it won't be because of any book. It will have to be the result of REAL investigation without political pressure and legal threats and hindrances from parties with a reason to keep the events of that night from being known.
Click to expand...

A medical expert AND a fortune teller. Wow.

Political pressure is a myth. Special treatment is a myth. Keeping the events of that night from being known probably isn't a myth.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
A medical expert AND a fortune teller. Wow.

Political pressure is a myth. Special treatment is a myth. Keeping the events of that night from being known probably isn't a myth.
Click to expand...

Why, thank you. Yes, I am an expert in many things. I have a special gift. I can smell lies. And this case stinks.
Keeping the events of the night secret is something that most of us can agree on. We just disagree on who is keeping the secrets.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
You were wrong and I don't mind telling you. JBR could've spoken to anybody in clear terms while she was alive. She didn't, and that IS significant. Don't downplay it.
Click to expand...

I'm not downplaying it. You're making too much of it. MAYBE JB could have spoken to someone. That she didn't doesn't prove that she wasn't abused; FAR from it. The majority of molestation victims don't talk about it.

Let me frame it this way: one statistic I read claims that 60% of rape victims don't report the crime. Do you know why? Because they're too ashamed and it's too degrading to relive. These are grown women supposedly in full control of their faculties. Just imagine what it must be like for a small child. They don't always know it's wrong, especially if their abuser is someone they love and trust.

So before you tell me what is and is not significant, consider those factors.

Why don't you ask your prosecutor friend how common child testimony is in child abuse cases.
Click to expand...

Not a half-bad idea.

So he could contradict himself? Do you think he's stupid or had no connection between his observations, thoughts, and his final diagnosis? Maybe you need to read the final diagnosis again: MANY injuries listed, NONE listed as prior.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're on about. There's nothing contradictory about going into court and having a conversation as such:

PROS: Could you list the injuries you found when you examined the victim's genital area?

CORONER: Yes, (lists the findings).

PROS: Are these injuries consistent with prolonged sexual molestation?

CORONER: They can indicate that, yes.

Stupid's got nothing to do with it.

Duh, JBR could've complained or pointed. Chronic inflammation, remember?
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe. But maybe not. JB seems like the type who would be taught that complaining is for "losers."

For publicity no doubt.
Click to expand...

Give me a break.

...and she should not have been in there in the first place, if she had already decided guilt.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but there's no evidence that she HAD. Come on, HOTYH; you're the one who always says to consider the basics.

She's not the coroner, she's not an MD. IF LA made a remark that attempts to draw a conclusion about an autopsy observation, its an armchair remark for sure.
Click to expand...

The way I understood it was she was simply repeating what he told her.

This is wrong. Chronic inflammation could've just started.
Click to expand...

You make a good point.

You don't even know what caused chronic inflammation. Its common, and even if JBR was previously abused, its more likely to be the result of soap, or infection, or something unrelated like that. RDI is WAY over the top with chronic inflammation. If she had a stuffy nose, what could you conclude? Cold, allergy, dirt? Crime? I don't think so, its absurd.
Click to expand...

If it was ONLY the chronic inflammation, HOTYH, then I wouldn't give you any argument. That's my whole point. It was a WHOLE LOT more than just that!
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
The soap and infection had to do with chronic inflammation, not injuries that JBR sustained from the assault. Whats your point?
Click to expand...

The point is that there's no way those injuries could have been from only one assault. Number one, the word "erosion" pretty much says it all: the accumulated sloughing of tissue over time. Number two, JB did not have one big hymenal injury; there was hardly any hymen LEFT.
 
SuperDave said:
Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Why did they pick JBR then, if not for publicity. Certainly not because JBR represented a classic example of anything. I mean, we don't even know what happened. There's no proof she was previously injured. Erosion could happen in one minute, there's nothing to show as fact what you've been claiming except third party opinions.

Heck there's absolute zero evidence she was previously abused by a parent, and they write a paper anyway?
 
DeeDee249 said:
Why, thank you. Yes, I am an expert in many things. I have a special gift. I can smell lies. And this case stinks.
Keeping the events of the night secret is something that most of us can agree on. We just disagree on who is keeping the secrets.
Click to expand...

Have you been told a lie with regard to JBR's murder? What was the lie? By whom was it told?
 
SuperDave said:
The point is that there's no way those injuries could have been from only one assault. Number one, the word "erosion" pretty much says it all: the accumulated sloughing of tissue over time. Number two, JB did not have one big hymenal injury; there was hardly any hymen LEFT.
Click to expand...

Who says? You?

Why would Meyer chat with LA, expressing his so-called 'opinions of chronic abuse' on one hand, and write down ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT ON THE FINAL DIAGNOSIS??? Is this where we get paranoid and cite fear of the rich on his part?
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Why did they pick JBR then, if not for publicity.
Click to expand...

I think you and I are victims of an honest, mutual misunderstanding.

There's no proof she was previously injured. Erosion could happen in one minute,
Click to expand...

Try again, HOTYH.

there's nothing to show as fact what you've been claiming except third party opinions.
Click to expand...

A LOT of third-party opinions. One or two can be dismissed. Eight or nine, you have to wonder.

Heck there's absolute zero evidence she was previously abused by a parent, and they write a paper anyway?
Click to expand...

Take it up with them. I'm sure it would be fascinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 87 more.
Total: 3,193 (members: 88, guests: 3,105)

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
3,105
Total visitors
3,193
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,395
Messages
17,968,322
Members
228,766
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top