Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
This is what I was talking about:
http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today011224.html He co-authored it with Dr. Krugman, one of the most adamant on findings of prior abuse, if that tells you anything.
I'm much obliged to you.
Meyer never said there wasn't any. He used the words "chronic" and "erosion," which is pretty clear to a lot of people. As for Beuf, he admits himself he never performed an internal examination and he hadn't seen her since October, I think.
Empty? We'll have to disagree on that one, but in a quibbling way. I think it's helpful to remember that even if it were clear (to me it is, but that's just my $.02), it doesn't necessarily follow that JR or BR or JAR or Grandpa P was the one doing it. That factored into LE's decision. Also, the physical findings indicate a physical abuse, but not necessarily for sexual gratification. Dr. Krugman pointed that out. Confused yet? Yeah, so was I.
No, I don't, but probably not for the reasons you think I don't.
Given the lack of consensus by the main group of people that were actually involved in the investigation.
Well, actually there were eight pathologists who were very specifically involved in the investigation who, independently of each other, reached the conclusion that I have. Wecht wasn't one of them, but they are on my list. That would take more explaining (and leave both of us with a bad taste in our mouths, I think).
So you're saying that an attendee at the autopsy is associated with a person who wasn't, and that person believes in prior abuse. And because of that, and the fact that neither Meyer or Sirotnak specifically stated she was not previously abused, that you conclude she was?
Wow.
Really, what you've got, SD, is nobody who attended JBR who has stated that JBR was abused prior to the night of the murder. Thats really what you've got and nothing more. There's no conclusion that you, I, or a dozen armchair experts can reach, having not been there.