BlueCrab said:
bensmom98,
It's true kids learn a lot about sex from street talk. It doesn't necessarily mean they are sexually active. But in the case of JonBenet the evidence of prior sexual abuse was proven by the autopsy results. She had acute injuries to the vagina (at the time of the murder) and she had chronic injuries to the vagina (up to 3 days prior to the murder).
JonBenet's hymen was "represented" by a rim of mucosa tissue (IOW the hymen was gone); the hymenal orifice was one cm (about twice the size it should have been); and there were acute injuries over top of eroded (old and worn away over a period of time) injuries at the 7 o'clock position in the vagina.
JonBenet had been chronically sexually abused.
BlueCrab
BlueCrab,
If I understand you correctly, it is your OPINION that the hymen was gone. If that is so, that's fine. We're all entitled to our opinions. I didn't notice that you mentioned the word, OPINION, in your observations quoted above.
You are suggesting, if not asserting, that the coroner selected this roundabout way of informing the readers of his autopsy report, that the hymen was gone, [about this, more later] when he could more easily and clearly have said, this is all that's left of the hymen, or, alternatively, the hymen is torn, or, a portion of the hymen is gone.
He commented on the abrasion to the hymen (and other abrasions), but he failed to mention that big chunk of missing hymen that was the source of so much bleeding? He mentioned the few blood cells on the surface of the abraded portion of the hymen, discovered upon microscopic examination, but he failed to mention the millions and millions of disrupted cells (the rent) that signified the torn flesh at the site of the horrendous hymenectomy? I don't think so....and that's MY opinion.
From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition:
represent (vb): to bring clearly before the mind: PRESENT <a book which represents the character of early America> I don't see any ambiguity in the term, "represents". None. In describing normal hymens (those that haven't suffered injury) the term, "rim", is used. So, apparently, for some, these two terms, "represents", and "rim", have prompted them to conjure up an image of missing tissue, where none is missing.
"IOW The hymen was gone." I have returned to this as promised. Now, if it were true that the coroner said the hymen was gone, and we could all agree on this, we'd still have one more important question to answer--is he talking about an old injury or a new one? He described the hymen as it was when he saw it for the first time. BTW, he was describing a hymen, not what had once been a hymen, and was no longer. Was the hymenectomy (as it were) that you infer, performed long ago, or on the night of JB's death? We'd be forced to speculate, since there were pathologies of two sorts mentioned in the report--chronic and acute. An old injury is not an acute injury. We've added another worm to the can, thanks to our speculation based on an incorrect interpretation of the coroner's remarks. But, just as each of us has a right to his/her opinon, each of us has a right to his/her misintepretation. Let's agree, for a few seconds, that part of the hymen had been ripped away that night. Where did it end up?
And that brings us to the scarring. Where in the world did this notion come from???? There is no mention, in the report, of scarring. This scarring is an inference at best, and a figment of the imagination at worst. The chronic interstitial inflammation is aptly explained by vaginitis.
"The evidence of prior sexual abuse was proven by the autopsy results." No. Some "experts" opined that there may have been prior abuse. That issue was never definitively decided. But, what if it had been? What if there had been a unanimous opinion--yes, she's been abused in the past. What would you conclude from that? Daddy's been abusing his child? Burke's been abusing his sister? Patsy's been abusing her daughter? The gardener has been abusing JonBenet?
What we're looking for is evidence to suggest who committed the crime of murder; better yet, evidence to PROVE who committed the crime.
We have an acute injury to the vagina; we have a dead girl. Somebody messed with her vagina that night, but the injury inflicted that night was minor. It appears to have been done with something like a stick. That's good evidence. That tells us something. That speaks a lot louder than any supposed (but debated) prior injury that wouldn't advance the ball for either side in a trial, or in a debate on an internet forum.
I think you've also misinterpreted the term, "eroded". Any removal of cells from the surface of tissue by an abrasive process, whether repetitive or nonrepetitive, is termed erosion. "Erosion" doesn't mean old and worn away over a period of time, unless by, period of time, you mean milliseconds to seconds.
That's how I see it.....
