Ahem, the incident that got this discussion started (this time--the nth time) was the posting of the two true/false questions which were very specific. I repeat them here for everyone's edification:
Was the hymen torn?
Was the vagina scarred?
Whereas all the peripheral stuff is interesting and important, these were the two questions that I, for one, wanted answers to. I'm beginning to think that definitive answers aren't forthcoming.
It's one thing to have a theory, as BPD did early on, and try to fit the evidence into it. It's another thing to look at the evidence, as Smit claims to have done, and follow it where it leads. It's human nature to have hunches, and to be guided (or misguided) by them. Sometimes a hunch can get you to the truth very quickly; other times it leads you way off the path. An example of such a hunch was the residue on JB's thigh, which showed up when illuminated with a black light (UV). Investigators suspected that it was semen. It turned out they were wrong.
I pointed out that the autopsy report described an abraded [eroded] hymen, and said nothing about a torn hymen; that is the undeniable truth. I pointed out that the autopsy report mentioned inflammation and capillary congestion, and said nothing about vaginal scarring; that is the undeniable truth.
Having gotten over that hurdle, these questions are posed:
Is it logical to deduce/assume/surmise/conclude, based on the autopsy report, that the hymen was torn? I think we already know how some of the posters feel about that; they have rallied their experts around them. I'd like to know how posters themselves, approaching the subject with an open and objective mind, interpret the evidence, without being guided or misguided by the experts or authors who may or may not have knowingly or accidentally engaged in mischaracterization. I only visited the autopsy report myself because the experts were arguing about what it implied. I wanted to make up my own mind about what it implied. If the vast majority of unbiased experts had concluded this, that or the other, I would have no reason to doubt them. But, they didn't and haven't. Unlike most of the experts, I have no dog in the race, no axe to grind, no desired outcome, just intellectual curiosity about the case.
Is it logical to deduce/assume/surmise/conclude that the vagina was scarred? To me, this is a less important question, but certainly could have some bearing on whom to look at as suspect. Scarring isn't an acute phenomenon; visible scars don't develope in milliseconds, microseconds, seconds or even minutes. There is no doubt that the coroner described the focal interstitial inflammation as chronic. We can't know exactly what he meant unless we discuss this with him, but we can know what chronic means. It's a medical term, and it means marked by long duration (e.g., congestive heart failure) or frequent occurrence, and is opposed to acute, which means it happens all of a sudden (e.g., a heart attack). If you accidentally cut yourself with a knife--this used to happen to me once in a while as a kid who liked to carve wood with a jackknife--the injury is acute. The resulting scar--if there is one--doesn't appear all of a sudden; but when it does appear (the time comes when you can look, and it's there), it doesn't mean that you're in the habit of cutting yourself over and over again at that spot on your finger, or that once the blade entered the flesh, it remained there for a fortnight. Well, what do you make of that?
Why are these important questions of FACT? If we are convinced that we know the facts, we can procede to attempt to arrive at important conclusions based on them. For example, assume the hymen was FRESHLY torn (and old tear might have some important implications too). That might be real important evidence; it might indicate that someone tried to have sex with JonBenet that night. If that were true, it might help us to understand the motive of person who was involved in the crime, and narrow our suspect list.
If we strongly suspect that there was scarring in the vagina, then we might reasonably suspect that someone who had ready access to JonBenet had been abusing her, and that also might help us to narrow our suspect list. I don't think the mysterious intruder pedophile would be a good candidate for inclusion in that list under that circumstance. Does anyone?
We can choose to leap to conclusions (meaning no disrespect) or we can choose to carefully, thoughtfully, painstakingly arrive at them.
Here are two big questions (not newly presented): (1.) Was it someone's desire for sexual intercourse with JonBenet that lead to her death? (2.) Was it someone's desire to conceal his involvement in the crime, that explains the sexual injury?
Concerning (1.): If you believe this, how do you account for what appears to be a minor vaginal injury with no clear evidence that sexual intercourse was attempted? Concerning (2.): If you believe this, what's your explanation for why he/she chose this injury as a means to deceive?
Something to consider regarding the "erosion"; it was discovered on the smallest piece of tissue taken from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen and underlying it was capillary congestion. This 7:00 position was the spot where the visible abrasion ("1 cm in area") was discovered. This red-purple area of abrasion was visible to the naked eye. Is it any wonder that upon microscopic examination, this abrasion/erosion was also evident; that the microscope confirmed what the naked eye had seen?
You decide...
