Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[BBB167893]

One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."



Who was this expert...

Dr. Richard Krugman.

 

[BBB167893]

Technically, it doesn't matter if there was prior abuse because neither parent can be linked to it.

Doesn't matter? Are you serious? Even if it can't be linked to either parent, wouldn't you say it's a pretty good bet that whoever was behind it is also the killer?

You'd think after so many years that RDI wouldn't still need to make baseless claims.

"Baseless," my fat Irish patoot.

IOW prior abuse on its own isn't a baseless claim, but prior abuse by a specific person is a baseless claim.

Now you're talking, HOTYH. I can get my head around that.

 

[BBB167893]

Hiya Hotyh.


Its been exposed as a baseless claim. - Hotyh.

Can it. Has it. How can that be .....

Unfortunately, HOTYH is repeating some straight-up Michael Tracey BS. Practically word for word, if memory serves.

I thought that was the one agreed upon `truth`.
That as described, JBR`s chronic symptoms, àre the standard set for a determination of `chronic`sexual abuse.

:clap: :clap:

http://zyberzoom.com/JBRAutopsy.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. [/FONT]

I feel as if the propagandists have arrived with their 2 page pamphlets.
Negationism. Historical revisionism. Arrgh.

There's a very well-known saying about how if a lie is told often enough, it will be accepted as truth.

 

[BBB167893]

In the current system, there is no proof of prior trauma, no proof of prior abuse, and no proof PR or JR ever abused JBR. Couldn't RDI have proven just one of these things?

By YOUR definition, HOTYH, the only way to do that would be to interview JB and have her state it herself. Obviously, that can't happen.

 

[BBB167893]

Does the testimony of experts in the field like Wecht and Kirschner, not to mention the panel referred to by Steve Thomas, mean nothing to you? Short of having witnesses or videotape, or the testimony of the victim, how else would you prove sexual abuse?

Damn good questions. Especially that last one. How else WOULD you prove it?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

By YOUR definition, HOTYH, the only way to do that would be to interview JB and have her state it herself. Obviously, that can't happen.

You're wrong, although I don't really think you're concerned about it.

Prior trauma: Meyer could've stated that in his diagnosis, but he didn't. Pediatrician could've stated it also, but he didn't either. Thats two MD's who actually attended JBR that don't have anything to say about EITHER trauma OR abuse.

Prior abuse: Meyer could've stated that in his diagnosis, but he didn't. Beuf could've reported it also, but he didn't. Any witness including family, friends, teachers or hired help could've reported something significant that JBR said or did. But they didn't.

Prior abuse by JR or PR: Any witness including family, friends, teachers or hired help could've reported something JBR said or did. But they didn't. Evidence could've shown up on items owned by JR and PR that were checked and re-checked by BPD.

By YOUR definition, HOTYH, the only way to do that would be to interview JB and have her state it herself. Obviously, that can't happen.

Obviously, this is wrong.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Based on what Det. Arndt said on "Good Morning, America," both. In fact, if memory serves, her exact quote was, "not all of her injuries appeared to be recent."

It would've been a lot better for RDI if this was a documented statement in the autopsy diagnosis by the coroner, instead of an armchair remark made by an RDI believer on TV. Remember, thats what the autopsy report is for, to report the findings and observations.

There was no such finding or observation on the autopsy diagnosis. That is, there were MANY injuries listed on the diagnosis, but NONE were described as not recent. It seems LA was making things up to suit a POV.

 

[DeeDee249]

It would've been a lot better for RDI if this was a documented statement in the autopsy diagnosis by the coroner, instead of an armchair remark made by an RDI believer on TV. Remember, thats what the autopsy report is for, to report the findings and observations.

There was no such finding or observation on the autopsy diagnosis. That is, there were MANY injuries listed on the diagnosis, but NONE were described as not recent. It seems LA was making things up to suit a POV.

It would have been a lot better for EVERYONE interested in justice in this case if the coroner had put in his report EVERYTHING that he noted and said to LE. Unfortunately, he did not. His autopsy report does not reflect all that he saw and noted, and it does not reflect ANY of what he thought may have caused these injuries.

 

[DeeDee249]

Prior abuse isn't known to exist. Its an opinion.

Yes. The coroner's opinion. And as far as he was concerned, there was prior abuse.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It would have been a lot better for EVERYONE interested in justice in this case if the coroner had put in his report EVERYTHING that he noted and said to LE. Unfortunately, he did not. His autopsy report does not reflect all that he saw and noted, and it does not reflect ANY of what he thought may have caused these injuries.

Between him, Beuf, ML, that darned federal judge, those BPD-hired handwriting analysts that wouldn't, that GJ that couldn't, and LW, how will we ever see justice?

Seriously, though, the coroner had an opportunity to note anything and everything. It was already his job to do that, and now suddenly he didn't do that?

IMO thats just your claim.

The notion of outsiders present during autopsy, when the outsider has an opinion as to who did it, does raise a red flag.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes. The coroner's opinion. And as far as he was concerned, there was prior abuse.

Thats false.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thats false.

It is not false. His opinion was there were both chronic and acute injuries.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is not false. His opinion was there were both chronic and acute injuries.

What? Its COMPLETELY false. The coroner never expressed chronic injuries. Where do you get this stuff?

His diagnosis never included abuse, chronic or otherwise. Thats you're opinion, not his. You are reading more into the autopsy diagnosis than what is really there, to satisfy your belief in RDI. Why do you need to modify the coroner's diagnosis? He never said previous abuse, nor did he ever say 'chronic injuries' but you posted that that was his opinion.

More or less like putting words in his mouth.

Why can't you take the autopsy diagnosis for what it is, like the GJ result?

Do you believe the autopsy final diagnosis is bogus?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes. The coroner's opinion. And as far as he was concerned, there was prior abuse.

Wow.

The coroner never expressed that there was prior abuse. I have to ask, where do you get this stuff?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

His autopsy report does not reflect all that he saw and noted, and it does not reflect ANY of what he thought may have caused these injuries.

This is more wildcard reasoning.

By claiming the coroner had additional sights and thoughts not reflected in the report, you're able to claim just about any sight or thought took place.

Fortunately the report is objective and not subject to being overridden by other people who've already decided who did it.

The autopsy final diagnosis says nothing about previous injury. Is RDI ready to disregard the autopsy report final diagnosis?

 

[Ravyn]

Looking at the diagnosis,what does all this mean..I seen chronic in the coroner report...


Acute inflamnatory infiltrate is not seen...


All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interatitial chronic inflamnation...

contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Looking at the diagnosis,what does all this mean..I seen chronic in the coroner report...


Acute inflamnatory infiltrate is not seen...


All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interatitial chronic inflamnation...

contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion...

RDI thinks 'chronic inflammation' instantly equates to 'prior sexual abuse', which is ridiculous.

chronic inflammation
noun
Inflammation that may have a rapid or slow onset but is characterized primarily by its persistence and lack of clear resolution; it occurs when the tissues are unable to overcome the effects of the injuring agent.

There is no way to rationally go from 'chronic inflammation' to 'prior sexual abuse by a parent' . Its too common, like a stuffy nose. Even if there was prior abuse, the chronic inflammation would've been more likely from soap or infection.

Chronic inflammation had no bearing on the final autopsy diagnosis: The autopsy final diagnosis listed MANY injuries to JBR's front, back, top, and bottom. NOT ONE was a prior injury.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH,

You keep saying there is "no evidence" of vaginal abuse. The office visits alone are a red flag that something was seriously wrong in the home. We took our children to the doctor's maybe twice a year, perhaps another one thrown in here or there. This girl averaged nearly SEVEN visits per year.

Oh, right. Parents abusing their kids are going to take them to the pediatrician MORE. Thats just ridiculous. An abusive parent is more likely to AVOID the doctor, doncha think?

Does the testimony of experts in the field like Wecht and Kirschner, not to mention the panel referred to by Steve Thomas, mean nothing to you? Short of having witnesses or videotape, or the testimony of the victim, how else would you prove sexual abuse?

No, it means LESS than nothing to me.

These were tabloid hires, not BPD consultants. They were not officially involved in the investigation despite ST statement they made 'major conclusions' in said investigation.

This is not to say that I think that should have happened to the Ramseys, but they should have been scrutinized more skeptically, especially by the press. There is "reasonable doubt" in almost every case. The problem is, that laudable concept also is never applied, by judge or jury, unless the defendant is a celebrity and/or wealthy.

This is a generalization.

 

[BBB167893]

You're wrong, although I don't really think you're concerned about it.

Boy, you have got some brass.

Prior trauma: Meyer could've stated that in his diagnosis, but he didn't.

He had to keep something in case he was called into court, didn't he?

Pediatrician could've stated it also, but he didn't either.

He didn't CHECK, HOTYH. He even said so.

Thats two MD's who actually attended JBR that don't have anything to say about EITHER trauma OR abuse.

Andrew Sirotnak did. He and Krugman even co-authored a medical treatise on child abuse with JB as their centerpiece, if that tells you anything.

Any witness including family, friends, teachers or hired help could've reported something significant that JBR said or did. But they didn't.

True, but that assumes that JB would tell them anything or that they knew what to look for.

You make it sound as if it's so damn easy to spot these things.

Evidence could've shown up on items owned by JR and PR that were checked and re-checked by BPD.

Such as?

It would've been a lot better for RDI if this was a documented statement in the autopsy diagnosis by the coroner, instead of an armchair remark made by an RDI believer on TV.

"Armchair remark?" Are you kidding me? She was right there when it happened. Just how STUPID do you think I am, anyway?

Remember, thats what the autopsy report is for, to report the findings and observations.

You discount the possibility of his testimony.

There was no such finding or observation on the autopsy diagnosis. That is, there were MANY injuries listed on the diagnosis, but NONE were described as not recent.

Like he**! The autopsy clearly states "chronic" and "Acute." Translation: "old" and "new." Don't take my word for it, either. Wendy Murphy is a sex crimes prosecutor. This is her bread and butter. She knows what it means.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Boy, you have got some brass.

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.

He had to keep something in case he was called into court, didn't he?

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.

He didn't CHECK, HOTYH. He even said so.

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

Andrew Sirotnak did. He and Krugman even co-authored a medical treatise on child abuse with JB as their centerpiece, if that tells you anything..

For publicity no doubt. Meyer was the coroner.

"Armchair remark?" Are you kidding me? She was right there when it happened.

...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.

Like he**! The autopsy clearly states "chronic" and "Acute." Translation: "old" and "new." Don't take my word for it, either. Wendy Murphy is a sex crimes prosecutor. This is her bread and butter. She knows what it means.

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.