Prior Vaginal Trauma

[BBB167893]

I hate even typing this, but going by the coroners report is it understood that JonBenet did not have a hymen, but only the rim was left?

I sympathize, vicki. And yes, it is.

I've read it several times, but it's confusing since it doesn't specifically say that. I'd like to know if it is fact and undisputed according to the autopsy wording.

Good luck finding ANYTHING undisputed around here!

Surely Patsy eventually understood if it was not there and a healed rim was left, but the opening was twice as large as unassaulted openings in that age group.

Maybe she did.

Also, didn't one expert think that the previous assault happened about 72 hours prior to her death or is that wrong?

That was, in fact, Cyril Wecht. But I've heard estimates up to ten days prior.

 

[BBB167893]

It isn't normal for a six year old child. Did your Google research further explain why. Did it mention physical examination and cleansing procedures as contributing factors. Just curious as to what the details are since it takes more than an external diaper rash to create erosion, especially when one is six years old.

And just to add to that, it wasn't just the hymen. Parts of the vaginal wall itself were eroded as well.

 

[madeleine]

Exactly! ITA

Let's don't forget the fact that Dr Cyril Wecht wrote a book about this case and the R's and LW never sued him. I find that very telling. Were they afraid to go up against a medical professional with his experience? I know the R's didn't ever want to be inside a court room, thats why they always settled out of court. Seems like they picked and chose who they could bully with a lawsuit and who to leave alone. If the R's and LW thought for one minute that what Wecht said about JBR and her prior sexual abuse was not true, they would have sued him in a heartbeat. Especially, since Wecht also stated that in his opinion that the mother is the one that murdered JBR.

:bump:

 

[2 percent]

I read one of Wecht' s earlier books, Cause of Death, where he discusses his involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Well...not involvement. He was a pain in their behind, endlessly requesting information and pursuing the collection of information in a way the government was not happy about. He even testified in Congress about the ridiculous conclusions of the Warren Commission.

Given that Wecht pushed his obsession with JFK for years and wasn't afraid of the government, I think the Ramseys were right to leave him alone. I have no doubt whatsoever that Wecht would have hauled everyone, both witness and investigator/forensic, into court and thrashed it out if they had tried to sue.

 

[madeleine]

aha.clear now!

http://bardachreports.com/articles/v_19971000.html


Citing unnamed sources within the investigation, the tabloids have laid out two primary theories. The first has it that John Ramsey killed his daughter after a "sex game" went awry. The second posits that Patsy Ramsey walked in on her husband molesting the child, grabbed a heavy object, and swung at him but hit her daughter by mistake. A variation on this theory has it that Patsy, in a rage, struck her daughter or threw her against a hard surface. Both theories suggest that JonBenet's death was not planned but accidental, and then elaborately covered up.

Why then have the Ramseys not sued? Perhaps because a murder defendant actually has more of a right to privacy than a libel plaintiff. One can always take the Fifth Amendment. If he sues for libel, one loses that privilege. Whether the Ramseys are innocent or guilty, says First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams, "I would advise them not to sue, because they are suspects and they would have to answer the most intensive and intrusive question."

 

[frogdog]

I have read ST's, JK's, and LS's books just within the last month. I have been reading threads here for a week and haven't come across any speculation on the following:

Has anyone considered that JBR's vaginal trauma was self-inflicted?

I ask because any woman knows that vaginal irritation itches and anyone who has gone through the chickenpox with children knows that kids will scratch themselves raw to get relief. Considering JBR's history of poor hygiene and bed-wetting and the fact that her doctor had treated her for yeast infections, could the "abuse" actually have been as simple as a child's incessant scratching?

If this has already been discussed, I apologize.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I have read ST's, JK's, and LS's books just within the last month. I have been reading threads here for a week and haven't come across any speculation on the following:

Has anyone considered that JBR's vaginal trauma was self-inflicted?

I ask because any woman knows that vaginal irritation itches and anyone who has gone through the chickenpox with children knows that kids will scratch themselves raw to get relief. Considering JBR's history of poor hygiene and bed-wetting and the fact that her doctor had treated her for yeast infections, could the "abuse" actually have been as simple as a child's incessant scratching?

If this has already been discussed, I apologize.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence of Prior Sexual Abuse

This above link it very informative

From the link

"Expert Panel. "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. 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." (Thomas 2000a:253; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher)."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

I have read ST's, JK's, and LS's books just within the last month. I have been reading threads here for a week and haven't come across any speculation on the following:

Has anyone considered that JBR's vaginal trauma was self-inflicted?

I ask because any woman knows that vaginal irritation itches and anyone who has gone through the chickenpox with children knows that kids will scratch themselves raw to get relief. Considering JBR's history of poor hygiene and bed-wetting and the fact that her doctor had treated her for yeast infections, could the "abuse" actually have been as simple as a child's incessant scratching?

If this has already been discussed, I apologize.

NO-NO-NO.
A hymen doesn't erode from scratching. Bruising doesn't result from being itchy. She was abused. You have a dead child with a garrote around her neck, and a hole in her skull that cracked it in half and you'd consider "scratching" herself over sexual abuse in that scenario?
Some of her vaginal injuries were deep inside. A 6-year old finger would never reach- and when kids scratch they scratch external area, they don't penetrate themselves with enough force to cause bruising and bleeding. This is very different than scratching itchy skin, even from chicken pox (which JB did not suffer from on the night of her death).

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

She showed signs of chronic abuse and interstitial tissue damage inside the vagina wall (per autopsy report). It is highly unlikely that it would be from self-inflicted actions, especially of a young girl.

She had more yeast infections/urinary tract infections in her 6 years on earth (per PR's comments regarding how often JBR had been to the doctor) than I've had in my lifetime.

And from the exterior appearance (which I consider a "tell" as in Poker), one could approximate that things weren't right as well. Bleached hair and teeth, photoshopped pics, provacative poses and costumes, false eyelashes and lipstick. Why couldn't the little girl be just that----a little girl?

Who wanted her to be something else and why?

 

[frogdog]

NO-NO-NO.
A hymen doesn't erode from scratching. Bruising doesn't result from being itchy. She was abused. You have a dead child with a garrote around her neck, and a hole in her skull that cracked it in half and you'd consider "scratching" herself over sexual abuse in that scenario?
Some of her vaginal injuries were deep inside. A 6-year old finger would never reach- and when kids scratch they scratch external area, they don't penetrate themselves with enough force to cause bruising and bleeding. This is very different than scratching itchy skin, even from chicken pox (which JB did not suffer from on the night of her death).

Thank you for your input although a single NO would have sufficed, I think.

I should have made it more clear that I was talking about the "scouring" effect that ST discussed in his book. I read in PMPT (pg 433) that quite a few doctors had opined that the hymen and deep vaginal erosion were from old injuries. That in itself is suspicious, but I took them out of the equation.

I'm well aware that JB did not have chickenpox at the time of her murder. I used that only as a comparison.

My attempted point was that when people are desperately seeking answers to an horrendous tragedy such as this sometimes simple answers are overlooked or dismissed because we feel that darker and more sinister reasons are required to make it logical. I'm not saying that is the case here, so there's no need to put me in my place again.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thank you for your input although a single NO would have sufficed, I think.

I should have made it more clear that I was talking about the "scouring" effect that ST discussed in his book. I read in PMPT (pg 433) that quite a few doctors had opined that the hymen and deep vaginal erosion were from old injuries. That in itself is suspicious, but I took them out of the equation.

I'm well aware that JB did not have chickenpox at the time of her murder. I used that only as a comparison.

My attempted point was that when people are desperately seeking answers to an horrendous tragedy such as this sometimes simple answers are overlooked or dismissed because we feel that darker and more sinister reasons are required to make it logical. I'm not saying that is the case here, so there's no need to put me in my place again.

I think the responses you received were informative and simply stressed the opinions of the experts that evaluated the evidence.

No one was trying to belittle your ideas or theories


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[frogdog]

I think the responses you received were informative and simply stressed the opinions of the experts that evaluated the evidence.

No one was trying to belittle your ideas or theories


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Thank you, but my response was not to you. I did thank you for the information that you supplied.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thank you, but my response was not to you. I did thank you for the information that you supplied.

It's an open thread.

Anyway... Welcome to Websleuths.
We really are a nice bunch, even we we disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Thank you for your input although a single NO would have sufficed, I think.

I should have made it more clear that I was talking about the "scouring" effect that ST discussed in his book. I read in PMPT (pg 433) that quite a few doctors had opined that the hymen and deep vaginal erosion were from old injuries. That in itself is suspicious, but I took them out of the equation.

I'm well aware that JB did not have chickenpox at the time of her murder. I used that only as a comparison.

My attempted point was that when people are desperately seeking answers to an horrendous tragedy such as this sometimes simple answers are overlooked or dismissed because we feel that darker and more sinister reasons are required to make it logical. I'm not saying that is the case here, so there's no need to put me in my place again.

I can never find logic in the brutal murder of a child.

I don't understand why you would remove the testimony of experts that JonBenet had old internal vaginal injuries. Why would you discount that information? Especially considering the night of her death she suffered again from sexual assault and again there were injuries.

I don't believe it's a leap when a child is found DEAD...bashed in the head, and a rope around her neck and a bloody vaginal area ...That there is any reason NOT to see the darker /sinister reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[frogdog]

I can never find logic in the brutal murder of a child.

I don't understand why you would remove the testimony of experts that JonBenet had old internal vaginal injuries. Why would you discount that information? Especially considering the night of her death she suffered again from sexual assault and again there were injuries.

I don't believe it's a leap when a child is found DEAD...bashed in the head, and a rope around her neck and a bloody vaginal area ...That there is any reason NOT to see the darker /sinister reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The reason I excluded the vaginal and hymen erosion from my equation is that for me, mathematically, when two groups of experts reach different conclusions they cancel each other out. Their conclusions become opinion, not fact.

In ST's book the experts said the deep vaginal injuries were from the night of the murder. The experts in LS's book concluded the injuries were from an earlier time. Whichever group is correct changes the dynamic of the case. Chronic sexual abuse by a murderer or unknown (sexual or otherwise) earlier injury?

The problem with experts is that they tend to agree with the person who hires them, just as jurors tend to agree with the expert whose opinion reinforces their beliefs.

Reading in ST's book about the "scouring" reminded me of when my young son had chickenpox and how we would discover little blood stains on his pj's in the morning after he had scratched himself at night. Then I thought about JB's history of yeast infections and considered that she may have been scratching for relief. I don't think any book or report noted if she had an infection at the time although I believe I read that she had been to her doctor's earlier in the week. Why?

You mention so much more of the other evidence while I am only trying to reason out one small piece of this huge puzzle. Yes, it's all important, but I find breaking things down into smaller parts for analysis works best for me

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

The reason I excluded the vaginal and hymen erosion from my equation is that for me, mathematically, when two groups of experts reach different conclusions they cancel each other out. Their conclusions become opinion, not fact.

In ST's book the experts said the deep vaginal injuries were from the night of the murder. The experts in LS's book concluded the injuries were from an earlier time. Whichever group is correct changes the dynamic of the case. Chronic sexual abuse by a murderer or unknown (sexual or otherwise) earlier injury?

The problem with experts is that they tend to agree with the person who hires them, just as jurors tend to agree with the expert whose opinion reinforces their beliefs.

Reading in ST's book about the "scouring" reminded me of when my young son had chickenpox and how we would discover little blood stains on his pj's in the morning after he had scratched himself at night. Then I thought about JB's history of yeast infections and considered that she may have been scratching for relief. I don't think any book or report noted if she had an infection at the time although I believe I read that she had been to her doctor's earlier in the week. Why?

You mention so much more of the other evidence while I am only trying to reason out one small piece of this huge puzzle. Yes, it's all important, but I find breaking things down into smaller parts for analysis works best for me

JBR had *both* chronic sexual abuse (per the medical examiner) and had suffered abuse the night she died (which was obvious by the paintbrush handle). That's the conclusions that I've read about many times over.
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
It is both.

moo

 

[DeeDee249]

JBR had *both* chronic sexual abuse (per the medical examiner) and had suffered abuse the night she died (which was obvious by the paintbrush handle). That's the conclusions that I've read about many times over.
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
It is both.

moo

Right. They are not mutually exclusive.
The findings at an autopsy are FACT, not opinion. The erosion of the hymen was a fact. It is only uncertain what caused it- though the coroner told police he though it was from digital penetration. The blood and bruising in and on the vagina and labia were also FACT.

 

[txsvicki]

Has it ever really been said that JonBenet complained of itching? Everything seems to have been more about irritation. The cream Patsy claimed was needed because of bed wetting and a vaginitis diagnosis. I thought vaginitis was infection from some bacteria ( irritation & redness) instead of yeast.

 

[DeeDee249]

Has it ever really been said that JonBenet complained of itching? Everything seems to have been more about irritation. The cream Patsy claimed was needed because of bed wetting and a vaginitis diagnosis. I thought vaginitis was infection from some bacteria ( irritation & redness) instead of yeast.

I don't recall seeing that specific complaint. The word "vaginitis"- as ALL maladies ending in "itis" simply means inflammation/irritation. Vaginitis is a non-specific term for irritation and/or inflammation in the vaginal area. It may or may not be a bacterial infection. Usually it describes a yeast infection but may have other causes as well.