NO WAY! One time wouldn't do THAT. That's kind of the whole point of the word "erosion": the wearing away of material over time.
What Ames showed you from the autopsy report was just a STARTER. Allow me to quote from my book:
During JonBenet's autopsy, Dr. John Meyer examined her vagina. Here's what he found, from the actual report:
"A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1x1 cm hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of tissue extending clockwise from between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and the distal right vaginal wall."
Okay, for you regular people, that means that JonBenet's hymen was scratched. It has been established that her vagina was violated the night of her death. But the "1x1 cm hymeneal orifice" is the bell-ringer here. That means that the opening in JonBenet's six-year-old hymen was one centimeter by one centimeter. This is twice the size of a so-called normal hymeneal opening for a girl this age.
The autopsy report shows more than just hymeneal damage. Again, from the report:
"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 wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen."
In plain English, that means that JonBenet had old inflammation that had not been allowed to heal. This did not happen all at once. Even more damning is the term "erosion." No point in trying to obfuscate the issue: that means that layers of flesh in JonBenet's vagina had been worn away over time; stripped away by continuous invasion. Old and new vaginal injuries. It couldn't be any plainer than that.
And that's not even mentioning JB's regression in toilet habits or her serious boundary issues!
I don't think you want to KNOW what I think about that little comment.
AH, but that's just it! It's not JUST the chronic inflammation. It's the expanded vaginal size, the lack of hymenal tissue, the erosion of areas normally protected by the hymen, the regression in toilet habits, and the SERIOUS boundary issues.
That's wrong. It's not just wrong, it's an insult.
None of the panel members were associated with the tabloids in ANY way.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Yes, he should. He'd have us believe that the whole abuse angle was something the tabs dreamed up to sell magazines. Indeed, his repeated assertions about rich family scandals and tabloid-paid doctors are almost exact quotes of what JR has said. Well, I wish like hell it WAS just dreamed up!
What a post! *Applause*
The thing is, what HOTYH appears to be ignoring is that, while the autopsy doesn't tell us who was abusing JBR, it does tell her that she had been abused. Had she turned up in an ER with the older injuries, her case would have been referred to children's services or whatever and her family would have been investigated. Had they been eliminated, then people with close, unsupervised, contact with JBR would have been investigated - people with whom JR and PR simply had to have contact. This is yet another reason for which the Ramseys should have spoken to police from day one - they could have told police who had contact with JBR etc and removed suspicion from themselves. Oddly, though, they have always been reluctant to accept or discuss the prior abuse. Given that they seemed to favour a 'friendly' intruder theory in the early days, you'd have thought they would have been more interested or at least kept an open mind.
A couple of other things, we know Patsy had told JBR all about inappropriate touching yet she didn't appear to worry about people having the most intimate contact with JBR when wiping her. This is slightly odd. The list she gives of people who shouldn't touch JBR's swimsuit area is also odd, in that it only specifically mentions family males (and Dr Beuf unless mommy is there).
Finally, as we discussed on another thread, we are finally learning about the involvement of women in child sexual abuse. It runs to at least 25% of all cases and usually involves a family member or close family friend. People are unwilling to accept it and children tend still to be disbelieved when they report abuse by women and, the women, being the primary caregivers in most cases, are often able to pass off inappropriate touching etc by talking about washing the child etc. The women may not actually regard what they do as sexual abuse, thinking it is OK to digitally penetrate a child for cleansing purposes.
None of this can ever be proven to relate to the Ramsey case but even IDI have to admit that looking at this angle might have proved useful in identifying who killed JBR. Instead they assume that it would necessarily implicate JR.
ETA: Also, Wendy Murphy accused John of sexually abusing JBR and no action has been taken against her. If IDI can query why FW never sued Nancy Krebs, then I think we are entitled to ask why JR didn't sue Wendy Murphy.
And, for the record, I'm not personally wedded to the notion that JR was harming JB but that possibility and the possibility of others close to her harming her should have been investigated with the help of the Ramseys.
