Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[DeeDee249]

Showed evidence of penetration from that night or prior to that night?

Both. There was fresh bruising and some blood, which were described as acute (from that night) and also evidence of previous trauma, including the erosion, which was described as chronic. Many people get confused by the term "chronic" they confuse it with "chronic" as in chronic illness, meaning over a long period of time. In this case, the term chronic simply means that it happened on at least one occasion OTHER than the acute injuries from that night. This could mean that JB may have only been abused one other time (at the Dec. 23 party, perhaps?) But it could also have been evidence of repeated sexual contact. There is simply no way to tell from the evidence how many times it occurred, other than it was more than once.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Both. There was fresh bruising and some blood, which were described as acute (from that night) and also evidence of previous trauma, including the erosion, which was described as chronic. Many people get confused by the term "chronic" they confuse it with "chronic" as in chronic illness, meaning over a long period of time. In this case, the term chronic simply means that it happened on at least one occasion OTHER than the acute injuries from that night. This could mean that JB may have only been abused one other time (at the Dec. 23 party, perhaps?) But it could also have been evidence of repeated sexual contact. There is simply no way to tell from the evidence how many times it occurred, other than it was more than once.

You're reading more into the autopsy than what is there.

Reread the FINAL DIAGNOSIS section, which makes no mention of anything that would indicate JBR was a victim of any crime other than that night. If the coroner was of the opinion that there was prior injury underlying current injury, it would be here.

Prior abuse is a term you're choosing to use, not one used by the coroner. Prior injury is what you think the autopsy report says, but it never says that.

Even if you assume that prior abuse is real, consider that there is no link between either parent and this abuse. For now, prior abuse by a parent is truly a baseless claim. Please be sure and let me know when a link is found.

 

[Ravyn]

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...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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...

An expert taken out of context?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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

Prior abuse, while theorized, can't be linked to PR or JR and therefore it clearly becomes a baseless claim. You'd think after so many years that RDI wouldn't still need to make baseless claims.

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

 

[Ravyn]

I'm just wondering if ST based his theory with what the one expert said,or to help him more because he already knew who did it...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

LE:
"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - "
ST

How does a third-party panel of pediatric experts reach major conclusions of the investigation? Normally, detectives handle an investigation and make their own conclusions based on evidence and witness testimony.

Its not like there's a universally free and open investigation that everybody and anybody can declare at will that they've reached a major conclusion.

Better: A panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached an agreement that JBR had prior trauma.

Although, besides ST and here on this forum, nobody's discussing prior abuse much. Its been exposed as a baseless claim.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hiya Hotyh.


Its been exposed as a baseless claim. - Hotyh.

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

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.

 

[cynic]

Since there is no direct evidence linking PR or JR to prior abuse, and since the whole idea of prior abuse isn't really an accepted part of this case anyway, the idea that either parent previously abused JBR becomes nothing more than a baseless claim.

What evidence did you have in mind that would be conclusive? Eye witnesses, video, pictures? In television dramas, perhaps, but not in the real world.
In most child sexual crimes cases, the primary and most damaging evidence comes from forensic interviews of the child. Obviously that is not possible if the child is deceased. As it says below “ in the typical child sexual abuse allegation case there is not much, if any, forensic evidence.”

In recent years more and more attention has been paid to child sexual abuse crimes not only by the criminal justice system but also by local and national media. Sensational stories of child predators abducting and abusing children, and stories about the sex offender registry laws enacted as a result of such tragic cases, have lead to a near witch hunt atmosphere where the public seems to believe that there is a child predator around every corner and on every door step. What is usually overlooked, however, is that the great majority of child sexual abuse cases do not involve stranger abduction or even the convicted sex offender who lives down the street. The great majority of child sexual abuse allegations are made against a family member, friend, or relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, teacher, pastor, priest, counselor, or other person close to the child. Certainly, when the person accused is guilty, child sexual abuse is a crime of opportunity. In other words, the offender's close relationship to the child provides the offender access to the child and the opportunity to commit the crime.

Taking and passing a lie detector test is possibly the quickest way to refocus law enforcement away from the bias against the accused and to get them to begin to consider that the allegation is false.

In a criminal trial typically the only witness allowed to give an opinion is one who the court finds to be an expert. Typically all other witnesses may only testify to facts: what they saw, heard, or did. An expert, however, may testify to what he believes a particular fact means, for example, whether in his opinion a particular injury is consistent with sexual abuse.

Certainly, if there is forensic evidence in the case such as hair, fiber, blood, or semen that implicates the accused but the accused maintains his innocence, defense experts will be needed to review the tests, findings, and conclusions of the State's experts.

However, in the typical child sexual abuse allegation case there is not much, if any, forensic evidence. Typically there are two situations in which to consider using an expert witness in a child sexual abuse allegation case: 1) to review and possibly testify regarding whether any findings of tearing or scarring of the vaginal wall or hymen or anus are consistent or inconsistent with sexual abuse; and 2) to review and possibly testify regarding whether or not the forensic interview was conducted in a leading or suggestive manner causing the accuser's testimony to be unreliable.
By Brent Horst, Attorney at Law
http://www.brenthorstcriminallaw.com/ten-tips/

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What evidence did you have in mind that would be conclusive? Eye witnesses, video, pictures? In television dramas, perhaps, but not in the real world.
In most child sexual crimes cases, the primary and most damaging evidence comes from forensic interviews of the child. Obviously that is not possible if the child is deceased. As it says below “ in the typical child sexual abuse allegation case there is not much, if any, forensic evidence.”

In recent years more and more attention has been paid to child sexual abuse crimes not only by the criminal justice system but also by local and national media. Sensational stories of child predators abducting and abusing children, and stories about the sex offender registry laws enacted as a result of such tragic cases, have lead to a near witch hunt atmosphere where the public seems to believe that there is a child predator around every corner and on every door step. What is usually overlooked, however, is that the great majority of child sexual abuse cases do not involve stranger abduction or even the convicted sex offender who lives down the street. The great majority of child sexual abuse allegations are made against a family member, friend, or relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, teacher, pastor, priest, counselor, or other person close to the child. Certainly, when the person accused is guilty, child sexual abuse is a crime of opportunity. In other words, the offender's close relationship to the child provides the offender access to the child and the opportunity to commit the crime.

Taking and passing a lie detector test is possibly the quickest way to refocus law enforcement away from the bias against the accused and to get them to begin to consider that the allegation is false.

In a criminal trial typically the only witness allowed to give an opinion is one who the court finds to be an expert. Typically all other witnesses may only testify to facts: what they saw, heard, or did. An expert, however, may testify to what he believes a particular fact means, for example, whether in his opinion a particular injury is consistent with sexual abuse.

Certainly, if there is forensic evidence in the case such as hair, fiber, blood, or semen that implicates the accused but the accused maintains his innocence, defense experts will be needed to review the tests, findings, and conclusions of the State's experts.

However, in the typical child sexual abuse allegation case there is not much, if any, forensic evidence. Typically there are two situations in which to consider using an expert witness in a child sexual abuse allegation case: 1) to review and possibly testify regarding whether any findings of tearing or scarring of the vaginal wall or hymen or anus are consistent or inconsistent with sexual abuse; and 2) to review and possibly testify regarding whether or not the forensic interview was conducted in a leading or suggestive manner causing the accuser's testimony to be unreliable.
By Brent Horst, Attorney at Law
http://www.brenthorstcriminallaw.com/ten-tips/http://www.brenthorstcriminallaw.com/ten-tips/http://www.brenthorstcriminallaw.com/ten-tips/

It seems to me you're promoting the idea of finding guilt based on 3rd party opinions of those who did not attend JBR in life or death. Judging guilt based solely on statistics (I think thats what ST wanted).

Thats just scary.

We did away with lynch mobs centuries ago.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hiya Hotyh.


Its been exposed as a baseless claim. - Hotyh.

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

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.

Tad,

It truely is a baseless claim. That much can't be disputed.

While a previous abuse claim may be supported by interpretation of some of the evidence by some people, a claim that a specific person did the abuse has no basis in evidence--a baseless claim.

 

[DeeDee249]

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

Prior abuse, while theorized, can't be linked to PR or JR and therefore it clearly becomes a baseless claim. You'd think after so many years that RDI wouldn't still need to make baseless claims.

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

You are right in that it can't be linked to either parent. We can only theorize, we can't prove. But that doesn't make it a baseless claim. It can't be said that she was NOT abused just because it can't be proved who abused her any more than it can be said she was not killed because we can't prove who killed her.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You are right in that it can't be linked to either parent. We can only theorize, we can't prove. But that doesn't make it a baseless claim. It can't be said that she was NOT abused just because it can't be proved who abused her any more than it can be said she was not killed because we can't prove who killed her.

Of course, I never said that.

Here's what I said:

The claim that JBR was previously abused seems to have a basis but only in expert witness testimony.

The claim against a specific person, like JR or PR, for previously abusing JBR has no basis. IOW a baseless claim. Despite this, RDI regularly refers to prior abuse by a parent as if it were a given. Rationally, its not easy to move past step one 'prior trauma' to discern step two 'prior abuse' let alone step three 'who did the abuse.' RDI somehow figures step 3 is a foregone conclusion, but by faulty reasoning.

Step one is a 3rd party observation by people who never attended JBR in life or death. Prior trauma was not part of the autopsy report.

 

[DeeDee249]

Of course, I never said that.

Here's what I said:

The claim that JBR was previously abused seems to have a basis but only in expert witness testimony.

The claim against a specific person, like JR or PR, for previously abusing JBR has no basis. IOW a baseless claim. Despite this, RDI regularly refers to prior abuse by a parent as if it were a given. Rationally, its not easy to move past step one 'prior trauma' to discern step two 'prior abuse' let alone step three 'who did the abuse.' RDI somehow figures step 3 is a forgone conclusion, but by faulty reasoning.

Step one is a 3rd party observation by people who never attended JBR in life or death. Prior trauma was not part of the autopsy report.

To me, when considering the prior abuse, I consider who had the most access to JB. I consider first and foremost the people she lived with, her parents, brothers. Though JAR did not live there full time, he did attend the university right there in Boulder and was at the house frequently. I have to consider these 4 people above all others. The behavior of the parents in this case lead me to believe they are covering for someone either themselves or their son(s).
While I realize some consider it possible that someone who is known to the family may be the abuser, I can't see anyone else having that kind of access
to JB on a regular basis. And I can't explain away Patsy's odd reaction to LE's comments about evidence of sexual abuse found on her dead daughter. The parents KNOW something. I believe even those who do not think the parents are guilty of killing JB must think their behavior indicates that they know what happened that night.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

To me, when considering the prior abuse,....

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

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Even prior trauma was just a 3rd party opinion. It wasn't part of the autopsy diagnosis.

 

[Unreals]

This little girl was taken to the doctor 27 times in four years. Any parent knows how excessive that is. There is no question in my mind that if the Ramseys had been a poor or working class couple, that doctor would have contacted social services well before that 27th visit and reported that they were unfit parents (if he didn't alert them to the signs of sexual abuse).

Renowned pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht examined the autopsy results thoroughly and stated that JonBenet had been the victim of chronic abuse. University of Chicago pathologist Dr. Robert Kirschner noted that "The vaginal opening was twice the normal size for six year olds," and indicated there was evidence of "previous molestation." Despite this, JonBenet's doctor claimed the number of visits wasn't unusual and he adamantly denied any evidence of sexual abuse. Yeah, I'm sure any doctor would say that about the child of a couple with no wealth or prestige in the same situation.

Money and power played a role here, as they always do. The Ramseys were accorded a different brand of justice than the common riff-raff receive.

To say that nothing links the parents to her previous vaginal trauma is absurd. As was noted, what would you expect- video, eyewitnesses? If everyone was held to that standard of proof, then no one would ever be convicted of sexual abuse. Clear and blatant favortism.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If everyone was held to that standard of proof, then no one would ever be convicted of sexual abuse. Clear and blatant favortism.

I believe the system is 'innocent until proven guilty'. The operative word being 'proven'.

Please let me know when there's another system like you're suggesting: 'innocent until proven guilty, unless proving is not easy by means of videotape or eyewitnesses, in which case innocent until enough people say you're guilty'

I can only be thankful we're not in this lynch-mob system.

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? That way, RDI wouldn't even need the 'expert' testimony, statistics, or excuses like 'they bought their way out' .

 

[Unreals]

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.

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?

I believe strongly in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The problem is, our media and courts rarely even pay lip service to this concept unless the defendant is a celebrity and/or very wealthy. You and I both know that if the murdered daughter of a poor or middle class couple was discovered in their home, with a ridiculous, rambling ransom note on site as well, not to mention the suspicious behavior the parents exhibited, that they would have been summarily arrested, been given a typically inept public defender, been condemned soundly by the same "journalists" who've loyally defended the Ramseys, and been convicted in very short order.

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.

 

[BBB167893]

Showed evidence of penetration from that night or prior to that night?

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."

Neither LE nor the media are proceeding as if prior abuse is a given. Prior abuse is not presented by LE, the media, or the DA as an established fact or foregone conclusion. Why do you suppose that is, I mean considering the 'expert panel' and all?

Do you REALLY want an answer to that?