Jonbenet`s Hymen
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 07

Detroit, MI

#1 Jul 22, 2008
In the Autopsy Report it talks about Jonbenet`s Hymen.
The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen.

If Jonbenet had her motor running at a young age whether by choice or not, there would at best be part of her hymen---DOESN`T THIS SHOW THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO SEXUAL ACTIVITY BEFORE HER MURDER???

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#2 Jul 23, 2008
It shows the opposite!
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#3 Jul 23, 2008
Legal__Eagle wrote:
It shows the opposite!
You crack me up Legal.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#4 Jul 23, 2008
For Detroit:

Here's a quote:
Steve Thomas, hardback, p. 305:

"She [Det. Jane Harmer] showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of JonBenét. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of "chronic sexual abuse", although the detectives referred to it only as "prior vaginal trauma".
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#5 Jul 23, 2008
candy wrote:
For Detroit:
Here's a quote:
Steve Thomas, hardback, p. 305:
"She [Det. Jane Harmer] showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of JonBenét. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of "chronic sexual abuse", although the detectives referred to it only as "prior vaginal trauma".
And the dtectives were smart.
Out of towner

Houston, TX

#7 Jul 23, 2008
I can see that you all do not have any medical backgrounds. There is no such thing as a normal hymen and for a detective to compare a photo of one is not possible. I am thinking there were no sex abuse experts in that meeting if she got away with this. Hymens vary from female to female. Some girls are even born without them. Medically speaking, however, the concept of an "intact" hymen is a myth. That's because hymens vary in shape, size, and thickness. Among the multiple possibilities are hymens that surround the entire vaginal entrance, with an open space in the center (called an annular hymen), and hymens that appear open with a thin line of skin down the middle (a septate hymen) and some that are crescent shaped (half-moon) Since hymens come in so many shapes and forms, it's important to realise that the hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a person has been sexually abused or not. The only way to be sure is to interview the girl (which cannot be done in this case) or if the child has an STD. What I have read here is total nonsense.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#8 Jul 23, 2008
Thank you very much Out of Towner. That is a very interesting rebuttal, and no doubt, where Lacy is coming from on the issue.
Indigo

United States

#9 Jul 24, 2008
Out of towner wrote:
I can see that you all do not have any medical backgrounds. There is no such thing as a normal hymen and for a detective to compare a photo of one is not possible. I am thinking there were no sex abuse experts in that meeting if she got away with this. Hymens vary from female to female. Some girls are even born without them. Medically speaking, however, the concept of an "intact" hymen is a myth. That's because hymens vary in shape, size, and thickness. Among the multiple possibilities are hymens that surround the entire vaginal entrance, with an open space in the center (called an annular hymen), and hymens that appear open with a thin line of skin down the middle (a septate hymen) and some that are crescent shaped (half-moon) Since hymens come in so many shapes and forms, it's important to realise that the hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a person has been sexually abused or not. The only way to be sure is to interview the girl (which cannot be done in this case) or if the child has an STD. What I have read here is total nonsense.
Out of towner,

What do you think of Dr. John McCann's case studies/work?
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#10 Jul 24, 2008
Out of towner wrote:
I can see that you all do not have any medical backgrounds. There is no such thing as a normal hymen and for a detective to compare a photo of one is not possible. I am thinking there were no sex abuse experts in that meeting if she got away with this. Hymens vary from female to female. Some girls are even born without them. Medically speaking, however, the concept of an "intact" hymen is a myth. That's because hymens vary in shape, size, and thickness. Among the multiple possibilities are hymens that surround the entire vaginal entrance, with an open space in the center (called an annular hymen), and hymens that appear open with a thin line of skin down the middle (a septate hymen) and some that are crescent shaped (half-moon) Since hymens come in so many shapes and forms, it's important to realise that the hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a person has been sexually abused or not. The only way to be sure is to interview the girl (which cannot be done in this case) or if the child has an STD. What I have read here is total nonsense.
This is true in some respects and yes I have read the studies on it and thre is argument that JB could have had a hyment that was not in tact.

But we do have chronic inflammation and that is healing over time. The rim around the hymen is thick and forensic McCann believes is evidence of trauma and rehealing, along with several other forensics.

So before you write your holier than thou post, do some of the research.
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#11 Jul 24, 2008
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.

Her body is trying to heal itself overtime. There is evidence of prior trauma - as noted by chronic inflammation. The tissue of the vaginal wall contains erosion. This is evidence of prior trauma.
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#12 Jul 24, 2008
We are not a bunch of novices here from the 50's who believe a girl should not ride her bike or she will lose her virginity.

JonBen bled some 10 days before this murder. There is no reason for this kind of trauma to a six year old child who her mother said had only "RASHES" from wet underwear.

We are looking at the skin inside the vagina that is trying to heal itself because someone has been doing something they should not be doing.
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#13 Jul 24, 2008
Out of towner wrote:
I can see that you all do not have any medical backgrounds. There is no such thing as a normal hymen and for a detective to compare a photo of one is not possible. I am thinking there were no sex abuse experts in that meeting if she got away with this. Hymens vary from female to female. Some girls are even born without them. Medically speaking, however, the concept of an "intact" hymen is a myth. That's because hymens vary in shape, size, and thickness. Among the multiple possibilities are hymens that surround the entire vaginal entrance, with an open space in the center (called an annular hymen), and hymens that appear open with a thin line of skin down the middle (a septate hymen) and some that are crescent shaped (half-moon) Since hymens come in so many shapes and forms, it's important to realise that the hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether a person has been sexually abused or not. The only way to be sure is to interview the girl (which cannot be done in this case) or if the child has an STD. What I have read here is total nonsense.
Nonsense? STD and Interviews are but two of the ways that would LEAD SOMEONE TO SUSPECT there is abuse - follow up PHYSICAL exams would prove it, most times.

Reread your chapters on abuse, you are failing miserably.

If a doctor goes in and checks a child and there is absolute scarring of the vaginal wall and chronic inflammation of the surrounding tissues - and the child is five years old, that doctor is going to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he has an abuse victim in his office.

Indigo

United States

#14 Jul 24, 2008
Right On The Money wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true in some respects and yes I have read the studies on it and thre is argument that JB could have had a hyment that was not in tact.
But we do have chronic inflammation and that is healing over time. The rim around the hymen is thick and forensic McCann believes is evidence of trauma and rehealing, along with several other forensics.
So before you write your holier than thou post, do some of the research.
ROTM,

I know you agee that this is exactly where the "no prior abuse" argument gets into to trouble. Quotes about "normal" hymeneal configurations and other "normal" variables are often stated as a basis for the belief that there was "no prior abuse." The trouble: MCCANN AUTHORED THE STUDIES AND MCCANN BELIEVES THERE WAS PRIOR ABUSE ( please excuse caps for emphasis--not yelling) So, even if every single one of us on these forums is shooting in the dark, we have the opinion of THE EXPERT: JonBenet was abused at least once prior to the time of her death.

To me, this is convincing evidence that JonBenet was abused prior to the time of her death. If anyone can come up with a logical reason I shouldn't trust McCann's opinion on this, I will gladly listen.
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#15 Jul 24, 2008
Indigo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROTM,
I know you agee that this is exactly where the "no prior abuse" argument gets into to trouble. Quotes about "normal" hymeneal configurations and other "normal" variables are often stated as a basis for the belief that there was "no prior abuse." The trouble: MCCANN AUTHORED THE STUDIES AND MCCANN BELIEVES THERE WAS PRIOR ABUSE ( please excuse caps for emphasis--not yelling) So, even if every single one of us on these forums is shooting in the dark, we have the opinion of THE EXPERT: JonBenet was abused at least once prior to the time of her death.
To me, this is convincing evidence that JonBenet was abused prior to the time of her death. If anyone can come up with a logical reason I shouldn't trust McCann's opinion on this, I will gladly listen.
Absolutely Indigo and believe I wavered back and forth on this subject for the last two years, but in reading McCann's view on the above and going over the autopsy report with the "chronic inflammation", there is NO DOUBT in my mind that there is prior sexual abuse goiing on. This child bled some 10 days prior to this incident. Six year olds do not bleed and if they do, there is something wrong.
Henri McPhee

Plymouth, UK

#16 Jul 24, 2008
Indigo wrote:
<quoted text>
ROTM,
I know you agee that this is exactly where the "no prior abuse" argument gets into to trouble. Quotes about "normal" hymeneal configurations and other "normal" variables are often stated as a basis for the belief that there was "no prior abuse." The trouble: MCCANN AUTHORED THE STUDIES AND MCCANN BELIEVES THERE WAS PRIOR ABUSE ( please excuse caps for emphasis--not yelling) So, even if every single one of us on these forums is shooting in the dark, we have the opinion of THE EXPERT: JonBenet was abused at least once prior to the time of her death.
To me, this is convincing evidence that JonBenet was abused prior to the time of her death. If anyone can come up with a logical reason I shouldn't trust McCann's opinion on this, I will gladly listen.
I agree with Indigo that this Dr McCann in America seems to be one, if not the foremost expert, in America, and possibly the world as well, in all this prior sex abuse in children stuff. He has certainly researched the matter.

One problem with all this is the surprising lack of medical research in the past in that subject. It's a bit like the surprising doctor sheer ignorance about brittle bone disease in the Midyette case.

I suppose it's one aspect of medical research which doesn't get much research money. Non-accidental head trauma seems to get plenty of research money, and hired doctors.

The fact reamains that Dr McCann never saw JonBenet's body in the flesh. It's a bit like a forensic document examiner who didn't examine the original ransom note, or Patsy's original handwriting exemplars.

I agree that the autopsy doctor, Dr Meyer, did see JonBenet's body in the flesh. I also agree that Dr Meyer did mention chronic inflammation. That isn't necessarily diagnostic of prior sex abuse.

I would have thought there could be a variety of causes for that, like rubbing with a paintbrush handle.

I would be interested in Dr Meyer's medical opinion about all this. He has never said anything about it, one way or the other. If he did say something about the matter of prior sex abuse, there's no guarantee that it's right judgment anyway.
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#17 Jul 24, 2008
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with Indigo that this Dr McCann in America seems to be one, if not the foremost expert, in America, and possibly the world as well, in all this prior sex abuse in children stuff. He has certainly researched the matter.
One problem with all this is the surprising lack of medical research in the past in that subject. It's a bit like the surprising doctor sheer ignorance about brittle bone disease in the Midyette case.
I suppose it's one aspect of medical research which doesn't get much research money. Non-accidental head trauma seems to get plenty of research money, and hired doctors.
The fact reamains that Dr McCann never saw JonBenet's body in the flesh. It's a bit like a forensic document examiner who didn't examine the original ransom note, or Patsy's original handwriting exemplars.
I agree that the autopsy doctor, Dr Meyer, did see JonBenet's body in the flesh. I also agree that Dr Meyer did mention chronic inflammation. That isn't necessarily diagnostic of prior sex abuse.
I would have thought there could be a variety of causes for that, like rubbing with a paintbrush handle.
I would be interested in Dr Meyer's medical opinion about all this. He has never said anything about it, one way or the other. If he did say something about the matter of prior sex abuse, there's no guarantee that it's right judgment anyway.
Yes Henri, JonBenet just outright bled for no reason hence, chronic inflammation, at least 10 days prior. Meyer told Arndt he believed she was sexually abused. Thomas reports this. I have not read or heard Meyer refute this. If you have him refuting it, lets see it.
koldkase

Lawrenceville, GA

#18 Jul 24, 2008
I appreciate Out of Towner posting on this topic. I also agree that not knowing the full evidence found at autopsy limits Out of Towner's ability to comprehend why the medical experts determined JonBenet had prior vaginal injuries, and most believe that was caused by sexual abuse.

RightOTMoney, excellent posts on this topic. You nailed it.

Detroit, you are sick.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#19 Jul 24, 2008
koldkase wrote:
I appreciate Out of Towner posting on this topic. I also agree that not knowing the full evidence found at autopsy limits Out of Towner's ability to comprehend why the medical experts determined JonBenet had prior vaginal injuries, and most believe that was caused by sexual abuse.
RightOTMoney, excellent posts on this topic. You nailed it.
Detroit, you are sick.
You`re more of a man than most football players!!! And if you read what Out Of Towner said, being much more of an expert on the subject than any of us, Out of Towner says that at the time of Jonbenet`s murder there were a limited amount of hymens examined and OOTowner believes that based on the newer information that the doctors would now have a different opinion than they gave last time. As more comes out more proves the Ramseys innocent.
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#20 Jul 28, 2008
DETROIT wrote:
<quoted text>You`re more of a man than most football players!!! And if you read what Out Of Towner said, being much more of an expert on the subject than any of us, Out of Towner says that at the time of Jonbenet`s murder there were a limited amount of hymens examined and OOTowner believes that based on the newer information that the doctors would now have a different opinion than they gave last time. As more comes out more proves the Ramseys innocent.
OutofTowner is wrong in this case. OOT also believes the RDIs of this Board are jealous of the IDIs of Sickamore. That tells me much about Out of Towner. And for someone who professes to know so much about this subject, she is at a loss when it comes to the autopsy report.
Right On The Money

New York, NY

#21 Jul 28, 2008
koldkase wrote:
I appreciate Out of Towner posting on this topic. I also agree that not knowing the full evidence found at autopsy limits Out of Towner's ability to comprehend why the medical experts determined JonBenet had prior vaginal injuries, and most believe that was caused by sexual abuse.
RightOTMoney, excellent posts on this topic. You nailed it.
Detroit, you are sick.
Thanks KK. A compliment coming from you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Patsy vs Burke 3 hr stoned luck aka ... 144
Missy Bevers 17 hr stoned luck aka ... 10
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 18 hr stoned luck aka ... 92
Identity Problems 18 hr stoned luck aka ... 42
Suspect Randy Simons! (Dec '07) Fri Jolamom 271
Christina Masewicz Outed As a FRAUD in the Jeff... (Nov '10) Thu 3rdRevelation 46
Who mixes ice cream and pineapple? May 25 WeAreTheAliens 4
More from around the web