yes he would.Originally Posted by lab_rat
yes he would.
She didn't wrap anything in the cellar except of course JonBenet, papoose style. Exactly waht someone would do if the child meant something to them.
Also, pediatricians certainly do check for signs of sexual abuse. Part of a yearly examination for a young child is a genital exam where the doctor will look at both the exterior and interior portions of the child's vagina.[/quote]
I really was trying to stay away from this thread, but must speak up here. It is NOT true that an internal is part of the yearly exam for a pediatric patient.........It is acknowledged that it is too traumatic and unjustified. The ONLY reason to do an internal on a young child is where abuse or harm has occurred or is suspected. If you know of ANY pediatrician that includes internal exam on a young child as routine - without a LEGITIMATE cause, that Physician or Practitioner should be reported IMMEDIATELY, because that in and of itself would be considered abuse. And yes, I work in the medical community and know this to be fact !!!!
Guest
Yes, but they do take a peek -- wouldn't a broken hymen be apparent?I really was trying to stay away from this thread, but must speak up here. It is NOT true that an internal is part of the yearly exam for a pediatric patient.........It is acknowledged that it is too traumatic and unjustified. The ONLY reason to do an internal on a young child is where abuse or harm has occurred or is suspected. If you know of ANY pediatrician that includes internal exam on a young child as routine - without a LEGITIMATE cause, that Physician or Practitioner should be reported IMMEDIATELY, because that in and of itself would be considered abuse. And yes, I work in the medical community and know this to be fact !!!!
They should NOT be inserting ANYTHING ......I know what I am talking about here, and will NOT enter a pissing match on the board. My pointy is, that I do NOT want the public misinformed on that point, and if this occurs to anyones child as routine, it should be reported to the State Board of Physician Licensing.
Read the depositions. The doctor did not do an internal and no the hyman being broken would not be apparent from a peek.
Patsy says it would be way too invasive.
Jaz, did you just make that up and why?
Guest
"IT PUTS THE LOTION IN THE BASKET!!!"
-Morbid1
Jessie, I don't know you, or your credibility/. I will NOT enter into a match with you here. I work in this field and will NOT have that kind of misinformation spread. I DO have the training and credentials to back up what I say, and the members here know that. I don't want bullshit spread that could potentially cause harm to anyones child.Jaz, did you just make that up and why?
Isn't there a thread somewhere on here about anger management. Hmmmm.
That's our Sunshine !!!!!! lol
I really was trying to stay away from this thread, but must speak up here. It is NOT true that an internal is part of the yearly exam for a pediatric patient.........It is acknowledged that it is too traumatic and unjustified. The ONLY reason to do an internal on a young child is where abuse or harm has occurred or is suspected. If you know of ANY pediatrician that includes internal exam on a young child as routine - without a LEGITIMATE cause, that Physician or Practitioner should be reported IMMEDIATELY, because that in and of itself would be considered abuse. And yes, I work in the medical community and know this to be fact !!!![/quote]
You are absolutely right.I have a boy and a girl and they DONT do any kind of internal exams.
No match from me. But I have yet to hear that it is done yearly except by you.
You are absolutely right.I have a boy and a girl and they DONT do any kind of internal exams.[/quote]
Thank you Pink.....I just want everyone that read that to understand that it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE IN PRACTICE ACCORDING TO THE ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC GUIDELINES !!!!!!!!
Chronic inflammation
Chronic inflammation is a pathological condition characterised by concurrent active inflammation, tissue destruction, and attempts at repair. Chronic inflammation is not characterised by the classic signs of acute inflammation Instead, chronically inflamed tissue is characterised by the infiltration of mononuclear immune cells (monocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, and plasma cells), tissue destruction, and attempts at healing,
Someone was doing something they should not have been doing. Period.
Thank you Pink.....I just want everyone that read that to understand that it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE IN PRACTICE ACCORDING TO THE ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC GUIDELINES !!!!!!!![/quote]
So then what do you mean by this:
Originally Posted by Jazbabee
Also, pediatricians certainly do check for signs of sexual abuse. Part of a yearly examination for a young child is a genital exam where the doctor will look at both the exterior and interior portions of the child's vagina.
I think that was someone elses quote
So then what do you mean by this:
Originally Posted by Jazbabee
Also, pediatricians certainly do check for signs of sexual abuse. Part of a yearly examination for a young child is a genital exam where the doctor will look at both the exterior and interior portions of the child's vagina.[/quote]
Jessie - I believe you have certainly tried to stir the pot on this board enough. I am not the author - that was a quote that I cited as being misinformation. Please do not have anymore interaction/comment for or with me - it's obvious that you just want to create trouble. I believe you have already been warned by the Mods and are already on thin ice. Sorry, this really is a wonderful group of people that share and learn from each other, but that does NOT seem to be your intent here.
Last edited by Jazbabee; 07-01-2008 at 10:06 AM.
Hehe.
Jessie - I believe you have certainly tried to stir the pot on this board enough. I am not the author - that was a quote that I cited as being misinformation. Please do not have anymore interaction/comment for or with me - it's obvious that you just want to create trouble. I believe you have already been warned by the Mods and are already on thin ice. Sorry, this really is a wonderful group of people that share and learn from each other, but that does NOT seem to be your intent here.[/quote]So then what do you mean by this:
Originally Posted by Jazbabee
Also, pediatricians certainly do check for signs of sexual abuse. Part of a yearly examination for a young child is a genital exam where the doctor will look at both the exterior and interior portions of the child's vagina.
Well your reply to Lab Rat certainly offended him or her. But that would be okay, yes?
When you post something, make sure it looks like you are replying to another post; otherwise it is apt to be taken as your own words. Create trouble? Interesting? I see it does not bother you that semen was supposedly found on JonBenet. Never happened.
Get your head out of the sand. And lecture someone else. You bore me.
Thank you Pink.....I just want everyone that read that to understand that it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE IN PRACTICE ACCORDING TO THE ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC GUIDELINES !!!!!!!![/quote]
Is it okay to post that there was evidence on a body that was never there ACCORDING TO THE ACADEM OF PEDIATRIC GUIDELINES?
why couldn't the men and women working this case be as passionate as the men and women on this forum. I bet if you guys were on the case it would have been much different for poor JB
Renowned Death Hag
What may I ask is a IDI?
It would have if I had been there.
intruder did it.
Last edited by Jessie10; 07-01-2008 at 10:17 AM.
Well your reply to Lab Rat certainly offended him or her. But that would be okay, yes?
When you post something, make sure it looks like you are replying to another post; otherwise it is apt to be taken as your own words. Create trouble? Interesting? I see it does not bother you that semen was supposedly found on JonBenet. Never happened.
Get your head out of the sand. And lecture someone else. You bore me.[/quote]
Sorry Dear, I don't bore you - you can't deal with verified facts and intellect. I believe your time here to be short, so there is no need to respond, you have no credibility........it only took one morning of careless posting on your part to clinch that.
Thanks everyone for your wonderful PM's......credibility and longevity on a forum will certainly outlast a morning of careless TROLL behavior.
Last edited by Jazbabee; 07-01-2008 at 10:29 AM.
Is it okay to post that there was evidence on a body that was never there ACCORDING TO THE ACADEM OF PEDIATRIC GUIDELINES?
Reading is fundamental darling......go back and comprehend, if possible, that's not what was written, and you know it !!!! you have wasted enough of our time........
A few things I want to clear up. First off, if you reread the autopsy report that I posted, it says very clearly that JB had on a pair of panties under her long johns. They had rosebuds on them and had "Wednesday" marked across them.
Now, I was the one that made the comment about the pediatric exams. Please do not misquote Jaz on this. I'm not doubting any of you who work in the medical community and would know about routine visits. However, I know that a child that has a history of yeast infections and urinary infections, it would not be uncommon for the doctor to take a look at the genital area. I know this because I had a close family member who had similar problems as a young child and the doctor visit consisted of a quick genital exam. Nothing shady there, the parents were present and everything was done with the upmost respect.
JonBenet did have "focal interstitial chronic inflammation" that was noted in the autopsy, most likely brought out by the irritation of blood vessels due to the injury. The erosion can very well be explained away by the fact that JonBenet had a history of infections (hence irritation, vigorous rubbing, or wiping). This however, does not conclusively point to the fact that anybody in the Ramsey family was molesting JonBenet.
She did not have a history of "infections". Nowhere in her records, which are very few, since Thomas could not get them, is there anything that refers to infections of the vaginal area. She never had an internal and if she were scratching herself, it was deep inside. Half her hyman was missing. She had a history of wetting the bed and her mother used a topical ointment to reduce the swelling from the rashes whch she believed were caused by wet underwear. Chronic inflammation connotes healing and this was deep inside of her.
Last edited by Jessie10; 07-01-2008 at 10:32 AM.
Someone had grabbed a brand new pair of unopened large underwear. Patsy had bought them from Bloomingdales. Check it out.
JB did in fact visit Dr. Beuf, her pediatrician, numerous times from 1993 up until her death in 1996.
He has gone on record and stated that he did do a vaginal exam on 5 occasions:
9/1993 -age 3 - JonBenet had had a recent bout of diarrhea and was complaining of pain during urination and there was vaginal redness. Typical treatment would be plain water baths, possibly use of an ointment.
.
4/1994 - age 3 - another visit concerning pain during urination - possibly related to bubble bath (a known irritant). This is in the doctor's records and appears to be the only time bubble bath caused the problem. Again, the typical treatment would be plain water baths and possibly an ointment.
10/1994 - age 4 - a routine physical, no inflammation noted. It WAS noted that she OCCASIONALLY wet the bed - not unusual - Dr. Beuf said that 20-25% of children wet the bed occasionally at the age of 4.
3/1995 - age 4 - JonBenet was brought to the doctor with abdominal pain and fever. He did a full physical check on her and ran tests.
8/1996 - age 5 - A routine physical (possibly a pre-school exam). Nothing noted as abnormal.
More quotes from Dr. Beuf himself:
"After the murder, Dr. Beuf issued a statement - "My office treated JonBenét Ramsey from March, 1993 through December, 1996. Throughout this period, there has been absolutely no evidence of abuse of any kind."
On February 14, 1997, Dr. Beuf was interviewed on KUSA-TV. He reported that they did ask him about prior sexual abuse of JonBenét. His answer? "I told them absolutely, categorically no. There was absolutely no evidence - either physical or historical."
In the British Documentary produced in the first half of 1998, Dr Beuf said , "I saw absolutely no signs of sexual abuse. I had no suspicion of it. I always think about sexual abuse with any child ... who comes through this practice, because it is such a terribly destructive thing ... in JonBenét's case I saw absolutely no evidence."
He saw no evidence because HE NEVER DID AN INTERNAL EXAM, which Patsy testifies to in her deposition as being way too invasive.
So please tell us all, how WOULD HE KNOW IF SHE WERE BEING ABUSED, if he never did an internal?
And what would you expect him to say, looks like there was sexual abuse, and I missed it. Now she is dead. Oh well.
And yes she did visit her doctor some 30+ times in 3 years. Sounds like a child with a history.
Last edited by Jessie10; 07-01-2008 at 10:58 AM.
There you go Mel.....you are spot on. The practitioner would have to have a legitimate medical reason to go internal on a young one, and the type of history you cite would most definitely qualify. !!!!! Again, just wanted to make sure it was clarified and you certainly helped with that !!
exactly
You don't have to do an internal exam to suspect sexual abuse. Oftentimes sexual abuse cannot be easily detected from a physical standpoint. Most often it is behavorial signs. A pediatrician does more than just a physical exam. I would trust his expertise more than I would yours.
I realize that this thread has manifested into a bickering match and I no longer wish to oblige you in the trouble you are trying to cause. I have been a member here at FAD for awhile now, and I enjoy the community. I listen to everyone's opinion and enjoy discussing cases, but I refuse to enable you to troll the board and sling rude comments at people when all we are trying to do is discuss this tragic case. I'm out.
Guest
Administrator
I think there is an underlying current in this thread of one or two people wanting to see the new guy blow up and get banned. If that is your intention, drop it now. This is not a matter of personal pride, this is about discussing the facts of a murder. Everyone scale back the snippiness.
The Next Level - Video game message board, news, and reviews.
No one suspected any abuse,they seemed like the perfect family
She is spot on that JB visited the doctor. She is far from spot on that she proved the doctor would have known from these visits about child abuse.
I have a friend that is the mother of Ms. Teen TN 2003,and she spoke to several people that knew Patsy,from the pageant world and they all said there's no way,that Patsy couldve done this thing,so again,no one suspected any kind of abuse.
Last edited by Pinklovedoll; 07-01-2008 at 11:23 AM.
Discuss away. But if you want to discuss the case, make sure you have the facts otherwise it is a sad waste of time. For now, you have something to think about. Because before, you did not.
Have a nice time "out" there. Usually happens when someone fails to prove their point which usually happens in this case. The fact is JonBenet never had an infection, never had an internal, did have chronic inflammation from prior contact of some sort, half a hyman, her head was split in two and there is no evidence of semen. A staged attack is what we have here. Why would someone want to stage something like this. To cover up what really happened. So that everyone would say, the parents would never do this. And that is exactly what the one of the Grand Jurists said. So it worked.
So far, everything you posted, I refuted. Yes indeedy. If you are ever interested in what most likely happened that night, I will be happy to oblige. Till then, take care.
Just can't let this go by. Lets see, JonBenet was known to ask anyone walking by while she was on the toilet to come in and help her clean herself. That is unusual in a child of 7. My son would not let me in the bathroom when he turned 5. I think it is very unusual that JonBenet was not bothered by that at all.
Hi Pink,
With all due respect to your friends and what they think they knew, they probably were wrong. As most people are when they are judging someone else's capabilities. Tell me, does Ted Bundy look at all like a serial killer to you. The man is downright handsome and charming. So charming that the Judge wished him luck. There are those that would disagree with you and say that Patsy forcing JonBenet to compete in pageants was abuse. I would agre with that, but you might not. I understand that friends of Patsy's were about to have an "intervention" regarding the pageants because they felt it was so harmful to JonBenet.
Patsy was an incredibly strong woman, much stronger than the average and able to overcome incredible obstacles. People with the kind of strength she had are also able to rise to the occasion when necessary to protect what they perceive as being threatened - e.g. her life, after she killed her child (albeit, imo, accidentally).
Thats exactly what I'm saying,Patsy "seemed" to be the perfect motherHi Pink,
With all due respect to your friends and what they think they knew, they probably were wrong. As most people are when they are judging someone else's capabilities. Tell me, does Ted Bundy look at all like a serial killer to you. The man is downright handsome and charming. So charming that the Judge wished him luck. There are those that would disagree with you and say that Patsy forcing JonBenet to compete in pageants was abuse. I would agre with that, but you might not. I understand that friends of Patsy's were about to have an "intervention" regarding the pageants because they felt it was so harmful to JonBenet.
Patsy was an incredibly strong woman, much stronger than the average and able to overcome incredible obstacles. People with the kind of strength she had are also able to rise to the occasion when necessary to protect what they perceive as being threatened - e.g. her life, after she killed her child (albeit, imo, accidentally).
As far as Patsy making Jon Benet do the pageants,I dont know,Jon Benet couldve enjoyed them,I have no idea.
Pinky,
JonBenet started the pageants somewhere around 4 years old. She has a basic right to be a child and maybe she did enjoy doing it in the beginning because it was new. I would be money that that changed quickly when it was as often as she was doing it, even though John says it was a Sunday afternoon thing. Right John, a Sunday afternoon thing which encompassed, practicing three and four times a week, voice lessons, dance lessons, sittings for costumes and this is not including all the rest of the crap she was doing at school. I get tired just thinking about it.
I have yet to see a child involved in the pageants who did not look like a total freak. Did you happen to see Little Miss Sunshine. Did you get a gander at the little Filipino girl (she would scare the chit out of anyone on a dark night). Living Dolls, a documentary about the pageants is very eye opening.
Anyway, that be my opinion and therefore and such.
But Pinky, it is impossible to be a perfect mother. Although John would like us all to believe that. What is it he said on Larry King Live, he never saw Patsy get angry except one time at a reporter.
Does Patsy look like she is the type to hold her anger in? Does she? I don't think so.
I think it is in Perfect Murder that someone talks about Patsy giving the silent treatment to one of the mothers because the mother had criticized Patsy regarding her actions on a school function. I think it had something to do with Patsy was overgiving, as usual.
Well I know Ms Teen Tn personally,great kid,very normal,maybe Patsy was jealous that Jon Benet was so succesful and talented idk.But Pinky, it is impossible to be a perfect mother. Although John would like us all to believe that. What is it he said on Larry King Live, he never saw Patsy get angry except one time at a reporter.
Does Patsy look like she is the type to hold her anger in? Does she? I don't think so.
I think it is in Perfect Murder that someone talks about Patsy giving the silent treatment to one of the mothers because the mother had criticized Patsy regarding her actions on a school function. I think it had something to do with Patsy was overgiving, as usual.
Possibly, or she could have been totally exhausted after being up for some 16 hours. She was up from 6:00 a.m. that morning and was still going when they got home, packing, etc. She said she went to bed about 10. That is 16 hours and if she had a glass or two of wine (which she says is possible) I bet she was in no mood. I happen to believe she was still taking the tranquilizers that she did take when she was in the throes of cancer. I do not believe she stopped them at all. She was so sedated on the CNN show, the first one, that it is the actions of someone who takes a lot of pills and does not believe they are working when in fact that are, as far as keeping you from speaking correctly. She was slurring all over the place. And I don't blame her, JB was dead.
They all lied about JonBenet saying at first she walked in and then changed to she was carried in. John says he removed her coat in the bedroom, and her coat was found in the car. Lots of other things that don't ring true.
Just my opinion though.
Actually, it isn't all that unusual for a child to ask for help. My boys still ask and they are 5 and 7. Sometimes, they just make a mess of things.Maybe she was just so used to people waiting on her that she didn't want to do it herself. I would be looking at other behaviors in addition to this one. I am not here to argue, but this one behavior doesn't indicate abuse.
Actually, it isn't all that unusual for a child to ask for help. My boys still ask and they are 5 and 7. Sometimes, they just make a mess of things.
I agree. It does not. It is only something to consider. I am not even sure that she was sexually abused or if it was corporal punishment in the another form as Thomas believed.
Question. Do your boys ask anyone or is it you or another family member, or will a neighbor do? A serious question. Completely.
Last edited by Jessie10; 07-01-2008 at 01:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote