Justice Watch Discussion Board "Dr. Beuf, part 2" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Dr. Beuf, part 2, fiddler, 10:59:14, 6/06/2000 fiddler, Seashell, 12:14:10, 6/06/2000, (#1) Where Oh Where..., Paralegal, 13:27:38, 6/06/2000, (#2) Of course, Seashell, go right, fiddler, 15:02:09, 6/06/2000, (#3) Fly, v_p, 17:02:18, 6/06/2000, (#8) Fiddler -, v_p, 18:38:14, 6/06/2000, (#12) NEW THREAD, Seashell, 15:04:24, 6/06/2000, (#4) Another POV, Seashell, 15:09:20, 6/06/2000, (#5) Bruises, v_p, 16:25:40, 6/06/2000, (#6) fiddler, Seashell, 16:40:43, 6/06/2000, (#7) Bruises, szundi, 17:24:55, 6/06/2000, (#10) Dr.'s bad Beef..., Anton, 17:04:04, 6/06/2000, (#9) Anton!, Holly, 11:30:09, 6/07/2000, (#16) Epidemic, Luvsa Mystery, 21:37:45, 6/06/2000, (#14) Anton, v_p, 18:37:23, 6/06/2000, (#11) Anton, , Shee, 19:09:09, 6/06/2000, (#13) JB's comment, Nandee, 10:29:29, 6/07/2000, (#15) Fly.....Asthma, La Contessa, 12:23:07, 6/07/2000, (#17) LaC, Edie Pratt, 12:30:03, 6/07/2000, (#18) This also intrigued me, Seashell, 13:04:01, 6/07/2000, (#19) YUP, Edie Pratt, 13:16:12, 6/07/2000, (#20) Edie Pratt, La Contessa, 13:48:35, 6/08/2000, (#31) Edie, I'm with you, gaiabetsy, 13:25:46, 6/07/2000, (#21) 'shell, Gemini, 13:36:02, 6/07/2000, (#23) Paralegal, maundy, 13:30:20, 6/07/2000, (#22) Bomex, Paralegal, 14:22:26, 6/07/2000, (#24) Anton--I believe you, I've seen it--, fiddler, 15:39:43, 6/07/2000, (#25) Seashell--I did read your post,, fiddler, 15:47:13, 6/07/2000, (#26) Edie Pratt, hi!, fiddler, 16:04:05, 6/07/2000, (#27) MSBP in the News..., Dunvegan, 18:42:13, 6/07/2000, (#28) i wanted to be (and paralegal), maundy, 18:55:25, 6/07/2000, (#29) back to the drawing board, Fiddler!, Edie Pratt, 20:54:18, 6/07/2000, (#30) You can be obnoxious, Fly, Ginja, 17:27:57, 6/09/2000, (#32) Ginja, Nandee, 18:21:15, 6/09/2000, (#33) Nandee!, fiddler, 09:28:30, 6/10/2000, (#34) fiddler, Nandee, 12:57:16, 6/10/2000, (#35) No more than you, Ginja, fly, 15:33:56, 6/12/2000, (#36) I guess it just gets old after a while, Fly...., Ginja, 12:58:21, 6/14/2000, (#57) Fly, v_p, 15:59:56, 6/12/2000, (#37) v_p, fly, 07:12:12, 6/13/2000, (#38) Fly, Teague, 12:46:01, 6/13/2000, (#39) Teague/Fly, v_p, 14:51:37, 6/13/2000, (#41) Teague, fly, 13:03:56, 6/13/2000, (#40) Tch tch, Seashell, 15:08:40, 6/13/2000, (#42) Seashell and v_p, fly, 16:00:36, 6/13/2000, (#44) Flyyyyyyyyy, v_p, 16:36:36, 6/13/2000, (#45) Fly--I'd like to point something out--, fiddler, 15:54:06, 6/13/2000, (#43) Question, Seeker, 16:46:47, 6/13/2000, (#46) Thanks, Seeker!, Ginja, 18:05:19, 6/15/2000, (#72) Thank you, v_p, 17:43:12, 6/13/2000, (#47) v_p, Seeker, 17:49:00, 6/13/2000, (#48) Holidays, janphi, 18:48:19, 6/13/2000, (#49) Holiday visits, pisces, 17:44:00, 6/15/2000, (#70) Hard Hitting, Lacey, 20:04:37, 6/13/2000, (#50) Doc visits summary, Deemer, 21:12:29, 6/13/2000, (#51) Tis true!, ConnieToo, 15:23:07, 6/14/2000, (#58) Dr.'s Notes, v_p, 05:00:33, 6/14/2000, (#54) fly, Seashell, 00:45:32, 6/14/2000, (#52) Asthma, Imbackon, 01:36:47, 6/14/2000, (#53) Seashell & fiddler, fly, 10:59:39, 6/14/2000, (#56) v_p, fly, 10:25:42, 6/14/2000, (#55) Allrighty then -, v_p, 16:28:56, 6/14/2000, (#60) v_p, fly, 15:48:26, 6/15/2000, (#62) She seems to be one of those types.., ConnieToo, 15:29:03, 6/14/2000, (#59) ginja - yes, it get's old, fly, 15:34:36, 6/15/2000, (#61) Head falls to keyboard..., v_p, 16:12:35, 6/15/2000, (#63) Damn Fly!, Seeker, 16:19:17, 6/15/2000, (#64) Thank you, Fly, Gemini, 17:14:32, 6/15/2000, (#67) Regressed toilet training, Ginja, 16:59:03, 6/15/2000, (#65) Ginja, v_p, 17:15:50, 6/15/2000, (#68) Ginja, Seeker, 17:11:34, 6/15/2000, (#66) Also just thought, Seeker, 17:31:10, 6/15/2000, (#69) potty problem, Nandee, 17:45:09, 6/15/2000, (#71) Queen of the Nile Speaks!, Ginja, 22:41:39, 6/15/2000, (#77) seeker, v_p, 19:12:18, 6/15/2000, (#73) FAKE?, canadiana, 20:57:08, 6/15/2000, (#74) well, dixie, 21:14:05, 6/15/2000, (#76) not likely, Nandee, 21:07:53, 6/15/2000, (#75) My Two Sense :-), Lacey, 05:52:13, 6/16/2000, (#80) Medical records and other stuff, Ginja, 05:34:09, 6/16/2000, (#78) SAY WHUT?!, Lacey, 06:06:31, 6/16/2000, (#81) Hey girlfriend! (aka Lacey), Ginja, 10:46:32, 6/16/2000, (#87) ..the leap, Nikki, 05:52:05, 6/16/2000, (#79) ...as a female survivor of child abuse..., Dunvegan, 08:28:25, 6/16/2000, (#82) canadiana, Gemini, Seeker, Lacey, Ginja, fly, 08:59:03, 6/16/2000, (#84) Faking cancer, Seeker, 08:55:04, 6/16/2000, (#83) woman faking cancer, fly, 09:11:51, 6/16/2000, (#85) Fly, Seeker, 09:27:26, 6/16/2000, (#86) Seeker & fiddler, fly, 11:33:23, 6/16/2000, (#88) Where's the Beuf?, Edie Pratt, 11:40:09, 6/16/2000, (#89) Bummer! I tried..., Ginja, 13:31:16, 6/16/2000, (#91) Edie, fly, 13:20:44, 6/16/2000, (#90) Dunvegan, darby, 18:20:40, 6/16/2000, (#92) Thread Police on Duty!, Ginja, 18:47:40, 6/16/2000, (#94) Ginja, v_p, 18:45:16, 6/16/2000, (#93) ................................................................... "Dr. Beuf, part 2" Posted by fiddler on 10:59:14 6/06/2000 I'm starting a thread to continue on the subject of the good doctor. Everyone who's interested, take a look at the link on Ma's page for the Munchausen's syndrome article....it's astonishing how prevalent this actually seems to be (fully HALF of the hospitalized children were victimized by their mothers, according to hidden cameras!) Holly, you're kidding! Catheter porn? That's beyond sick--that's just laughable. What's next, root canal porn? (I don't mean to be trivializing this, but some things are just beyond rationality.) [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "fiddler" Posted by Seashell on 12:14:10 6/06/2000 Not to rain on your parade, but I'm thinking of bringing my Louise Hay thread over here and joining you. Any objections? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Where Oh Where..." Posted by Paralegal on 13:27:38 6/06/2000 has Dr. Beuf gone? Anyone know? I've run a Bomex search in CO on him and turned up nothing, as in nothing. Thanks in advance for your help! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Of course, Seashell, go right" Posted by fiddler on 15:02:09 6/06/2000 ahead. I'd have cut and pasted the last posts from the other LKL/Beuf thread, too, but I'm too technologically challenged...if anyone else wants to, please do. A question: In DOI, Patsy makes a big deal of saying her hysterectomy was at the end of July, 1993, and then she began a "punishing" nine months of chemo, every three weeks. According to her, on September 14, she was so weak she hardly even knew what they were doing to her at her religious healing service. SO WHAT WAS SHE DOING ON AUGUST 31, 1993, ANSWERING DR. BEUF'S QUESTIONS ABOUT JBR AND TELLING HIM SHE HAD NO PHOBIAS? This doesn't sound like an illness-related visit, and according to Beuf, he specifically mentions that Patsy answered his questions. But according to her own timeline, she couldn't even hold up her head to watch TV on August 31. It's doubtful that she was even in Boulder that week, according to her own timeline. SO--Who's lying? And why? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Fly" Posted by v_p on 17:02:18 6/06/2000 >A question: In DOI, Patsy makes >a big deal of saying her >hysterectomy was at the end of >July, 1993, Her hysterectomy was on July 5, 1993. >and then she began >a "punishing" nine months of chemo, >every three weeks. Her first chemo treatment was on July 26 or 27, 1993. It was to last four days and then back again in another in 3 weeks. That would have made her next treatment somewhere near the end of August, 1993...right? She tells Katie Coruic or LKL one, I'd have to look it up, that JBR was 2 1/2, almost 3 when she was diagnosed. In DOI, she says JonBenet was 3 1/2 when she visited her after her chemo treatments. She also said, to the same interviewer, (in March, 2000)that she would be celebrating her sixth year since her diagnosis - let's all take our shoes off and count - 7/93 - 7/94 one - 7/94-7/95 - two -- am I counting too many toes?? Maybe she is just math challenged and I'm too anal about it. > >SO--Who's lying? And why? My question exactly - why? V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Fiddler -" Posted by v_p on 18:38:14 6/06/2000 The post to Fly was meant for you - lol - sorry. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "NEW THREAD" Posted by Seashell on 15:04:24 6/06/2000 I brought over a few posts from the other long thread. It's way to long for some of us who can't get in. Here you go... 98. "maundy *& ginja" Posted by fly on 08:24:38 6/05/2000 maundy - Sorry if I jumped you. It is very frustrating to see the same mistakes being made (not just you) over and over again, and then having the correct information be missed/ignored/etc. You might not have been around to see the developmental questions be shown to be normal, but ginja has. ginja - Hey, I don't misspell you name very often. Of course, I never would if you used just a little consistency in your sound-to-letter relationships. :-) You are going off the deep end again, ginja, in your interpretation of JBR's medical history. (1) Beuf isn't the only person to say they saw no signs that would lead them to suspect JBR was being sexually abused. That's basically the same things the teachers and family friends have said. (2) Beuf did acknowledge that he might not have seen damage to the hymen had it been there, although he generally thought he would have. (3) As you sort of suggested in a post, you probably shouldn't comment on the "abnormality" of JBR's illnesses and accidents and her pediatrician's procedures given that you have no kids. A lot of what you've said is highly suspicious is not, and a lot of what you say about kids' medical problems is flat out wrong. Much of this has been pointed out to you before, by me and by other people with kids. One of these days perhaps you will pay attention to the information. Kids get hurt, both from their own actions and by other kids. Small bruises, especially to the legs or arms are not sinister. Although a baby monitor in her room might have been a good idea, not having one isn't a sign of a bad/abusive parent. Most kids I know would be highly offended if they had to have a baby monitor in their room at age 6. Also, maybe there'd never been an occasion when there had been a problem (e.g., sick kid calling for help) and they hadn't been able to hear it. They might not have realized there was a need for a monitor. Mild asthma does not necessarily require treatment or evaluation by a specialist. A pediatrician is able to give the same general advice and prescribe the same medications as an pulmonary specialist. Mild asthma certainly is not likely to cause a life-threatening problem - at least not one that immediately incapacitates the child or that very quickly becomes life threatening. Also, some people's asthma isn't triggered by "hayfever," so her lack of problems during those seasons isn't necessarily weird. Upper-respiratory problems are not as common during the summer, so JBR's lack of problems then is pretty typical, I'd say. My son goes off his asthma medication most summers because he is so unlikely to have problems during that time, so it's also not terribly surprising that JBR didn't have problems then. Where the heck do you see evidence for "balance problems?" And why is Beuf negligent for not warning PR about lightening JBR's hair? I don't think JBR was wearing Pullups to school. She had worn them at night later than some kids, but obviously hadn't been wearing them at night for some time, or PR wouldn't have been washing sheets after "accidents" quite so often, right? Young girls who do not practice good toilet hygiene or who are wetting themselves at night do get bladder or vaginal infections or irritation. Bottom line, ginja, the pediatrics specialists who looked at JBR's history found nothing particularly unusual for a kid her age. And don't give the line about JBR being found dead being important. It's possible that the TV folks didn't tell them whose records they were evaluating, but I'd bet that wasn't the case. I'd say the pediatric experts' judgement is more to be trusted than yours, or mine. To continue to disregard their conclusions and to berate Beuf's competance is just plain unjustified. (4) About the thryroid... Here's what the autopsy report said concerning the microscopic analysis: The thyroid gland is composed of normal-appearing follicles. An occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial inflammatory infiltrate is seen. How significant is an occasional isolated area of abnormality? Does it signify previous strangulation? Who knows? Not me, and I suspect, not you. As I posted before, I did look up what could cause this, and I found previous viral infection as one possibility. Strangulation was not mentioned, as I recall, but that might be more a factor of the domain of the search than of whether or not strangulation could be a cause. In any case, I think this one is best left to a real forensic pathologist. 99. "exams" Posted by dundee on 10:29:57 6/05/2000 when my daughter was 5 she feel down and a stick went through her pants and cut her. I took her to the docter, who said at her age, it would have been more traumatic for her to be examined by a doctor, and told me to let her sit in a bath to cleanse it. 100. "gingia, jinja, gingea, and fly " Posted by darby on 11:07:11 6/05/2000 The alternate spellings of ginja in my subject line work, and they keep the sound-to-letter relationships pure. But one can never spell it "ginga" without an unfortunate pronunciation, because the second g only can be soft when followed by i or e and sometimes y (ie, gigantic is never pronounced jijantic). Catholic education, you know. My problem, however, has always been the first g. It can be g as in ginseng OR g as in give. Which is it? One who knows nothing of the "snap" that sometimes follows may never know. I vote that Ginja change the spelling of her name to Jinja. About the Beuffoon: The thing about all of this discussion is that each and every facet of Beuf vis a vis JBR could be construed as normal. None of it can even be called remotely suspect with absolute certainty. Therefore, we can think what we want, but we can prove nothing. Just like almost everything else about this case. 101. "New Thread, Please?" Posted by Dunvegan on 06:20:08 6/06/2000 Beuffoon! Udderly hilarious, Darby! Whatever else one can say about this physician, he's certainly not the sharpest marble in the bag. New thread, anyone? 103. "Ginja...Asthma" Posted by La Contessa on 14:33:25 6/06/2000 A professor of psychology, a PHD., himself, said in class, that asthma, which has no physical basis, should be considered "a child's cry for help." 102. "Dr Goof, er Beuf" Posted by Holly on 07:54:36 6/06/2000 might want to "examine" one of the internet porn sites. I'm told there is one called "Catheter Porn". Sick... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Another POV" Posted by Seashell on 15:09:20 6/06/2000 I posted this on the Louise Hay thread and no one is reading there so I thought I'd bring it over here - or did you all read it and think it's a bunch of crock? :-) "A Louise Hay Interpretation of JBR's Illnesses" Posted by Seashell on 16:25:49 6/05/2000 New Age Physicians would tell us right now that physical problems of any kind are a reflection and outpicturing of emotional/spiritual problems. Here's what Louise Hay, in her book, "You Can Heal Your Life" has to say about some of the problems affecting JBR. Allergies: Who are you allergic to? Asthma: Smother love. Inability to breathe for one's self. Feeling stifled. Suppressed crying. Bad Breath: Anger and revenge thoughts. Experiences backing up. Bedwetting: Fear of parent, usually the father, Loss of Balance: Scattered thinking. Not centered. Breathing problems: Fear or refusal to take in life fully. Not feeling the right to take up space or even to exist at times. Bronchitis (cough) Inflamed family environment. Arguments and yelling. Sometimes silent. Childhood diseases: Belief in calendars and social concepts and false laws. Childish behavior in the adults around them. Chronic diseases: Fear of the future. Not feeling safe. Insomnia: Fear. Not trusting the process of life. Guilt. Sinus Problems: Irritation to one person. Someone close. Vaginitus: Anger at a MATE. Sexual guilt. Punishing the self. Well, Dr. Quack/Beuf? Boulder is so NEW AGE, most any other pediatrician would have suspected something amiss. BTY, Louise Hay cured herself of cancer, using her own formula, a tiny bit of which I've posted above. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Bruises" Posted by v_p on 16:25:40 6/06/2000 O.k., this is in very rough form, but I just had a thought while looking at Dr. Beuf's visit timeline. What if the bruises found on JonBenet during the autopsy were not "fresh?" I mean, what if there had been a previous altercation with JonBenet that resulted in bruises? She missed a pageant in December due to illness. Maybe it was due to bruises that PR didn't want anyone to see in those skimpy pageant outfits. A lot of people say there are always signs of prior abuse - maybe there were - under her clothes. A child is just as embarrassed about the bruises as the parents are afraid of them being seen. Like I said, this just occured to me - so I'd like to know what the "follow through" crew (JW) thinks. Has this been hashed before? V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "fiddler" Posted by Seashell on 16:40:43 6/06/2000 Good catch about her being too sick to be answering all those questions. But even on chemo, people can have fairly good days, so maybe that's it. v, I think that the coroner would have been able to determine fresh from old bruises, but just how old I don't know. They can look fairly new after 2 days, meaning she may have received them during the Xmas party. szundi, are you around to help with this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Bruises" Posted by szundi on 17:24:55 6/06/2000 Seashell: the coroner can tell a lot about the age of the bruises by doing sections through the area in question and studying the type of inflammatory response to the injury--just like was done to the vaginal injuries--some were acute and some chronic. I personally think that there was other bruising because of the types of costumes she wore with collars, cuffs, armband type things. Some of them seemed out of place to me---but would be there for a coverup. JMHO. szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Dr.'s bad Beef..." Posted by Anton on 17:04:04 6/06/2000 As to the catheter porn referenced by Holly, I can attest, without giving shall we say uncomfortable details that enema sexual abuse certainly does exist (did in the late 1950s, for sure). Catheter porn is perhaps 9mm from being the same. People with MSBP do all sorts of weird things to their kids, and sometimes to other kids. When I was a child, I witnessed my mother (who abused me) doing the digital penetration act on a female infant (my cousin). I could also attest to pediatrician pedophiles, but won't get into that here. I'll just say Dr. Doofus probably did see sexual abuse. The chronic or at least repeated sinus inflammation, halitosis and and so forth makes me suspect abuse. I'll get into that in a moment. Patsy said that JonBenét loved to stand on her head and could do it for hours. Yet she flopped onto her face in a grocery store hard enough to bash her nose. Possibly she was attempting to stand on her head and Burke or Patsy objected. Normal behavior. JonBenét was being trained to sing and dance for pageants. Bumps and falls are bound to happen. Normal behavior. But... That's the point of the MSBP abuser. Do it for the thrills, keep others from questioning you or the victim. We've all seen the mothers at the store smacking their whining/yapping/begging child. Seems like normal behavior. But that's what goes on in public. What goes on in private? We don't know but that parent didn't feel ashamed of beating the child in public. (No, I'm not condemning every parent who smacks a child in public or private. Seeing that behavior is not itself a red flag. OTOH, it's common, in my experience, for the abuser in private to carry out whatever can be legitimized in public.) Here are some more grotesque possibilities. Those with blessedly weak constitutions should close their eyes while reading this part. Some MSBP abusers or even mothers who lose patience with bedwetting/soiling will do the same as some dog owners do with a puppy who boo-boos on the living room rug. That is, place the child's face into the offending product. Done often enough or for a long enough period of time, the child inhales the offending fumes, which irritates the sinuses/throat/lungs (depending on the forcefulness of the gasp). Another possibility is that since Patsy was coloring/bleaching/lightening JonBenét's hair, the fumes from that product could also irritate the sinuses, particularly if the child is fussing, crying, screaming during the process. That stuff makes me dizzy; I can only imagine what it does to a 5- or 6-year-old child. Therefore, it might be useful to know at what time of day these doctor visits were made and in which the falls occured. A morning doc visit would tend to place the child in the office sooner after a night-time bedwetting "event", for instance. That is, an episode of the "bad dog" treatment might, a few hours later, result in a stuffy, snorting, coughing child who was trained to exaggerate and perform; hence, a trip to Dr. Doofus, who probably listened to Patsy (as peds did to my mother), said, "Uh huh, uh huh" and doodled on the chart. This was a very common ritual in my family. Sometimes the child hacks and chokes hoping to god the "good doc" will check deeper because the child can't risk talking about what goes on (or, for instance, the "bad dog" treatment will become the "let's get rid of that" enema treatment). The good doc, however, is also intimidated by the histrionic mother and just wants these people out of the office. Nothing is terribly wrong with the child, as far as the good doc can see (or wants to). So the kid acts up whenever things get too rough at night and ends up being taken to the "what a cute kitty!" good doc again. Therefore, a MSBP parent and a desparate child can make lots of trips to the good doc, or perhaps another doc if the "good" one isn't available. Hope you all aren't too grossed out by this post. That isn't my intention, of course. Sadly, very little that I've seen in Patsy's behavior really surprises me. Takes me back to the "good old days". Anton [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Anton!" Posted by Holly on 11:30:09 6/07/2000 That is one of the most spine tingling posts I have ever read on this forum. Superb! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Epidemic" Posted by Luvsa Mystery on 21:37:45 6/06/2000 June 3, 00 Fox News reported: "Incest, sexual abuse, rape, dowry burnings, infanticide or beatings of girls and women by those closest to them are turning into a global epidemic that too few countries are taking steps to curtail, a UN report said Wednesday. Even with extremely spotty statistics, one fifth to close to half of the female population in a given country has been abused by a family member or intimate partner or dangerously neglected in childhood, says the report by UNICEF, the UN Children's Fund. 'No religion and no society sanctions domestic violence,' said Mehr Khan, director of the UNICEF's Innocenti Research Center in Florence, Italy. 'Many countries and many societies, however, are reluctant to take this issue seriously because they regard it to be a private matter,' she said. 'There is a stigma attached to talking about it that results in lack of information. And there's a reluctance on the part of state authorities to intervene because of that,' Khan told a news conference. The report, part of UNICEF's campaign against child abuse, was released to mark next week's gala follow-up conference to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing five years ago, in which violence received prominent attention. It gathers other published reports and surveys but gives no fresh research of its own. 'Violence against women and girls continues to be a global epidemic that kills, tortures and maims-physically, psychologically, sexually and economically,' the report said..." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Anton" Posted by v_p on 18:37:23 6/06/2000 Your post took a lot of courage to write - thank you. There is so much that goes on behind closed doors and no one is ever the wiser. Pedophiles, murderers, role playing perverts, and Doctors and Lawyers who are all of the above have one thing in common - they are all, for the most part, someones parents. So when someone says, "I can't believe someone could do that to their child," I just shake my head at the naivete. The reason they say this? Because of all the secrecy in a family of abuse. "What in our past would make you think we could ever do this to our child?" Only the four walls and the inhabitants of their house know for sure. Anton - I'm proud of you. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Anton, " Posted by Shee on 19:09:09 6/06/2000 I am so touched by my sense of the seething caldron of rotten childhood experiences which lent you your courageous wisdom. I too had a 'nasty mommy' who did unspeakable things and my final act at age 8 landed me in a hospital where I lay with a lacerated bladder which the good doctors wrote "there is NO MEDICAL REASON for the condition in which we find this child" They wrote that the same year that Dr. C. Henry Kempe coined the phrase "Battered Child Syndrome".... the first real medical paper defining child abuse. Kempe was tired of seeing fractures and bone breaks which did not match the parent or caregiver's stories. Doctors didn't even dare IMAGINE the kinds of things my mother subjected us to sexually, physically, in terms of neglect and malicious acts. anyway I greet you as a fellow abuseling and survivor. I applaud your honesty, I am so sorry you had this invisible plague as a child. I am sorry about me too, my sisters and brother too....JonBenet Ramsey too, and all the other children, for all time. anyway love to you Anton from Shee [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Shee ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "JB's comment" Posted by Nandee on 10:29:29 6/07/2000 What do you want to be when you grow up? JONBENET RAMSEY: I want to be a doctor or a nurse to help people get well. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:: What kind of doctor do you want to be? JONBENET RAMSEY: A pediatrician. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Fly.....Asthma" Posted by La Contessa on 12:23:07 6/07/2000 Perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous post concerning asthma. Let me attempt to clarify. I was in a psychology class. The professor, a PHD, himself, was discussing illnesses that are psychosomatically induced. He said, a child with asthma that has no discernable, physical cause, can be "a child's cry for help." I, personally, know of a case of an asthmatic child who had an abusive father. When the mother divorced the father, the child's asthma stopped. Is that clear now? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "LaC" Posted by Edie Pratt on 12:30:03 6/07/2000 I see what you're saying. I had a friend in his early 50's who suffered from asthma. This fella drank copious ammounts, snorted Bolivia, and smoked two packs a day, AT LEAST! His "asthma" flared at times when it was obvious that he was not getting his way, tho the asthma was very real. His vices didn't seem to provoke attacks, tho they should have, huh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "This also intrigued me" Posted by Seashell on 13:04:01 6/07/2000 Posted by Nandee What do you want to be when you grow up? JONBENET RAMSEY: I want to be a doctor or a nurse to help people get well. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:: What kind of doctor do you want to be? JONBENET RAMSEY: A pediatrician. I wanted to be a vet becuz when I saw suffering animals, I wanted to cure them. I wonder how many suffering children JonBenet "saw"? It's pretty obvious. People who suffer from a particular disease often want to help others afflicted with the same disease. I've heard of kids wanting to be doctors, vets, nurses but a PEDIATRICIAN? JonBenet was being abused and Dr.Barf ignored/denied/hid it. She was going to grow up and right the wrongs that were done to her by helping other abused children. JMHO as an armchair psychologist. Anyone else have a take on this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "YUP" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:16:12 6/07/2000 I totally agree, Seashell. When I was little, I said I was going to be a teacher. At the time, I had a teacher who would, on a weekly basis, dump my desk over at recess. When we'd return from the playground, the entire class would laugh as Mr. Higgins announced, "****** is a packrat". He also called my mother when I smuggled her "Love That Red" lipstick into the girls room and shared. He said, "I do not like little girls. Especially FAT little girls." I could not win with that guy, who told me to "shape up or ship out" the day my cat was run over and I had to go to school in tears. So, I thought I would become the teacher I didn't have, and needed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Edie Pratt" Posted by La Contessa on 13:48:35 6/08/2000 I would dearly love to bitch-slap Mr. Higgins! If he'd ever done that to MY kid, I would have run him over with my car....IN THE CLASSROOM!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Edie, I'm with you" Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:25:46 6/07/2000 about that. I wanted to be a lawyer, lol! In my household, there were no clear rules about how to be an acceptable person. And, not to mention all the secrets and sexual abuse going on. Now I can see how I wanted to see the rules written down and make sure people who needed help with the rules could come to me and I'd straighten them and the whole blasted rest of the world out!! I didn't realize JonBenet wanted to be a pediatrician. Guess I might have read that and it went right on past me. Wow, I believe that has significance. Problem is, with so much of this case, there's no real hard evidence. That's the bigger problem with childhood sexual abuse anyway. It's so damned hard to prove. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "'shell" Posted by Gemini on 13:36:02 6/07/2000 My older daughter wanted to be a pediatrician when she was small, but I saw no mystery. Her pediatrician was a terrific role model type person with a wonderful knack for relating to children on their level. We've heard a lot about Beuf's possible misconduct (rumors I think), but nothing about how well he related to children or how JonBenet felt about him. That would be interesting to know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Paralegal" Posted by maundy on 13:30:20 6/07/2000 what's a Bomex search? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Bomex" Posted by Paralegal on 14:22:26 6/07/2000 This is a standard search we do in trial law involving medical professionals. Each state's board of medical examiners maintains a database on licensing and complaint issues for them. It would be interesting to know if Dr. Buff/Beef had any patient complaints filed against him while practicing in CO. Do you know where he's relocated and I could check the Bomex there? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Anton--I believe you, I've seen it--" Posted by fiddler on 15:39:43 6/07/2000 my best friend's mother, when she was in second grade, actually did that to her--rubbing her nose in her own urine on the sheets. The mother would do this even when there were friends sleeping over, so I can just imagine what she did in private. Sadly, it didn't occur to any of us at the time to think that this was anything but normal parental behavior. My own mother used to give me enemas regularly, but I'm not so sure that was sexual abuse, as just a manifestation of her own need to control absolutely everything. Thank God at least some things have changed, in the public perception anyway. And what you said about the timing of doctor visits is interesting, too. In JBR's case, some posters brought up the fact that she visited the school nurse quite a bit, always on Mondays. I wonder if PR WAS volunteering at school on those Mondays--and if she had a hand in JBR's nurse visits. This would be another grain in the Munchausen's sand pile. On the other hand, if Mondays happened to be the days that PR was NOT there, that could indicate JBR herself crying for help.... Or, of course, neither, which we have to keep in mind while constructing various possibilities. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Seashell--I did read your post," Posted by fiddler on 15:47:13 6/07/2000 and thought there could be a lot in it. My own experience is that for years, I had horrible respiratory problems. I remember that in 1992, my health goal was to get through the winter without having bronchitis or pneumonia more than once each! It seems weird to look back on now, but at the time, that's how bad it was. Well, I did three years of intensive therapy, and now I rarely even get a cold. So I KNOW, from experience, that emotions are involved in physical illnesses. The doctors we go to now are fairly enlightened about the mind-body connection stuff. It's just too bad that most pediatricians don't seem to be, yet. Maybe they think children are too young to have real minds or spirits yet. Sad, and wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Edie Pratt, hi!" Posted by fiddler on 16:04:05 6/07/2000 (Sorry for posting three consecutive times, but I wanted to make sure you all saw them.) I had a teacher like that, too. God, what misery Authority inflicted on little girls who didn't "fit in". The sickest thing is that in those days, everyone thought it was justified. Our current dentist told me just last week that the dentist he had as a child was a horrible man who refused to give children any anesthetic at all while drilling, in the belief that this would "teach them" to brush their teeth better! He said that if he'd had a competent dentist when he was a boy, he never would have become one himself. That stuck in my mind at the time, and when you posted your experience, the light bulb went on.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "MSBP in the News..." Posted by Dunvegan on 18:42:13 6/07/2000 There was news this morning regarding MSBP from both Reuters and the Associated Press. The Reuters story, "Cameras Urged in Mom Hospital Rooms" can be found here: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000605/us/cameras_munchausen_1.html The shorter AP piece, "US Hospital Says Hidden Cameras Uncover Abuse" can be found here: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000607/hl/abuse_1.html There was a study done, using hidden cameras in children's hospitals, and the results have just been published in the journal, "Pediatrics." An excerpt from the Reuters article: The cameras, installed over four years, helped diagnose 23 mothers with Munchausen syndrome by proxy - a mental illness that causes parents hungry for attention or sympathy to abuse their children. Doctors say the mental illness leads to children's deaths in about 10 percent of cases. But they say diagnosing the disorder is difficult, and the number could be higher. "It's just astonishing," said Dr. David Chadwick, retired director of the child protection center at Children's Hospital-San Diego, who was not involved in the research. "Suffocation just seems so horrible, but we've got videotapes of that. One of these days we're going to have a videotaped episode of a child getting killed." Chilling. The irony for me? The Children's Healthcare hospital where the study was carried out... ...it's in Atlanta. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "i wanted to be (and paralegal)" Posted by maundy on 18:55:25 6/07/2000 sister betrille. that was in between wanting to marry day jones and cassidy. PL, i have no clue where he is. space shuttle gone up lately? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "back to the drawing board, Fiddler!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 20:54:18 6/07/2000 that theory won't fly, Orville, because as it turns out, I DIDN'T become a teacher:-) No, guess I'd rather just talk about it and hold a grudge,lol. Higgins has his demons, I'm sure. He was clearly a homosexual man in a society that didn't accept that. He was married, and moonlighted as a florist. Everyday he tip toed into class, holding his finger to his lips and whispered "shhhhh", as he approached the front of the classroom. He wore Hushpuppies the color of diarhea, and wrote girlish poetry about bees and flowers. And, here's the pay off; after surviving his first grade class, happily going thru second, discovered Mr.Higgins was reassigned to teach the third grade! Ugh, at that point I developed a longtime dislike for school and teachers, altogether. Thanks to Higgins, I'm nothing but a crummy beercan collector:-) What was the question? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "You can be obnoxious, Fly" Posted by Ginja on 17:27:57 6/09/2000 My memory fails me rightnow, Fly. Where did you say you got your medical degree? Also, where do you practice? ginja - Hey, I don't misspell you name very often. Of course, I never would if you used just a little consistency in your sound-to-letter relationships. :-) Do you get off on insulting people? Sounds like it. Phonetically speaking, or in your words, "sound-to-letter relationships", try this: Gin is something you put in your tonic; this ain't Sweden so prounounce the "J" in "Ja"...put it all together, and you've got "Ginja". You are going off the deep end again, ginja, in your interpretation of JBR's medical history. Says who? You? ROTFLMFAO! For someone who edits texbooks, you think you know it all! Get a grip...instead of "editing" my posts, why don't you start reading them? Then you'd find they're jam-packed with "I don't know's" or "Jmho" or openings for discussion. Or cites! You don't want to discuss, you want to put down. You've done it consistently. Why, it's the only consistent thing about you! (1) Beuf isn't the only person to say they saw no signs that would lead them to suspect JBR was being sexually abused. That's basically the same things the teachers and family friends have said. Guess you missed it in all the editing you do, but most doctors, and studies, note that you really can't "see" sexual abuse...unless the abuser is biting his victim, or leaving other telltale signs, including diseases. We aren't talking about someone snatching JBR off the street and molesting her! We're talking incest. As far as "signs" of that abuse, again, people are going to find all kinds of innocent explanations before they give in to the inevitable. Before you tell me I'm going off the deep end, you might want to find out why JBR was seeing the school nurse on Mondays for several weeks before her murder. You might also want to poll victims of child sexual abuse...see if anyone recognized or saw signs that they were being abused. There's this thing called denial...people don't want to think that their best friend or their student's parent is sexually abusing a young child. (2) Beuf did acknowledge that he might not have seen damage to the hymen had it been there, although he generally thought he would have. He saw her less than a month before her murder. Again, jmho (hope you're paying attention to the fact this is "opinion"!), but I would think it would take at least that long, if not longer, to erode away one's hymen! Then again, his patient is six feet under...do you really think he'd be upfront and confess he didn't look? This is the same guy who "thought" she had asthma and ignored it, because it's just one of those childhood illnesses that goes away! Bottom line, the man's license was on the line...he sure as hell wasn't going to admit he was lousy! No. Instead, he left town! But not before prescribing drugs for his dead patient's mother. Out of the blue...without going through her doctor or her medical records to see if maybe he might be prescribing something that could hurt her or interfer with other drugs she may have been taking. (3) As you sort of suggested in a post, you probably shouldn't comment on the "abnormality" of JBR's illnesses and accidents and her pediatrician's procedures given that you have no kids. A lot of what you've said is highly suspicious is not, and a lot of what you say about kids' medical problems is flat out wrong. Much of this has been pointed out to you before, by me and by other people with kids. One of these days perhaps you will pay attention to the information. This is where you are completely off base and obnoxious! I'm reading through posts of posters with kids who are disagreeing with you! You've got a comprehension problem...you're not reading what I post, or them! You see my name and start in with the insults! If you paid attention, you wouldn't have even written this paragraph, because I wasn't making any statements, I was asking parents what they thought. Although a baby monitor in her room might have been a good idea, not having one isn't a sign of a bad/abusive parent. Most kids I know would be highly offended if they had to have a baby monitor in their room at age 6. Also, maybe there'd never been an occasion when there had been a problem (e.g., sick kid calling for help) and they hadn't been able to hear it. They might not have realized there was a need for a monitor. Give me a break! No need for the parents to be concerned? 27 visits were attributed to colds and/or upper-respiratory problems. The doctor said "she might" have asthma, and her father said she had a "mild case" of asthma. And since when do parents do what their 6 years olds tell them, assuming JBR would be upset to have such a device in her room. The Supreme Court has ruled that Elian can't make decisions as to how or where he can live his life, so I'm sure they'd find for the Ramseys if they wanted a monitor in JBR's room and she didn't! Maybe I don't have kids; but I have over 40 nieces and nephews...one was the state's worst asthmatic. I may not have given birth, but I brought that baby up and every room had a monitor! As far as the Rams not bothering because they could hear her calls for help in the night. Well! They certainly didn't hear her Christmas night, now, did they. And they've already stated numerous times they could not hear anything up in their room. They're their own worst enemy...they don't need help from you! You're too quick with excuses for these two. Burke heard his parents arguing in the hallway that night. So I guess you're right. A monitor wouldn't have made a difference, seeing as how these two were in on the whole murder. Mild asthma does not necessarily require treatment or evaluation by a specialist. A pediatrician is able to give the same general advice and prescribe the same medications as an pulmonary specialist. Mild asthma certainly is not likely to cause a life-threatening problem - at least not one that immediately incapacitates the child or that very quickly becomes life threatening. Also, some people's asthma isn't triggered by "hayfever," so her lack of problems during those seasons isn't necessarily weird. Mild asthma. Is that the same as being a "little pregnant"? Asthma is a disease. Sometimes it goes away, sometimes it gets worse. But to ignore it completely is good cause to find another doctor. You say a pediatrician can prescribe the same medications as a pulmonary specialist. How many pulmonary specialists would simply prescribe Benedryl? over and over and over? At some point, say around the 27th visit for the same damn thing, Beuf should have done something. You're no doctor so you can't say mild asthma would never be life-threatening. JBR was congested a lot. A simple cough could become life-threatening. But does something have to be life-threatening before a parent cares? As far as what triggers the asthma...we don't know what was triggering JBR's problems. But as you can see from posters here, who are parents, stress...as I noted...can trigger an attack. As LaContessa said, "it's a child's cry for help." I noticed you didn't attack her or other posters for making that point...only me. Your true colors are showing, Fly. As far as hayfever, I noted that all her visits were consistent except for one spring, which seemed weird. I think what it points to is the fact that hayfever wasn't the trigger for JBR's problems. I guess that also points out that Beuf's benedryl treatments were, how shall we say it? ineffectual. Looks like he was treating her non-existent asthma for a non-existent hayfever problem, eh? Upper-respiratory problems are not as common during the summer, so JBR's lack of problems then is pretty typical, I'd say. My son goes off his asthma medication most summers because he is so unlikely to have problems during that time, so it's also not terribly surprising that JBR didn't have problems then. Again, I hope you edit your med texts better than you read posts. I didn't say her UR problems disappeared in the summer! I wondered whether she was seeing a doctor as much in the summers while in Charlevoix as she saw Beuf during the rest of the time during the year. The only reference I made to UR's and hayfever was that one spring. Again, I think you just see my hat and decide it's necessary for you to insult me or otherwise try to humiliate me or something. I'm not saying anything different than anyone else on this forum, or in these Beuf threads. You wont' butt heads with the other posters, though, because they're parents...you don't have any edge over them. That's okay, though. The more obnoxious you get with me, the more I'll point you in their direction. Where the heck do you see evidence for "balance problems?" Again, you isolate every incident and don't look at the whole picture. She may be able to stand on her head, but she couldn't walk through a store without tripping over her feet and falling down. Or falling down during a photo shoot. But again, fly...I wasn't the first one to note this possible "balance" problem. It was brought up first by other "parents" on the board. And again, rather than butt heads with them, you'd rather go after me. Knock yourself out! And why is Beuf negligent for not warning PR about lightening JBR's hair? Again, you didn't pay attention to my posts. I was talking about holistic medicine where doctors take the whole patient into consideration, rather than an ailment. He was a friend of the family's and he treated JonBenet since she was a baby. He knew she had mousy brown hair, and then suddenly walks into his office a bleach blond at 5 years old! Her hair had to be stripped and then colored. Harsh chemicals make up those strippers and bleaches and hairdressers will not even give young children perms, let alone strips and bleaches! The scalp is too tender for little kids to undergo that kind of harsh chemical treatment. She gets vaginitis and he tells Patsy to quit using bubble bath. But when the kid walks in his office a bleach blonde, he ignores it? Why should this bother me? After all, he prescribed meds for Patsy, didn't he? How much you want to bet he neither checked with her doctor or the pharmacist before prescribing hard drugs? So it's no wonder he could care what Patsy poured on her baby's scalp! I don't think JBR was wearing Pullups to school. She had worn them at night later than some kids, but obviously hadn't been wearing them at night for some time, or PR wouldn't have been washing sheets after "accidents" quite so often, right? So when you "think" something, it's okay. But if I "think" something, I've gone over the deep end! Well, I "think" she wasn't wearing pullups to bed, only to school. Obviously, if she wore them to bed, not only would there be no urine-soaked sheets, but there wouldn't be feces the size of grapefruit in the sheets, either! Young girls who do not practice good toilet hygiene or who are wetting themselves at night do get bladder or vaginal infections or irritation. They get irritations. She had none the night she was murdered. Now if you're talking about other people wiping her...there's cause for infection there. But to get an infection to go all the way to the bladder, the person wiping her didn't wipe her, they stuck their finger(s) inside her! That's also known as abuse. Babies pee and poop in their diapers all day long and I've never heard of one instance of bladder infection! But don't let me be your guide here...I don't have kids. Let's just poll the board here and ask how many parents had babies who got bladder infections from their dirty diapers! Also, in toilet training, parents will also wipe the kids to show them how it's done. Are there any parents here who, while teaching their children how to wipe themselves, wound up infecting their child's bladders? Bottom line, ginja, the pediatrics specialists who looked at JBR's history found nothing particularly unusual for a kid her age. And don't give the line about JBR being found dead being important. It's possible that the TV folks didn't tell them whose records they were evaluating, but I'd bet that wasn't the case. I'd say the pediatric experts' judgement is more to be trusted than yours, or mine. To continue to disregard their conclusions and to berate Beuf's competance is just plain unjustified. And your cites, Fly? Who are those specialists? How many? I know of two...Krugman and Wecht. Both agreed JBR was sexually abused. The only difference in their findings was that Krugman doesn't think the crime was sexually motivated. There are posters here who are nurses and doctors...they've seen a problem in this history. Numerous medical pundits on the air have seen problems with this history. There are posters here who are parents...they've seen a problem with this history. Last but not least, I point your attention to the number of posts in this and the previous Beuf thread...there are over 100 posts! If I'm not mistaken, all of them area questioning Beuf's competence. Yet once again, it's me you're berating. Your colors are showing, Fly. (4) About the thryroid... Here's what the autopsy report said concerning the microscopic analysis: The thyroid gland is composed of normal-appearing follicles. An occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial inflammatory infiltrate is seen. How significant is an occasional isolated area of abnormality? Does it signify previous strangulation? Who knows? Not me, and I suspect, not you. As I posted before, I did look up what could cause this, and I found previous viral infection as one possibility. Strangulation was not mentioned, as I recall, but that might be more a factor of the domain of the search than of whether or not strangulation could be a cause. In any case, I think this one is best left to a real forensic pathologist. Well, you're way off base here, Fly. I never said the inflammatory infiltrates was a sign of chronic abuse...because it is not. I said those infiltrates were the body's reaction to trauma. That when the body is traumatized or otherwise hurt or infected, the infiltrates are dispatched to the scene to 'mend' the problem. What's the significance of an isolated area? Significant enough for the body to have been hurting and to send help to the scene. Sure, a viral infection could cause the infiltrates to be dispatched. Do you see anything in her medical record that says she had a viral infection? I doubt it, since her last visit to the doctor had been almost a month before the infiltrates were dispatched. The body doesn't wait that long...it dispatches the infiltrates immediately. As far as depending on a real forensic pathologist to determine...he already did. Actually, "they" already did. Meyer saw it in the autopsy and Wecht read the report and explained what it all meant in layman's terms. Bottom line, Fly...a lot of what I posted in the other thread was researched and I cited Meyer, Krugman and Wecht. On those points you chose to slap me down on were points which I stated up front were just my thoughts or opinion. For example, I didn't say JBR should have had a monitor in her room. I made the remark that if, as her medical history showed, she had a serious problem with upper respiratory ailments, including the high probability of asthma, she could have very well choked in the night and no one would know. After raising two asthmatics, I know that much! Maybe you don't think monthly doctor visits for a healthy child is abnormal, but you have no right slamming me because I question it! This is a public, open discussion forum. If you want medical proof for anything that anyone, especially me, says here...then practice what you preach. Start citing! Without it, it's just your opinion. Everyone's got one, including me. You're not always right, Fly. Neither am I. But there's no need to slam someone for their opinion. And there's no need to slam someone for citing other forensic specialists, just because you don't care for those specialists! Meyer, Krugman and Wecht are specialists who've gone through this file and have laid it all out for us. I prefer taking their opinions seriously, not that of a text editor who gets off on slamming. As always, jmo. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Ginja" Posted by Nandee on 18:21:15 6/09/2000 1. My 2 children and my 5 grandchildren have not had bladder infections. 2. According to Fly, JB might object to a baby monitor in her room. Why would that bother her any more that wearing pull ups would? Question.... Has anyone heard that JB wore underpants OVER her pull ups? I read this and wondered if that might signal that she was in pull ups Christmas night that were removed, but the bigger undies were left on..... Just wondering... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Nandee!" Posted by fiddler on 09:28:30 6/10/2000 You just provided the best explanation for the size-twelve panties I ever came across. How simple. She was wearing pull-ups with panties over them. The pull-ups were removed, and the panties left behind. I wonder if the original explanation for buying the panties was an excuse, because of JBR's embarrassment. Underpants always seemed like a weird gift to buy for someone else--especially someone you apparently didn't know that well. I bet PR bought them in two sizes for JonBenet--the larger size to put over pull-ups, and the smaller size as an incentive to act like a big girl. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "fiddler" Posted by Nandee on 12:57:16 6/10/2000 I think I'll start a new thread on this subject and see what happens... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "No more than you, Ginja" Posted by fly on 15:33:56 6/12/2000 Sorry to pop this thread back up, but Ginja has said some things that I think need a response from me. Scroll on if you're not interested. Ginja - Gee, having a bad day? Couldn't see that "smiley" at the end of my ribbing about your name? Jeesh! And about my medical degree....I've never said I had one. However, I've had a heck of a lot more experience with childhood illnesses and accidents than you have, I suspect, and I'm well versed enough in general medical matters to be able to differentiate bogus from reasonable medical statements. And what's with all the snide remarks about my editing experience? Seems rather irrelevant to the current discussion, but maybe you didn't approve of my comments concerning the proofreading errors in the Ramseys' book? Or are you suggesting that I don't have editing experience? Fact is, Ginja, I do have editing experience, both from editing and being edited. I have experience in areas beyond that, too, of course. Editing isn't even my main occupation. I have no desire to "put down" you or anybody else. I have posted in agreement with you on many occasions. However, if you make highly questionable statements, I'm going to point those our. IMO, the majority of your diatribes against Beuf are bogus, and you repeatedly have made very questionable statements concerning childhood illnesses. Your non-parent status has absolutely nothing to do with my responding to your posts your incorrect information is all that matters, and that, I suspect is partly due to your lack of experience with kids. You are absolutely wrong to state that I only knock you and not others saying similar things. I probably do respond to your posts with more frequency, but that is because you are more likely to post the most outrageous things, your posts are generally presented more as "fact" than some, and your posts usually are the stimulus for the other comments. Addressing your post, in effect, addresses the others. (1) I agree that you can't always see signs of sexual abuse, and that's why I don't think you are being fair when you blast Beuf for not having seen any. That was the main context of our discussion -- not whether or not JBR had been abused long before her death. You were blasting him for not picking up on the signs of abuse. I suggested that there apparently weren't any clear signs of abuse - he didn't see anything, nor did her teachers or friends. Those facts do also go to the issue of whether she was being abused early on, of course, but are hardly definitive proof one way or the other. I've never taken the stand that there was absolutely no chance that abuse was going on - just that there were no clear signs of it (and that is a view shared by some of the doctors commenting on the case, too). Do you know why JBR was seeing the school nurse on Mondays frequently? If not, why make a big deal about it? (2) Ginja, her hymen wasn't gone, even on the night of her death. How long it would take to get it in the condition it was in is something I don't know, but I suspect that would be a pretty tough thing for anybody to nail down, including you. You are going off the deep end again when you say that Beuf ignored JBR's possible asthma "because it's just on of those childhood illnesses that goes away." He never said that. That is your attribution, not his. Also, his license wasn't on the line here at all, unless he knowingly covered up JBR's abuse. And are you sure he "left town?" Seems that recently somebody posted that he was still listed as being in Boulder. (3) Most of the posters "disagreeing" with me were posting primarily about the developmental questions and the issue of the vaginal exams. In most cases, those people were misinformed or confused. That is, Beuf did not do internal exams, but only the appropriate external exams called for, and the developmental questions are legit. The fact of the matter is that my main point has been that JBR's medical history is well within normal ranges for kids her age (and the experts who reviewed Beuf's records said this), and Beuf hasn't done anything out of line concerning her care. What information have I ignored that other parents have provided? That they had medical troubles until they got psychotherapy? That their child never had an internal exam until early adulthood? That their child never had vaginal infections? I'm not ignoring those, but they have little relevance here. I've always said that emotional stress can be associated with physical problems, but you can't go from that to concluding that because JBR had lots of upper-respiratory infections that she was being abused -- even given the fact that she was untimately killed and abused. It just isn't justified, and it certainly shouldn't be fodder for calling Beuf incompetant. (3) About the baby monitor - all I said was not having one doesn't make the Ramseys bad parents. If you believe that kids don't greatly influence their parents' decisions about their care, you either are amazingly naive or your sisters/brothers and their mates were the ultimate authoritarian parents. Also, the fact that your brother/sister had monitors in every room because of their kid, the "state's worst asthmatic," is fine and dandy, but JBR was not in a similar situation. I'm sure the Ramseys, in hindsight, wish they'd had a monitor in her room -- because of the murder, not because of her respiratory problems. However, my point was that the fact that they did not have one is not grounds for declaring them bad or uncaring parents. (4) Yes, asthma is a disease - pregnancy is not, at least last time I checked : -) -- and it does make sense to differentiate mild and more severe asthma. I don't need to be an MD to know that mild asthma isn't the life-threatening, big deal you want to make it. There are always rare exceptions to how a medical problem acts, but I think it's pretty safe to say (based on what I've read and been told since my son was diagnosed with mild asthma) that in other than pretty unusual circumstances, you're not going to see somebody with mild asthma go from normal to extreme danger in a matter of a few minutes. In other words, the Ramseys didn't need to be monitoring her every moment. I never said asthma should be ignored, and you have no proof that Beuf was ignoring it. (5)I've also never said stress couldn't aggravate asthma. And you're wrong - I did comment on LaContessa's "it's a child's cry for help." If there's no identifiable trigger (allergen), then considering something non-physical isn't absurd. To assume that a child is being abused because they have asthma under any other condition is highly questionable. Pollen allergies might not have been the trigger for JBR's asthma, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't some other trigger like dust mites, cockroaches, pet dander, or even food allergies. We don't have the information to warrant leaping to the abuse as trigger, even if we want to accept that as a strong causative factor in principle. (6)Why make a big deal about Beuf prescribing Benedryl? Beuf wasn't prescribing it for JBR's possible asthma. According to the info you posted previously (the medical history given to Harmer) he notes prescribing Benedryl once in 4/94 for allergic rhinitis (hayfever, as it turns out) with no notation of wheezing, and once in 1/95 when she had chickenpox. Benedryl is an appropriate recommendation for both problems. (7) You are avoiding the issue, Ginja. What balance problems? Even the most athletic kids sometimes fall down. The photo shoot is not a case of balance problems if previous representations were correct. That case of "falling down" was linked to exhaustion or unwillingness to continue, as I recall, not balance problems. (8) There was no indication that JBR's scalp was being harmed by any hair treatments, but her nether parts were apparently being irritated by something. Thus, he warns against bubble bath and not against lightening her hair. Perfect medicine? Maybe not, but hardly grounds for charges of incompetance. And, we don't even know for sure he didn't make some comment, do we? (9) If you "think" something based on correct facts, that's one thing. When you state something as fact, as you seemed to in regards to JBR wearing Pullups to school shortly before her death, that is neither simply "thinking" something, nor based on facts, IMO. So, once again, I'm not guilty of what you suggest. (10) You're going overboard again, Ginja, when you say "...to get an infection to go all the way to the bladder, the person wiping her didn't wipe her, they stuck their finger(s) inside her!" You don't have to have had a finger stuck inside you to get a bladder infection, and JBR clearly didn't have that happen to her in any case. There was no notation of anything abnormal about her urethra - only her vaginal region. Actually, I've always found it remarkable that baby girls don't get more bladder infections from sitting in dirty diapers than they do. Maybe the difference in wiping the wrong way and sitting in dirty diapers has to do with forces during wiping that stretch the tissues and cause the urethral opening to open up more, offering a greater chance for fecal material to enter. Just a guess. Regardless, wiping the wrong way or failing to wipe well must be a pretty common cause of bladder infections in little girls, because that is at the top of just about every preventatives lists. (11) Read more carefully, Ginja. I said experts (the ones the TV show had review her history) concluded that JBR's medical history was pretty unremarkable, not that she'd not been abused. Wecht and Krugman were commenting on abuse, not her general medical history as reported by Beuf. What medical pundits have said her general medical history was suspicious/atypical? I seem to have missed those shows. I recall people commenting on hauling her to the doctor that frequently, but not anything about the nature of the complaints. (12) What do you mean you "never said the inflammatory infiltrates was (sic) a sign of chronic abuse...because it is not...."? You posted: "All this time I thought there had been "interstitial chronic inflammation" in the neck area, which of course, would mean this wasn't the first time she had something tightened around her throat. If you are now going to negate inflammatory infiltrates as a sign of chronic abuse/injury of the thyroid, you'd better quit citing the inflammatory infiltrates in the vaginal tissue as signs of chronic abuse there, hadn't you? : -) So what did Wecht have to say about the thyroid? I don't recall seeing you post that section of his book. Did he conclude she'd been strangled before that night, based on the condition of the thyroid, that is? Oh, and yes, I do see something to suggest she might have had a recent viral infection: In your post giving JBR's medical history as told to Harmer by Beuf, JBR missed a pageant in December 96 due to "illness." Was that a viral infection? Don't know. She apparently wasn't taken to see Beuf, so there is no diagnosis given. Might not have caused the thyroid condition, even so. (13) As to citing my sources, when things go beyond common knowledge, I usually do. I'm the one citing the opinions of the medical experts regarding her medical history, remember? And I didn't slam you for citing other forensic specialists; I was calling you on your statements of "fact" and your questionable conclusions about Beuf. Again, this was not a discussion of whether JBR had been abused prior to the night of her murder. This was mostly a discussion of whether Beuf and the Ramseys were incompetant. Show me where Meyer, Krugman, or Wecht point to JBR's medical history and conclude Beuf was incompetant, JBR's medical history was indicative of repeated abuse, or that the Ramsey's behavior associated with JBR's illnesses was indicative of being an uncaring or abusive parent. I know Meyer had nothing to say on those issues, nor did Krugman, really. Did Wecht? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "I guess it just gets old after a while, Fly...." Posted by Ginja on 12:58:21 6/14/2000 >Sorry to pop this thread back up, >but Ginja has said some things >that I think need a response >from me. Scroll on if >you're not interested. I'm always interested...I'm just not always online during the week! >Ginja - Gee, having a bad day? > Couldn't see that "smiley" at >the end of my ribbing about >your name? Jeesh! I stand corrected, Fly...evidently, it looks as though I missed the smiley. Of course, I may have become immuned, as people overuse it in order to 'get over' on me or whomever. Like the boy who cried wolf, know what I mean? People think they can say what they want in whatever tone suits them....because they ended it with a smiley. >And about my medical degree....I've never said >I had one. One of the things I've noticed of late, Fly, is that we've been innundated with newbies. Nothing wrong with that, except they have no idea of the history here or with us oldies but goodies who are still posting after three and half long years. You post as if that's the final word. I'm used to it. Newbies aren't. It was my way of saying, put your money where your mouth is. The other side of the coin to that, however, is the fact that having degrees or credentials don't add up to a pile of chit if you don't know what you're doing! So...it's six of one, half a dozen of the other...generally speaking, posters spew off as if they're degreed professionals in the field for years and ready for retirement; then again, you've got others who really are degreed and so-called professionals who don't know their asses from their elbows. The bottom line with you was that a lot of the newbies look to you as they think you're some kind of medical person in the know. You're very smart, but you're not "the answer" to all medical questions. I was leveling the playing field, that's all. >However, I've >had a heck of a lot >more experience with childhood illnesses and >accidents than you have, I suspect, >and I'm well versed enough in >general medical matters to be able >to differentiate bogus from reasonable medical >statements. Which is exactly why I reacted as I did to your post. Sometimes you come off arrogant. Other times, insulting. Then there are times you're on the mark. Your post that got me to respond in this fashion was one of those typical responses from you I felt needed readjustment. >And what's with all the snide remarks >about my editing experience? Seems >rather irrelevant to the current discussion, >but maybe you didn't approve of >my comments concerning the proofreading errors >in the Ramseys' book? As far as proofing DOI...I missed that completely. Again, for the benefit of newbies who weren't around back whenever, you have used your editing experience as 'proof' in the past that you knew what you were talking about. My remarks weren't "intentionally" snide...just pointing out that this is how you've tried to reckon with me before. The problem is, I do go back and reresearch and find that many things you submit as "the answers" are not. You do make mistakes. (As I do.) >Editing isn't even my main occupation. IN which case I would stand corrected because in previous postings you made it sound as if it was your main occupation. >I have no desire to "put down" >you or anybody else. I >have posted in agreement with you >on many occasions. However, if >you make highly questionable statements, I'm >going to point those our. Not a problem, Fly. But likewise, you know me well enough to know that everything isn't black and white...there ARE gray areas and many posters forget that. My purpose was to show that you were acting as if gray didn't exist. >IMO, the majority of your diatribes >against Beuf are bogus, and you >repeatedly have made very questionable statements >concerning childhood illnesses. And therein lies the reason why I responded. Again, you don't have the medical degree, and I guess you don't even have the editing occupation you implied at some point earlier to support your allegations that "my diatribes against Beuf are bogus." You can only state your opinion, Fly. That's what this board, a discussion forum for us to post our opinions. It's a shame you feel I'm the only one who needs straightening out on the Beuf issue, considering you're about the only one who doesn't think the doctor is bogus! As far as questionable statements, that's your opinion. I state whether or not something's in my opinion; you do not. If it's your opinion, state so. If you belive I'm bogus and making questionable statements, I would ask that you start citing the medical proof that I'm wrong. Otherwise, your opposing diatribes are futile. >Your non-parent >status has absolutely nothing to do >with my responding to your posts Then why did you even bring it up? > your incorrect information is all >that matters, and that, I suspect >is partly due to your lack >of experience with kids. Again, where do you get off knowing what my experience with kids is? You're making as many leaps and assumptions here are Hoffman makes in his complaints! :-) >You >are absolutely wrong to state that >I only knock you and not >others saying similar things. I >probably do respond to your posts >with more frequency, but that is >because you are more likely to >post the most outrageous things, your >posts are generally presented more as >"fact" than some, and your posts >usually are the stimulus for the >other comments. Addressing your post, >in effect, addresses the others. I disagree...we were in a thread of more than 100 posts...most said the same thing I was saying, only you responded to mine alone. As far as posting outrageous things...c'mon! You still haven't pointed out anything I've said which you believe to be outrageous, nor have you supported your statements (e.g., disproving mine) with any facts! Ever since we stopped citing support for statements on this board, it's gone to hell. All of a sudden, tabloids, rumors and innuendo are the only sparks to this case. This is wrong. I've done nothing but cite outside sources for weeks. I was hoping it would be picked up by the rest of the membership here. As it hasn't, well...I won't be stopping. But I will be pointing it out more and more and we go along. I support my statements; others' statements which aren't supported will be deemed not credible. >(1) I agree that you can't >always see signs of sexual abuse, >and that's why I don't think >you are being fair when you >blast Beuf for not having seen >any. This is what peeves me most about posters "reading" in general. I did not blast Beuf for not having "seen" sexual abuse. I blasted the doctor for being so damned arrogant that it couldn't have happened because he didn't see it. There's a distinction here. >That was the main >context of our discussion -- I disagree. Not from reading your response above to my earlier post of the first thread. >not whether or not JBR had been >abused long before her death. >You were blasting him for not >picking up on the signs of >abuse. Again, you didn't "read" my post. I made several different distinctions. The first was his arrogance that sexual abuse didn't happen because he didn't see, and would have seen it, if she had been sexaully abuse. That was my first bone of contention. The second was physical abuse. And I noted in my poster, if you had read it, that in Monday-morning quarterbacking, looking at her medical records as a "whole", it had to look "hinky". It was "my opinion" and I was asking other posters if they thought the same. So again, I disagree with you in this respect. >I suggested that there >apparently weren't any clear signs of >abuse - he didn't see anything, >nor did her teachers or friends. That was the basis of my argument, Fly. Looking at the records in retrospect, Beuf was looking at each occurrence. He was not looking at it as a whole. He was more concerned, imho, with how "he" would look, rather than what the "whole" record may have been saying to him. As far as friends and teachers...we have testimony from JonBenet's little friends (not friends of the parents, e.g., Stines) that she wasn't happy...e.g., she hated "that" room, etc. Ditto for the teachers...not that I drew testimony from teachers, per se, but rather, from the school nurse, which imho, is far more reaching and telling. > Those facts do also go >to the issue of whether she >was being abused early on, of >course, but are hardly definitive proof >one way or the other. In a circumstantial case, Fly, you don't have definitive proof of anything! What you have are "circumstances" which, when put together as a whole, set forth a pattern. A pattern of circumstances then becomes as close to definitive proof as one can get, especially considering definitive proof does not exist! >I've never taken the stand that >there was absolutely no chance that >abuse was going on - just >that there were no clear signs >of it (and that is a >view shared by some of the >doctors commenting on the case, too). Again, I didn't say there were "clear" signs...I pointed to a circumstantial pattern of the whole. And then we get to cites, which I was trying to pry from you. You say your view is shared by some of the doctors commenting on the case. I'm asking who those doctors are and exactly what they said, e.g., support your comments with cites. I did, and I do, and I've cited three major doctors: Meyer, Wecht and Krugman. Perhaps you don't like what they say. That's all well and good. But if you're going to tell me their reasoning sucks, then point to what other doctors have said to contradict those statements! It's blanket statements like that that made me include in my response to you queries as to your medical background. With all due respect, your personal "statements" are not deemed to have any merit in this regard. I don't mind arguing a point, but I prefer arguing it with cites of doctors. >Do you know why JBR was seeing >the school nurse on Mondays frequently? > If not, why make a >big deal about it? Again, this is how a circumstantial pattern is established. We know that she suffered chronic sexual abuse, there's no arguing that. How long prior to her murder was she being abused in this manner? With the knowledge she was being sexually abused, put together with the fact she was murdered, her visits to the school nurse for several Mondays prior to her last two espisodes of sexual abuse, resulting in her murder, become essential. IOW, it is a big deal! It's certainly not something that should be ignored. God knows this poor child was being ignored in life. Let's not ignore her pain in death! >(2) Ginja, her hymen wasn't gone, >even on the night of her >death. How long it would >take to get it in the >condition it was in is something >I don't know, but I suspect >that would be a pretty tough >thing for anybody to nail down, >including you. All she had left of her hymen was a mucosal rim between the 10 and 2 position. There was no indication of tearing or rupturing or trauma. In addition, the area of where the hymen was was beset by epithelial erosion. In essence, it was "worn away", or the very least, took some time to turn a healthy hymen into a bitty ring of mucosa. IOW, evidence the sexual abuse was ongoing, rather than some freak accident the night of her murder. >You are going off the deep end >again when you say that Beuf >ignored JBR's possible asthma "because it's >just on of those childhood illnesses >that goes away." He never >said that. That is your >attribution, not his. This is what peeves me most about many posters, including yourself. Where do you get off insulting me? I'm not going off any end, deep or otherwise. Statements like that are uncalled for. We're here to discuss, not call each other names or make off-the-cuff disparaging remarks. Back to your "point", I did not make the blanket statement that Beuf thought it was a childhood disease that would go away. Reread what I said. I gave several examples, imo, as to why he ignored the asthma. I didn't say he said this or that. In essence, what you've said is right. It's my words, not his. But likewise, I noted such. So what's your argument here? Why are you even mentioning it? Are you more interested in arguing case? or arguing with me? Also, his >license wasn't on the line here >at all, unless he knowingly covered >up JBR's abuse. And are >you sure he "left town?" >Seems that recently somebody posted that >he was still listed as being >in Boulder. I never said his license was on the line. And no, I'm not sure if he left town. Go through the 111 posts in the first thread and go through this thread and see how many posters are talking about him leaving town. So again, you're attributing something to me that I didn't incite. My question is why are you questioning me on this point when half the posters in these threads are making the statement? >(3) Most of the posters "disagreeing" >with me were posting primarily about >the developmental questions and the issue >of the vaginal exams. In >most cases, those people were misinformed >or confused. That is, Beuf >did not do internal exams, but >only the appropriate external exams called >for, and the developmental questions are >legit. The fact of the >matter is that my main point >has been that JBR's medical history >is well within normal ranges for >kids her age (and the experts >who reviewed Beuf's records said this), >and Beuf hasn't done anything out >of line concerning her care. As to why you were answering posters questions, I have no argument with that. It's your latter statements about JBR's history, in which case would you please go back and read all my posts! You're arguing for argument's sake, not paying attention to what I was saying...or asking! As far as normal ranges, I have my doubts, as do many posters here. JBR was not a sickly child, yet she was in that doctor's office at least once a month! Most parents here have stated that once or twice a year is about it. Again, she wasn't sickly, yet she did have some very curious problems for a child her age: painful urination, vaginitis, bloody stool, to name a few. As far as your blanket statement that other doctors agree with you, I think it's best if you started citing that agreement! >What information have I ignored that other >parents have provided? That they >had medical troubles until they got >psychotherapy? That their child never >had an internal exam until early >adulthood? That their child never >had vaginal infections? I'm not >ignoring those, but they have little >relevance here. I've always said >that emotional stress can be associated >with physical problems, but you can't >go from that to concluding that >because JBR had lots of upper-respiratory >infections that she was being abused >-- even given the fact that >she was untimately killed and abused. > It just isn't justified, and >it certainly shouldn't be fodder for >calling Beuf incompetant. Again, Fly, we're looking at all of this in retrospect! And when a little girl is six feet under, my belief is everything is justified. Stress does manifest itself in certain ailments, many of which JonBenet suffered. Hell, I even went into the explanation of holistic medicine and whatnot. You can't take this child's history and blindly focus on one incident at a time and not relate it or link it to other occurences. Lawyers don't do it in building a circumstantial case, and imho, (and other posters) doctors should be looking at the whole picture as well. It may have been Beuf's practice to only tend to the immediate problem. But fwiw, if he was a good pediatrician, he would have looked through the records to see if there was anything there he could link or relate to why this supposedly healthy child was in his office every month! So imho, it is justified. Scrutiny is always justified when the patient dies! >(3) About the baby monitor - >all I said was not having >one doesn't make the Ramseys bad >parents. That's your opinion. Mine was that if she was in the doctor's office every month at least once, and given the fact the doctor thought she might have asthma, her father thought she had mild asthma...it all adds up to concern. There should have been more concern for this child's health and well-being. If they took the time to bring her to the office at least once a month, doesn't it seem right they would follow-up at home with just as much care? Whether or not that's a baby monitor, I don't know. All I'm pointing out is that once they left the doctor's office, it was out of sight/out of mind until the next visit. I don't see any evidence of any follow-up care at home. Instead, I see a mother who's more concerned as to how to hide chicken pox so her sick daughter can make a photo shoot! If you believe that >kids don't greatly influence their parents' >decisions about their care, you either >are amazingly naive or your sisters/brothers >and their mates were the ultimate >authoritarian parents. Let's get real. Kids have an influence...but they don't rule. What idiot parent is going to go against sound medical advice because their child doesn't want to hear it? Also, the fact >that your brother/sister had monitors in >every room because of their kid, >the "state's worst asthmatic," is fine >and dandy, but JBR was not >in a similar situation. I'm >sure the Ramseys, in hindsight, wish >they'd had a monitor in her >room -- because of the murder, >not because of her respiratory problems. To be honest, I don't think they give a chit. If they did, they wouldn't have had a broken basement window, wouldn't have doors left open, and would have used their alarm system. You can't be sure of anything they think in hindsight. In hindsight, I "think" their only thoughts have more to do with what a curse the little brat turned out to be for them. The Death of Innocence has nothing to do with JonBenet's death, but the simple fact that public opinion thinks they murdered their child. It's the death of their presumption of innocence that weighs most heavily on the minds of these two parents. That, my friend, sums it up for me as far as they're concerned. IOW, they're not hindsighting anything as regards JBR; they're bummed out because they couldn't walk away from this as easily as they had hoped. > However, my point was that >the fact that they did not >have one is not grounds for >declaring them bad or uncaring parents. Again, I base nothing...opinion, thought, whatever...on one single aspect, but on the whole picture. It's not so much the baby monitor itself, but rather, their general regard for their daughter's well being as a whole. >(4) Yes, asthma is a disease >- pregnancy is not, at least >last time I checked : >-) -- and it does >make sense to differentiate mild and >more severe asthma. I don't >need to be an MD to >know that mild asthma isn't the >life-threatening, big deal you want to >make it. There are always >rare exceptions to how a medical >problem acts, but I think it's >pretty safe to say (based on >what I've read and been told >since my son was diagnosed with >mild asthma) that in other than >pretty unusual circumstances, you're not going >to see somebody with mild asthma >go from normal to extreme danger >in a matter of a few >minutes. In other words, the >Ramseys didn't need to be monitoring >her every moment. I never >said asthma should be ignored, and >you have no proof that Beuf >was ignoring it. Beuf did nothing for her "possible" condition. The only monitoring the parents did was to make sure she made her important pageant dates...that her hair was bleached and her 'french nails' freshened up. They saw to it that she was ready and able to perform, that she knew when to gyrate, when to wink, and when to take that bow. God forbid she should feel chilly and want to put a sweater on! God forbid they should teach her personal hygiene, or tell her to learn how to wipe herself! God forbid they should ask the doctor if they need to do anything special or buy any medicines or see any specialists for her upper-respiratory problems, aka undiagnosed asthma. God forbit they should give a damn about who and what JBR was off stage!!! >(5)I've also never said stress couldn't aggravate >asthma. And you're wrong - > I did comment on LaContessa's >"it's a child's cry for help." > If there's no identifiable trigger >(allergen), then considering something non-physical isn't >absurd. To assume that a >child is being abused because they >have asthma under any other condition >is highly questionable. Pollen allergies >might not have been the trigger >for JBR's asthma, but that doesn't >mean that there wasn't some other >trigger like dust mites, cockroaches, pet >dander, or even food allergies. >We don't have the information to >warrant leaping to the abuse as >trigger, even if we want to >accept that as a strong causative >factor in principle. If we don't look at her medical history as a whole then no, we'll never have the information needed to make any kind of judgments! You don't need allergens or environmental debris to cause an attack. Before my asthma got worse, it was first diagnosed as "exercise induced." I also passed allergy tests with flying colors (having none!). Fly, what you've got to realize here is that I was responding to a specific post of yours which you directed to me. A lot of the excuses you're giving her is a culmination of many posts. So for me to argue point by point is fruitless. So sure, maybe you've said that stress could aggravate...but that's not what you were saying in your response to me. For that reason, and because time is short and I'm in the office, I'm skipping the next couple of points. I discussed those points, you rebutted, and now rebutting again. They're really minor points (prescribing Benedryl or "possible" balance problems) that we could go back and forth on. I'm not the only one arguing them, however, so if you really want to argue the points, argue it with the other posters. Besides, I'd have to put my post back up to see the whole context of the argument to make sense of any of it. >(8) There was no indication that >JBR's scalp was being harmed by >any hair treatments, but her nether >parts were apparently being irritated by >something. Thus, he warns against >bubble bath and not against lightening >her hair. Perfect medicine? >Maybe not, but hardly grounds for >charges of incompetance. And, we >don't even know for sure he >didn't make some comment, do we? We can't make assumptions for what he may or may not have done or said if it's not in his notes now, can we? Parents of small children need to child-proof their house with little kids around. This includes keeping harmful chemicals, which can be found in all household cleaners, away from the kids, or ensuring they can't get into it. If swallowed, they could die; but the warnings also warn of harmful affects if it gets on the skin or in the eyes. These chemicals are also in hair dyes. You give this doctor a lot of credit, Fly. My problem with him is he's a pediatrician...a specialist for children. You expect a certain amount of expertise. Beuf's treatments (or non treatments) looks much to me like a general practitioner who's waiting to retire. From his notes and actions he never went the extra mile. As I noted in my post, he knew this baby. He knew she had mousy brown hair, for example. He didn't even enter it into his notes that she was suddenly a bleach blonde, let alone warn her mother of the dangers of using harmful chemicals. Hell...even on the packaging, the user is told not to use the stuff if they've got any irritations or scratches. That's on an adult scalp. A 5 year old's scalp is so much more tender. It's mho this doctor didn't care. He wasn't a "caring" doctor. I've had the experience of reading pediatric reports here at work and it's just incredible the differences that can be found between a doctor who cares and gives a chit compared to notes made by Beuf, who supposedly was a family friend! >(9) If you "think" something based >on correct facts, that's one thing. > When you state something as >fact, as you seemed to in >regards to JBR wearing Pullups to >school shortly before her death, that >is neither simply "thinking" something, nor >based on facts, IMO. So, >once again, I'm not guilty of >what you suggest. Again, I'd have to pull up the post to see what I 'suggsted'. :-) But what I will point out is that this is the same beef I'm having with you. You're making blanket statements without support and coming off as if it's fact, rather than opinion. Now...as far as the pullups to school issue...that was in print. God knows where, since so much in print has come out lately...could've been Thomas, or DOI, or LHP...who knows? But if it makes you feel better, I'll find the cite and post it. >(10) You're going overboard again, Ginja, >when you say "...to get >an infection to go all the >way to the bladder, the person >wiping her didn't wipe her, they >stuck their finger(s) inside her!" > You don't have to have >had a finger stuck inside you >to get a bladder infection, and >JBR clearly didn't have that happen >to her in any case. >There was no notation of anything >abnormal about her urethra - only >her vaginal region. Actually, I've >always found it remarkable that baby >girls don't get more bladder infections >from sitting in dirty diapers than >they do. Maybe the difference >in wiping the wrong way and >sitting in dirty diapers has to >do with forces during wiping that >stretch the tissues and cause the >urethral opening to open up more, >offering a greater chance for fecal >material to enter. Just a >guess. Regardless, wiping the wrong >way or failing to wipe well >must be a pretty common cause >of bladder infections in little girls, >because that is at the top >of just about every preventatives lists. What you're talking about here, Fly, would be a urinary tract infection, where something as simple as poor hygiene might possibly cause such. When the infection gets as far as the bladder and kidney, the infection is more severe. Again, I'm at work and don't have time to do research here and now. But like cancer, it has stages. The higher up in the system, the higer the stage. Also, when you've got a stage 3 or 4 urinary tract infection, it's caused by one of two things: (1) a simple infection that was left to get more severe and travel up the tract; and/or (2) sex (most usually). IOW, for (2), (and this is where the twisted urethra came in), there's penetration (digital or penile) that causes push the organs out of line or can pass bacteria/infection closer to ground zero, so to speak. But no matter how you look at it, JBR suffered from bladder infections and vaginitis...not urinary tract infections, of which the latter can be caused simply by poor hygiene as you note. >(11) Read more carefully, Ginja. >I said experts (the ones the >TV show had review her history) >concluded that JBR's medical history was >pretty unremarkable, not that she'd not >been abused. Wecht and Krugman >were commenting on abuse, not her >general medical history as reported by >Beuf. What medical pundits have >said her general medical history was >suspicious/atypical? I seem to have >missed those shows. I recall >people commenting on hauling her to >the doctor that frequently, but not >anything about the nature of the >complaints. As I noted, plenty have been on television to talk about the medical history portion and the complaints themselves. Geraldo and LKL have had the most pundits. Several were women (one from Boston who's some kind of specialist that covered the Woodward case). Of course, Wecht. And I've caught Baden, too. I suppose it's come to a point when I'll have to start taking notes again, or printing things out so I can refer to them readily (like I used to -- like WE ALL USED TO!). >(12) What do you mean you >"never said the inflammatory infiltrates was >(sic) a sign of chronic abuse...because >it is not...."? You posted: > "All this time I thought >there had been "interstitial chronic inflammation" >in the neck area, which of >course, would mean this wasn't the >first time she had something tightened >around her throat. >If you are now going to negate >inflammatory infiltrates as a sign of >chronic abuse/injury of the thyroid, you'd >better quit citing the inflammatory infiltrates >in the vaginal tissue as signs >of chronic abuse there, hadn't you? > : -) :-)...back to you, my friend! Seriously, you're doing two different things here, you devil! LOL You're pulling from different posts from different threads, and confusing them all. Chronic inflammation was found in the vaginal mucosa, indicating previous abuse It's supported by the epithelial erosion. And without the AR in front of me, I can't quote any more on that. Interstitial inflammatory infiltrates were found only in the thyroid. These are not chronic...this is the body's immediate reaction to trauma, e.g., white blood cells, dispatched to an area of trauma or disease or whatever. IOW, the body's been invaded, and the infiltrates are the little soldiers sent to fight the battle (that's how I learned it -- and remember it! -- from grammar school!). From a very early post you quoted of mine, I had confused the two, thinking that I had read she had chronic inflamation of the esosphagal lining (or something to that affect), pointing to chronic abuse, e.g., being strangled was not new. But then I posted I had gone back to the AR and found there were two different issues: (1) in the vagina, there was chronic inflammation (previous abuse); and (2) in the thyroid, there was interstitial inflammatory infiltrates (the little soldiers). And that's the distinction! >So what did Wecht have to say >about the thyroid? I don't >recall seeing you post that section >of his book. Did he >conclude she'd been strangled before that >night, based on the condition of >the thyroid, that is? No. That was my opinion based on what he had explained in other portions of his book. He noted that there were NO infiltrates in the vagina and brain, noting she didn't live long enough for her body to respond. (That was in his book and that's what I cited). I saw the infiltrates present in the thyroid (from teh AR report). So, based on what Wecht had pointed out, I basically came to the conclusion that she had some kind of trauma in the neck, but it didn't cause death seeing as how the body had time to react and dispatch the infiltrates. They wouldn't have been dispatched if she was dead, otherwise, wouldn't you see them in the brain and vagina? I had posted all this and posed questions to you in a completely different post about a week or more earlier than what we're addressing today. Okay, that's all I can do right now. I've got to get back to work and do a few more things before quitting time! P.S. Nothing here is intended to flame you or put you down in any way. I'm trying to respond to your post without having the benefit of a single piece of reference in front of me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Ginja ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Fly" Posted by v_p on 15:59:56 6/12/2000 Editor eh? That splains a lot. Anyway, as to your statement - >>>The fact of the matter is that my main point has been that JBR's medical history is well within normal ranges for kids her age (and the experts who reviewed Beuf's records said this), and Beuf hasn't done anything out of line concerning her care.<<< #1. You are simply wrong. I have four sisters and one biological daughter, at one time I had an adopted daughter from age 3 - 5. None of my sisters or daughters visited the Doctor, ANY doctor 21 times in even a 10 year period. The amount JBR's doctor visits is totally abnormal and I think most parents would agree. #2. The experts and other doctors saw the records Beuff allowed them to see. Probably the same ambiguous outline presented to Dianne Sawyer. I think PR would have to approve of any records Bueff was allowed to release - I can't see her approving of much. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "v_p" Posted by fly on 07:12:12 6/13/2000 v_p - Of course some kids rarely get sick, and others (nonabused included) get sick frequently. Of course some kids are taken to the doctor only when very seriously ill, and others are taken to the doctor for every minor complaint. The fact that your family's history doesn't fit JBR's is pretty irrelevant given that we have pediatric experts saying that JBR's medical history was within normal bounds. The experts might well have been given the information released on the show. That's certainly been enough information for a bunch of non-experts to use to indict Beuf as incompetant and declare JBR a victim of long-term abuse, so I'd think it would be more than adequate for legit experts to conclude that her history wasn't particularly remarkable. I don't understand why ginja and now you keep commenting about me supposedly being an editor. What does that have to do with anything? BTW, you are wrong - that is not my primary occupation - something ginja has been around plenty long enough to know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Fly" Posted by Teague on 12:46:01 6/13/2000 Can't let you stand alone trying to make the points you are--though I've tried this multiple times in the past and it seems to do little good. You're right that one family's history with their children is too small a sample for assessing Beuf's competence/incompetence or for assessing whether JB's doctor visits were indicative of some on-going abuse. As I've posted in the past, my late father was a pediatrician, my mother his medical secretary. They operated a private practice for well over thirty years with hundreds upon hundreds of babies, children, and teenagers over the years. I watched the Beuf interview on PTL along with my mother (who follows this case and believes the Ramseys are involved in JB's death). Based on her decades of experience with a large sample of kids, she concluded that given JB's upper respiratory problems, there was nothing unusual about the 27 visits over three years. As you say, some parents are more inclined to take a "wait and see" attitude, while others rush their kids in for the smallest thing. My favorite story from my parents' practice was one of those nervous Nellie moms who drove my parents close to bonkers with worries over anything and everything. One day the mother phoned worried that her daughter might have eaten some berries: were the berries poisonous? how many would it take to make her daughter ill? should she rush the kid right in? etc. As my mother patiently explained that she didn't know what kind of berries these were and would need to know that to answer her questions, the mother interrupted and asked, "Well, do YOU think she ate them?" Anyway, Beuf may be the Devil Incarnate, but I can't draw that conclusion based on the medical records for JB which we've had access to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Teague/Fly" Posted by v_p on 14:51:37 6/13/2000 >>>). Based on her decades of experience with a large sample of kids, she concluded that given JB's upper respiratory problems, there was nothing unusual about the 27 visits over three years.<<<< 7/93 Patsy diagnosed with cancer, JBR under Nedra's care. Regressed in toilet training and eating habits. ***What was the reason for this visit? Did JBR always regress in toilet training when she was scared or upset, i.e., and PR's cancer? 8/31/93 - Responding to Beuf's questions, Patsy says JBR doesn't have any phobias and no aspect of JBR's sexual education needed to be discussed. **What do you suppose she REALLY went to see Dr. Beuff for that day? This is the entire entry, (as presented to Det. Harmer). 9/6/93 - (6 days later) Buttocks and vaginal area chafed red from diarrhea. ***Every mother has heard of Desitin ointment. JBR is now 3 years old - could PR not deduce the chaffing was from diarrhea? This one is very suspicious to me. 12/31/93 - Still drinking from bottle; parents having trouble weaning her. ***One month prior to this visit JonBenet had seen Dr. Beuff - why not mention the weaning then? This is the entire entry - so we are to believe PR took her to the Dr. to ask advice for this? 2/4/94 - Nedra suggests Fifth Disease. (Childhood viral illness often accompanied by rash. Fifth in line of common childhood diseases, i.e., chicken pox, measles)No medication prescribed. ***Sort of a non-visit don't you think? She obviously had a rash of some kind, but what was the diagnosis? Why no medication? 4/94 - Breath still bad, runny nose, little appetite, slept poorly, bladder infection and vaginal discharge. Diagnosed with vaginitis. Amoxicillin prescribed and warned against bubble baths. 10/5 - Came in for checkup, doctor notices scar on left cheek. She'd been hit accidentally by a golf club when the family was in Charlevoix. A week after the accident, a plastic surgeon was consulted. No injury to cheekbone. Beuf is told (at this visit) that she's getting along with brothers and older sister. Wearing pullups at night because she's wetting bed. Patsy completes developmental questionnaire, and says there are no aspects of JonBenet's behavior or sex education she needed to discuss, and also notes JBR has no fears or phobias. **** JonBenet did not visit the Dr. from 4/94 to 10/5 - which is approximately 18 months. IMO, there were visits not documented for Det. Harmer or the other "experts" who looked at this. 11/1/94 - Had diarrhea five times and was lethargic. One bowel movement appeared bloody. ***What causes a bowel movement to be bloody??? I know, maybe something caused an abrasion. There are other reasons as well. 1/1/95 Chickenpox. Rash even appears in vaginal area. ***Excuse me! He had to look at her vaginal area to see if there was a rash? If I took my child to the doctor for the chickenpox and he needed to have a look-see at her vagina - I'm going to have a lot of questions. 3/95 - Complained of stomachache, but sleeping well. ***On another entry he writes "checkup" if it's a checkup. So what was this? PR brings her to the Dr. to say JonBenet has a tummy ache but is sleeping well?? 5/8/95 JBR falls in Alfalfas food market, lands on nose, not broken. 12/95 Trips and hits head above left eye. Stuffy nose, bad breath, coughing. 5/95 Bent nail back on fourth finger, left hand, in another fall. Swollen and painful, but no bruising. Ibuprofen recommended. 8/27/96 - Patsy reports JBR's a good sleeper, wasn't hard to get to bed, and was easily awakened in the morning. Not interested in opposite sex, behaved modestly in public, and didn't engage in sex play with her friends. She was, however asking about sex roles and reproduction. She was not rude or afraid of either parent. Didn't seem to be bossy with brother, didn't react with tantrums, and was active. Loved fruit and some vegetables. Patsy said she was delightful and doing very well. Burke had his checkup same day. 12/3/96 Sees eye doctor 12/96 Misses pageant due to illness *** Does not state illness. The point of this post is to point out the non-asthma or upper respiratory related Dr. visits. I cannot imagine a pediatrician finds nothing "abnormal" about any of the above visits or the inconsistency in what the Dr. documented for review by Det. Harmer of BPD. There were 29 visits from 1/93 to 12/96 - only 12 were for respiratory related ailments. The rest, for the most part, are questionable. From 4/94 to 12/95 there were no visits noted at all. I didn't note ALL of the visits, only the visits not relating to respiratory problems. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Teague" Posted by fly on 13:03:56 6/13/2000 Teague - Great story! And thanks for chiming in on the issue of JBR's medical history. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Tch tch" Posted by Seashell on 15:08:40 6/13/2000 For such a little girl, she sure had her vagina looked at a lot and there were also a lot of questions about her sexual life/behavior/attitudes. And then after Burke bonks her with the golf club, Patsy says she gets along well with him. Maybe, maybe not. We all know how Patsy lies. It didn't start with the murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Seashell and v_p" Posted by fly on 09:22:29 6/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:22:29, 6/14/2000 Seashell - Does all that dancing shake up your brain a bit too much and cause you to forget what has been posted before? :-) The vaginal exams are reasonable. The developmental questions are accepted. Jeesh! v_p - Your comments shown with ** as in original, and the previous post shown in bold 7/93 Patsy diagnosed with cancer, JBR under Nedra's care. Regressed in toilet training and eating habits. ***What was the reason for this visit? Did JBR always regress in toilet training when she was scared or upset, i.e., and PR's cancer? How am I supposed to know if she always regressed when scared? One thing is certain, it isn't terribly unusual for little kids to regress when there is a serious disturbance, like life-threatening medical problems in a parent. If you want me to cite a reference, give me a little time and I will. 8/31/93 - Responding to Beuf's questions, Patsy says JBR doesn't have any phobias and no aspect of JBR's sexual education needed to be discussed. **What do you suppose she REALLY went to see Dr. Beuff for that day? This is the entire entry, (as presented to Det. Harmer). Given the timing and the developmental questions, this might be a checkup visit. What do YOU think she went in for that time, and what the heck is your point? 9/6/93 - (6 days later) Buttocks and vaginal area chafed red from diarrhea. ***Every mother has heard of Desitin ointment. JBR is now 3 years old - could PR not deduce the chaffing was from diarrhea? This one is very suspicious to me. Yes, most parents can recognize diaper rash. As Teague has so aptly described, some parents head to the doctor's for even stupid things. What do YOU think was going on? 12/31/93 - Still drinking from bottle; parents having trouble weaning her. ***One month prior to this visit JonBenet had seen Dr. Beuff - why not mention the weaning then? This is the entire entry - so we are to believe PR took her to the Dr. to ask advice for this? Maybe because she didn't think to ask before? Maybe they'd discussed this before and PR had tried unsuccessfully to get her weaned? Who knows? So what is YOUR point? 2/4/94 - Nedra suggests Fifth Disease. (Childhood viral illness often accompanied by rash. Fifth in line of common childhood diseases, i.e., chicken pox, measles)No medication prescribed. ***Sort of a non-visit don't you think? She obviously had a rash of some kind, but what was the diagnosis? Why no medication? There is an implied diagnosis, Fifth Disease. That would fit with no medication (it's viral - you just wait it out and give acetominophen to deal with the low-grade fever that sometimes accompanies it). Wouldn't call it a non-visit - would consider it checking to see if the doc thought it was the same thing you did. 4/94 - Breath still bad, runny nose........ 10/5 - Came in for checkup, doctor notices scar on left cheek........ **** JonBenet did not visit the Dr. from 4/94 to 10/5 - which is approximately 18 months. IMO, there were visits not documented for Det. Harmer or the other "experts" who looked at this. Unless you've mistyped one of the dates before or after this visit, the 10/5 visit was in 1994, 6 months, not 18 months later. Oops! 11/1/94 - Had diarrhea five times and was lethargic. One bowel movement appeared bloody. ***What causes a bowel movement to be bloody??? I know, maybe something caused an abrasion. There are other reasons as well. Yep, there are other reasons. No argument there. And given the diarrhea, I'd probably suspect something other than the abuse you're suggesting. Please do remember that the autopsy indicated absolutely no abnormalities in the anal region. 1/1/95 Chickenpox. Rash even appears in vaginal area. ***Excuse me! He had to look at her vaginal area to see if there was a rash? If I took my child to the doctor for the chickenpox and he needed to have a look-see at her vagina--I'm going to have a lot of questions. Good grief! Maybe PR mentioned she had lesions there? Maybe she had questions as to how to deal with them? Or maybe Beuf wanted to know if some were there so that he could advise her how to deal with them? I seriously doubt that this is anything but routine. Both times, our doc checked our sons' genitals for lesions. 3/95 - Complained of stomachache, but sleeping well. ***On another entry he writes "checkup" if it's a checkup. So what was this? PR brings her to the Dr. to say JonBenet has a tummy ache but is sleeping well?? Perhaps she went to the doctor because of a stomach ache and Beuf asked how she was sleeping (to see how serious/extensive the problem might be)? So what is YOUR point? 5/8/95 JBR falls in Alfalfas food market, lands on nose, not broken. 12/95 Trips and hits head above left eye. 5/95 Bent nail back on fourth..... 8/27/96 - Patsy reports JBR's a good sleeper.....Burke had his checkup same day. 12/3/96 Sees eye doctor 12/96 Misses pageant due to illness *** Does not state illness. So? The point of this post is to point out the non-asthma or upper respiratory related Dr. visits. I cannot imagine a pediatrician finds nothing "abnormal" about any of the above visits or the inconsistency in what the Dr. documented for review by Det. Harmer of BPD. There were 29 visits from 1/93 to 12/96 - only 12 were for respiratory related ailments. The rest, for the most part, are questionable. From 4/94 to 12/95 there were no visits noted at all. I didn't note ALL of the visits, only the visits not relating to respiratory problems. v_p - Sorry, but this looks pretty routine to me. We have checkups. We have common childhood accidents. We have common childhood illnesses, including gastrointestinal problems and viruses. We have common developmental/parenting issues. More importantly, it looked pretty routine to those pediatric experts, whether or not you want to believe it. Edited (twice) to get the bold under control. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Flyyyyyyyyy" Posted by v_p on 16:36:36 6/13/2000 >Seashell - Does all that dancing shake >up your brain a bit too >much and cause you to forget >what has been posted before? :-) The smiley face makes this a less condescending comment? >The vaginal exams are reasonable. The >developmental questions are accepted. Jeesh! By whom? >it isn't >terribly unusual for little kids to >regress when there is a serious >disturbance, Being sexually molested might be considered a serious disturbance, IMO. >8/31/93 - Responding to Beuf's questions, Patsy >says JBR doesn't have any phobias >and no aspect of JBR's sexual >education needed to be discussed. >**What do you suppose she REALLY went >to see Dr. Beuff for that >day? This is the entire entry, >(as presented to Det. Harmer). >Given the timing and the developmental questions, >this might be a checkup visit. > What do YOU think she >went in for that time, and >what the heck is your point? What is my point? My point is that I think the good Doctor left a lot out of his report to Det. Harmer. What do I think she went in for? Gee, Fly, maybe to fill out a f*** questionaire. Maybe she took time out of her busy schedule of volunteering and chemotherapy to run down to Bueff's to answer a couple of "developmental" questions about JBR. That, madame, would be my point. >9/6/93 - (6 days later) Buttocks and >vaginal area chafed red from diarrhea. > >***Every mother has heard of Desitin ointment. >JBR is now 3 years old >- could PR not deduce the >chaffing was from diarrhea? This one >is very suspicious to me. >Yes, most parents can recognize diaper rash. > As Teague has so aptly >described, some parents head to the >doctor's for even stupid things. >What do YOU think was going >on? I think there were way too many vagina police in JBR's life. >12/31/93 - Still drinking from bottle; parents >having trouble weaning her. >***One month prior to this visit JonBenet >had seen Dr. Beuff - why >not mention the weaning then? This >is the entire entry - so >we are to believe PR took >her to the Dr. to ask >advice for this? >Maybe because she didn't think to ask >before? Maybe they'd discussed this >before and PR had tried unsuccessfully >to get her weaned? Who >knows? So what is YOUR point? Sometimes points are obvious, but for you, I'll explain. This visit, again, has not real meaning. PR takes JBR to the doc to ask about weaning her from the bottle. O.K., she's an idiot. Otherwise, I don't believe the Doc's notes are complete here either. >2/4/94 - Nedra suggests Fifth Disease. (Childhood >viral illness often accompanied by rash. >Fifth in line of common childhood >diseases, i.e., chicken pox, measles)No medication >prescribed. >***Sort of a non-visit don't you think? >She obviously had a rash of >some kind, but what was the >diagnosis? Why no medication? >There is an implied diagnosis, Fifth Disease. > That would fit with no >medication (it's viral - you just >wait it out and give acetominophen >to deal with the low-grade fever >that sometimes accompanies it). Wouldn't >call it a non-visit - would >consider it checking to see if >the doc thought it was the >same thing you did. Oops, I must have missed where he agreed with Doc Nedra's diagnosis. >4/94 - Breath still bad, runny nose........ > >10/5 - Came in for checkup, doctor >notices scar on left cheek........ > **** JonBenet did not visit the >Dr. from 4/94 to 10/5 - >which is approximately 18 months. IMO, >there were visits not documented for >Det. Harmer or the other "experts" >who looked at this. >Unless you've mistyped one of the dates >before or after this visit, the >10/5 visit was in 1994, 6 >months, not 18 months later. >Oops! OOPS indeed, MY BAD!! I did "mis-see" that one. I thought it was 10/95 due to Dr. Bueffs selective dating habits. Sometimes he writes mm/dd/yy and sometimes not. Sometimes you feel like being specific and sometimes you don't! >11/1/94 - Had diarrhea five times and >was lethargic. One bowel movement appeared > bloody. >***What causes a bowel movement to be >bloody??? I know, maybe something caused >an abrasion. There are other reasons >as well. >Yep, there are other reasons. No >argument there. And given the >diarrhea, I'd probably suspect something other >than the abuse you're suggesting. >Please do remember that the autopsy >indicated absolutely no abnormalities in the >anal region. Please do remember this visit was two years prior to the autopsy. >1/1/95 Chickenpox. Rash even appears in vaginal >area. >***Excuse me! He had to look at >her vaginal area to see if >there was a rash? If I >took my child to the doctor >for the chickenpox and he needed >to have a look-see at her >vagina--I'm going to have a lot >of questions. >Good grief! Maybe PR mentioned she >had lesions there? Maybe she >had questions as to how to >deal with them? Or maybe >Beuf wanted to know if some >were there so that he could >advise her how to deal with >them? I seriously doubt that >this is anything but routine. Both >times, our doc checked our sons' >genitals for lesions. Vagina police, vagina police! >3/95 - Complained of stomachache, but sleeping >well. >***On another entry he writes "checkup" if >it's a checkup. So what was >this? PR brings her to the >Dr. to say JonBenet has a >tummy ache but is sleeping well?? >Perhaps she went to the doctor because >of a stomach ache and Beuf >asked how she was sleeping (to >see how serious/extensive the problem might >be)? So what is YOUR >point? Good grief, I suppose this was her one and only stomachache in three years. No others were mentioned. I guess I'd buy it if she had taken her in for every tummy ache, but she didn't. You have to agree that tummy aches are probably the most common ailment of children. MY POINT is there must be a lot of information left out - the whole story - the BIG picture as it would pertain to these visits, has been reduced quite a bit...IMO. > We have common developmental/parenting issues. So, you think there were suspected issues and that's why the questions - even the one visit JUST to ask the question? > More importantly, it looked pretty >routine to those pediatric experts, whether >or not you want to believe >it. What is your source for this fly? I'd like to read for myself what these experts had to say, in context. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Fly--I'd like to point something out--" Posted by fiddler on 15:54:06 6/13/2000 a distinction you're failing to make, in fact. Incredible, but true. JBR's "medical history" may not have been out of the ordinary for a child her age. I have kids, and they do get sick, sometimes often, with the same complaint. However, her HISTORY and her TREATMENT are two entirely different things. My pediatrician refers to a specialist after three visits for the same problem. So do most of the other doctors I've encountered, either pediatric, internal medicine, or family practice. NONE of them fails to refer after, at worst, the seventh incident of the same illness within a year. JBR's history, as far as I can tell from the records, may have been perfectly normal. Beuf's treatment of her, however, was not. It was, under even the most lenient standards I've encountered, grossly negligent. Whether or not that has a bearing on possible sexual abuse and its detection, I don't know. But the guy was a piss-poor doctor, that I'm sure of. And, in addition: not only have you failed to make the above distinction between history and treatment, you've made a distinction which isn't valid--between "mild" and "severe" asthma. Asthma is a potentially life-threatening condition. There is no way to distinguish beforehand whether a particular attack will be mild or severe--in fact, some people have died during their very first attack. Any pediatrician who didn't know this, and suspected asthma but apparently didn't treat it, again--well, sorry, but Beuf is a jerk. NOT in my opinion, this time, but in fact. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Question" Posted by Seeker on 16:46:47 6/13/2000 Can anyone tell me how the subject of asthma came up in relation to JonBenet? I thought her doctor said she had reoccuring sinus infections with upper respitory distress. (I may have missed something recently) I thought she kept exhibiting cold like symptoms? Runny nose, equilibrium problems, chest congestion, all which are normal for sinusitis sufferers. (I myself am a severe asthmatic and have sinusitis. My GP has never refered me to a specialist [ENT], the symptoms are just treated as they come up. Maybe I should get a new doctor?) This is off the subject, so please forgive me on this. Ginja, BTW, thanks for giving me such a good post, prior thread. I won't say you're wrong, but I do disagree with you. (can't find it now, and don't have time to search, sorry) I did some checking on what you provided. I'm afraid of what my phone bill is going to look like! Yikes! I called LA County coroner, director of Physics Berkley University, professor of Physics UCLA, and Head of Forensic Pathology Dept. LA. Both coroner and forensic pathologist stated that the "interpretation" of the autopsy is relevant and unless the expert performed the autopsy themselves they cannot difinitively state what happened and in what sequence, they are just offering their opinion based on how they interpreted what was available. Also that the thickest part of the cranium is not at the same place for every person. Genetics plays a large part for bone density and unless the entire cranial wall was measured, saying that that part of the skull is the thickest is an erroneous statment. They gave me an example: In Samoan people the thickest part of the skull is the forehead due to their geneology. Both Physic's professor's state that a "blow" to the head is either dircted at the head or the head hitting agianst something and that the amount of force it would take to drop a 300lb man could be as little as 5lbs(!), depending on the circumstances. Also, that the angle at which the "blow" occures can affect the outcome and "Murphy's law" applies in many cases that contradict physic's logic! (new to me) I guess you can ask one "expert" and get one answer, ask a another one, and get a different answer. No wonder there are so many conflicting statments! I don't know your credentials and am not questioning them, just thought I'd share some info you may not have known, or had time to check out for yourself. (not flaming) Thanks [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Thanks, Seeker!" Posted by Ginja on 18:05:19 6/15/2000 >...just thought I'd share some >info you may not have known, >or had time to check out >for yourself. (not flaming)Thanks I never read your post as a flame or anything but informational, thanks. >Both coroner and forensic pathologist stated that >the "interpretation" of the autopsy is >relevant and unless the expert performed >the autopsy themselves they cannot difinitively >state what happened and in what >sequence, they are just offering their >opinion based on how they interpreted >what was available. Key word: interpretation. More importantly, though (imo) is "who" is doing the interpretation. The expert performing the autopsy isn't the only one qualified to state what happened. What if he croaked before trial? What's imperative is that that "expert" record "everything" he sees. From there, any other expert in that field (pathology) can interpret the results with the same conclusions as the person who made the recording. What I'm getting at is that if the original expert interprets the autopsy correctly to begin with, there's only one way to read it. Which is why it's so important that outside experts called in to read the report also be expert in that same field. This is why I've relied heavily on Wecht because he is a pathologist, an expert, who can read an autopsy report and know exactly what the pathologist found. So when Diane Sawyer says she called in a lot of experts, who were they? Are they also pathologists? (I'm referring to the autopsy readings, not the medical history.) Just because someone's a doctor doesn't mean they can understand, and correctly interpret, an autopsy report. There are hundreds of different kinds of experts...but they're expert in their field...and in many instances, their field isn't pathology. Yesterday at work, I had a client call me wondering if she had to be in court today. Of course, the entire litigation department was out golfing! So I checked the file and there was a court notice of a pretrial status conference. I've been out of the loop a couple of years so my memory fails me at times with court rules...the law I don't forget...but the damn rules escape me until I get back into the groove. Anyway, I walked around the office and asked I don't know how many lawyers whether a client had to be present for pretrial conferences. None of them knew! Why? Because they're all lousy lawyers? No. None of them are litigating attorneys. Their expertise is in real estate, or public law or personal financial planning, whatever. I had to call the clerk's office at the court to find out whether this client had to be present. Lo and behold, some idiot in the office didn't bother to fully index the pleadings file. What that means is that the file was incomplete. Missing was the notice of trial! The client was going on trial! So yes, she had to be there! >Also that the >thickest part of the cranium is >not at the same place for >every person. Genetics plays a large >part for bone density and unless >the entire cranial wall was measured, >saying that that part of the >skull is the thickest is an >erroneous statment. They gave me an >example: In Samoan people the thickest >part of the skull is the >forehead due to their geneology. Interesting! I mean, about Samoans. The parietal portion of the skull is generally accepted as the thickest part of skull. But as you note, it can vary. However, would we really need to measure JBR's skull to see exactly "which" part is the thickest? Because when you come right down to it, every section of skull was affected, from her forehead all along the right side and on into the back. IOW, every section fractured. One of them was the thickest on her! LOL I'm not flaming here, just pointing out that sure, I can accept the doctors saying we don't really "know" which section of JBR's skull was thickest. But I'm not sure if it really matters when considering all sections were affected. On the right side of course. Do the doctors suggest that thickness can be determined by sides (left v right) rather than, or as well as, sections (occipital v parietal)? Just curious. With this case, who knows? >Both Physic's professor's state that a "blow" >to the head is either dircted >at the head or the head >hitting agianst something and that the >amount of force it would take >to drop a 300lb man could >be as little as 5lbs(!), depending >on the circumstances. This whole business with the 300 lb man was only cited by me because there was a poster insulting another poster for making the statement. I pulled it out of the book to show that it was indeed a statement made, and that the poster wasn't making it up. I'm curious as to how you presented this to the doctors you called (and god bless you for making all those long distance calls! The only calls I make are 800 numbers! lol) Did you describe the head injury? I'm curious because it does make a great difference as to whether the double fracture JBR suffered could have been caused by force as little as 5 lbs flinging into her, or by flinging her into something. There's quite a few variables to JonBenet's injuries which make them unique. Wecht's description of dropping a 300 lb man is relevant. She suffered a double fracture that pulverized the bone, as well as hinging a piece of bone behind the ear -- yet her skin wasn't broken. In interpreting that, one would assume great force was used (i.e., pulverization), yet that force was buffered (i.e., no scalp injury). The comminuted fracture is unique, as well. The blunt instrument used had a slight protrusion that was just enough to cause a comminuted fracture within the linear fracture. IOW, something long with a protrusion midstream, allowing the instrument to make contact at all points. If, for example, a golf club was used, where the club caused the comminuted fracture. That doesn't work. The club would have cracked through the skull, with the bone separating (not hinging) and most likely breaking the skin (because it would have been an "edge" cut -- edge of club. (I'm thinking "putter" here, rather than something like a driver.) If she had been flung into a tub or sink, how would the skull have fractured? Likewise, she would have fallen "into" the appliance, so any protrusion, such as a faucet or handle, would have broken into the skull like the golf club. And it would have resembled that protrusion. What faucet or handle is shaped as a small rectangle? Even the side of the tub wouldn't have caused the comminuted fracture. And then you have to factor in the pulverization. I don't think she could have just 'landed' on the edge of the sink or tub in such a way as to hit a protrusion causing the comminuted fracture, while at the same time causing the linear fracture to go from front to back. A protrusion alone would have burrowed and cracked the skull like an eggshell. >Also, that the >angle at which the "blow" occures >can affect the outcome and "Murphy's >law" applies in many cases that >contradict physic's logic! (new to me) This is what I meant when talking about being flung into an appliance or wall or floor. The point of contact was that comminuted fracture...but whatever caused it wasn't deep or long or however you describe it. If it was, it would have poked right through into the skull and the skull crack around it...instead of the linear fracture. Again, a lot of the injuries are unique to this fracture, Murphy's Law notwithstanding. Like I said, I don't make long distance calls. I keep it local! lol I called Brown University (which has a medical school) a couple of years ago and felt like a student in orals, what with all the questions being asked. But in order to get a full understanding of what "might" have happened, the doctors there wanted to know every single injury, including the fractures, the displaced skull piece, the hemorahging, the bruising, the swelling, the blood...before they'd even venture possibilities. The one thing they were pretty adamant about was that she was hit, not flung, with great force...and the weapon had a slight protrusion, causing something like a double-whammy effect when the protrusion hit first, followed by the rest of the instrument. >I guess you can ask one "expert" >and get one answer, ask a >another one, and get a different >answer. No wonder there are so >many conflicting statments! Well, at least we've got that right! You've got your LA docs saying she could've been flung, and my Brown docs saying there's no way. LOL...does this mean we're back to square one? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Thank you" Posted by v_p on 17:43:12 6/13/2000 >>Both Physic's professor's state that a "blow" to the head is either dircted at the head or the head hitting agianst something and that the amount of force it would take to drop a 300lb man could be as little as 5lbs(!), depending on the circumstances.<<< Do you mind if I copy and paste your post to our (Erica and me) yahoo club. Very interesting and thanks for the research. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "v_p" Posted by Seeker on 17:49:00 6/13/2000 Certainly, in fact you may want to call your closest University and concur (you may want to correct my spelling first though, lol). Remember, many "experts" disagree with each other and offer up their own opinions/beliefs. It's up to all of us to determine which "expert" to believe. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Holidays" Posted by janphi on 18:48:19 6/13/2000 What is it about New Year's Eve and New Year's Day that PR and JBR always have to be with Dr. Beuf? And what doctor sees non-emergency patients on these days? 12/31/93--Still drinking from bottle -- For this you take a child in on New Year's Eve? This couldn't wait until, like, January 2nd or so? 1/1/95--Chicken pox, including vagina -- don't kids usually get the rash first on the chest for a whole day, then the diagnosis, then the rest of the rash? Did she get it all over her body at the same time and all on New Year's Day? Were they rousting Dr. Beuf out of bed or away from his life or even holiday celebrations for these things? Why did he do it? Didn't he have a younger assistant? Was JBR his "star" patient or PR his "star" customer? Did he make housecalls? Specifically, did he make housecalls for JBR and no one else? If so, what is going on here? 1/1/97 -- Didn't see a doctor visit for 12/31/95 or 1/1/96--doesn't mean there wasn't one, tho! Lest we forget, on 1/1/97, the Rams were on national TV making excuses for themselves because their daughter had been found dead in their basement. What is their thing about New Year's Day? (Yes, Beth's death anniversary is 1/8--but that's not a major holiday celebrated by all.) My bigger question really is besides Dr. Beuf, if he really put himself out for JBR & PR, what about their friends who were constantly being asked to pray for them and drop everything to be with them, and go through all kinds of hell both before and much more after the murder simply because they were friends of the Ramseys. Friendship is one thing, but the stuff they asked of the people they knew is mind-boggling. And why did people do it? I can't see that the Rams ever even once did something for anyone else without some selfish motive--mostly to be "admired" for their beneficence. IOW, if you can't win Miss America, be sure you're in the running for Miss Congeniality. Or, wasn't it George Burns who said (or quoted someone else as saying) "it's all about sincerity--if you can fake that, you've got it made"? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Holiday visits" Posted by pisces on 17:44:00 6/15/2000 Perhaps the holiday visits were at the Ramseys or some other friends house for a new year's eve party or watching the football bowl games since john and the dr. were good personal friends. That would explain the entrys when he returned to the office regarding her chickenpox etc. Nice to have a personal friend as a dr... after all he did take care of Patsy's medical needs upon JB's death. Drugged her up so much and perhaps that is where John gets his medical needs taken care of. Did the dr. give any medical attention to BR that evening? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Hard Hitting" Posted by Lacey on 20:04:37 6/13/2000 I read somewhere that this "300 lb man" head blow is a misnomer, lawyers like to use it for dramatic effect but not the medical pro's. "THAT HEAD BLOW WAS ENOUGH TO FELL A 300-LB MAN!!!" It's quoted on the forums on a regular basis! And this, from a guy who hadn't even seen the full autopsy. I think. (Todd Grey, right?) I'm not sure it's a legitimate description of the head injury but hey, if ya like it go with it. Here's a link I got from somewhere, maybe maxi on the other forum, but I don't think JBR was strangled gradually. There is very little petechiae in her eyes and lungs, and the slight discoloration of her face seems to indicate that she died rather quickly? Fly? Ginja, even? http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/academic/FSC/FSC239Y_STRANGULATION.HTM I think the autopsy supports a rapid death by anoxia. Which leads me to believe it was staged. Or, intended as staging, because the autopsy says she was strangled to death in conjunction with a head injury, something like that It looks like there is a little bit of overlap, with time of death apparently at the killer-stager's discretion. It's really hard to tell - all we have is this pitiful autopsy by the Ten-Minute Coroner and we just have to live with it. Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Doc visits summary" Posted by Deemer on 21:12:29 6/13/2000 Just thought I would just make a quick comment on the visits to the doctor number etc. The pattern of visits to the pediatrician is not uncommon in a child with a parent undergoing treatment for a serious illness. The child is usually bounced around some from caregiver to babysitter and none of these is usually the parent who normally cares for them.. A good example is the visit for chafing from diarhea (a common reason for peds visits btw). This occurs during a chemo phase for Patsy so the problem may have gone overlooked by the caregivers of JBR until it was really a problem. It is also not uncommon for there to be regression in use of the bottle, toilet training etc in this period of time. I am not exactly sure where the notes from the doctor visits came from but they may not be full notes just someones memories of what the visit notes read. I also know that many people do not like the number of times Buef examined JBRs vaginal area however (donning flame suit) some of justifiable. If child has an unusually bad outbreak of chicken pox it is wise to check the vaginal area for pox , the reason being the urethral opening can become very inflammed if a child should have a sore in that area. If caught right away it can be managed before the area gets infected. The same is true of severe chafing from diarhea. It is also recommended in almost all of the pediatric exam books now to be done at all well child visits. What I would have a problem with is if a child came in for an ear infection and was given a vaginal exam but so far I dont have a problem with any of the ones that Buef supposedly did given that these were probably quick external exams. Buef may also have realized (as many pediatricians do) that he had a somewhat hysterical type mother and in order to deal with her better, it was just easier to check the child . Often times these parents dont give you a good history over the phone, they tend to exagerate and trust me it is much easier to just check the child then to sit around worrying if this time the mother may have not exagerrated and the child is really very ill. also a last comment to whoever was asking about the lungs and petechia. One of the reasons (among others )I have stayed with blow to the head followed by strangulation at or near the point of death is the weight of the lungs. They are too light to have been been part of a lengthy strangulation. The lungs will quickly fill with fluid due to the slowing of the heart. There is a good article about this that used to be in one of the forensic journals that I pulled up in a medline search but would have to go through my files to find it. Back to hiding under my lurking rock :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Tis true!" Posted by ConnieToo on 15:24:24 6/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:24:24, 6/14/2000 >>If child has an unusually bad outbreak of chicken pox it is wise to check the vaginal area for pox , the reason being the urethral opening can become very inflammed if a child should have a sore in that area. If caught right away it can be managed before the area gets infected.<< Amen to that! When my daughter had chicken pox there was NOTHING that wasn't blistered and inflamed.. down her ear canals, in her vagina, down her throat, and on the BOTTOMS of her feet. I thought that she was going to have a real mild case. The first two days she had 10 spots. The morning of the third day, she was covered from her hair (literally, her scalp was full of them) to her toes. Fever skyrocketed, and I couldn't keep it below 102 with tylenol. The Doc had me bring her in, and started antibiotics since the blisters covered the entrance to the urethra. Now, they are actually vaccinating for chicken pox. I say it's about time! Horrid childhood disease. Kid still has a couple of scars, because the blisters broke during the night, and stuck to the bedding. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Dr.'s Notes" Posted by v_p on 05:00:33 6/14/2000 These notes were from the good Doc himself. And no, they were not very detailed, were they? BTW, I may have to go back and sue my daughter's pediatrician, not one time did he look at her, (as we so affectionately call it) "star" when she had chicken pox. And as for diarrhea, we gave Pedialite and she didn't walk around with the poop in her panties long enough to cause a rash. Maybe I was just lucky. Hysterical mother's do probably make inordinate numbers of visits to the doctors office, but I think, IMO, Patsy was trying to have her suspicions of child abuse substantiated - IMO. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "fly" Posted by Seashell on 00:45:32 6/14/2000 You write: "Seashell - Does all that dancing shake up your brain a bit too much and cause you to forget what has been posted before? :-) Why do you keep on using my dancing to insult me? Are you jealous? Maybe you haven't heard...but... shaking up the brain opens it to other avenues of possibilities and prevents hardening of the attitudes. I'm wondering what your REAL gripe with me is. It's certainly not my little harmless posts. Remember, fly, you're never angry for the reason you think you are. LOL at the Vagina Police. Let's just for a moment say that all JBR's illnesses were *normal* for her age. My question is, what's behind the illnesses? Those of you who read my Louise Hay post know what I'm asking. Disease is uneasiness about something and I know that from first hand experience. When we stop to reflect on all the many adults who have been abused as children, is it any wonder many children suffer "childhood diseases?" I would like to read about a study done on adults who never needed therapy, are highly successful both in business and in loving relationships and are happy, creative and free of want and fear. HOW OFTEN WERE THEY SICK AS CHILDREN? Not very often I'll bet. And certainly nowhere near as afflicted as JBR. Just knowing the Ramseys as we do, we can extrapolate plenty - messed up Ramsey kids, for one thing. The vacant look in her eyes coupled with the showgirl costume and slave sandals says it all. She lived her young life in fear and avoidance, being used by her mother and quite possibly her father. Quack quack, Dr. Beufoon. Yeah, Janphi, those holiday visits are very weird, thanks for noting those. There once was a doctor, alas! Who cleverly covered his ass! Ooops, wrong thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Asthma" Posted by Imbackon on 01:36:47 6/14/2000 I have said this before, but I just want to get this out since asthma is once again being discussed. Asthma and asthma like symptoms sometimes go hand in hand with sexual abuse. I don't know if it is purely psychological or what, but it has something to do with keeping the abuser at bay. They tend to leave you alone when you are sick. I know this for a fact as it happened to a close member of my family and I have read it in various places. Also regarding asthma, I can tell you if my kid was diagnosed with asthma I would take them to be tested for Cystic Fibrosis. It is often not detected for years because they have similar symptoms. I know 2 different people that were treated for asthma for years that turned out to have CF. CF is a terminal illness, but you can last alot longer and be healthier longer if it is diagnosed/Treated early. Sorry no links to this info, just going by memory. Also, I think Girls are many times more likely to have CF than boys, which would be all the more reason to have it looked into. Imbackon [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Seashell & fiddler" Posted by fly on 10:59:39 6/14/2000 Seashell - I was not using your dancing to insult you. I was using it to good-naturedly (note the smiley) let you know I was exasperated with your continued refusal to accept facts that have been discussed time and again, including with your participation. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted it that way. Note: when I'm trying to be mean or hurtful, I won't put a smiley or any other sign signifying good nature. Am I jealous of your dancing? Damn straight! No dancer here, I'm afraid. But that has nothing to do with my comment. Dancing is your "signature," so I refer to it when it provides an apt metaphor. Although there's no doubt that the mind can influence the body, to assume that somebody with physical problems is sick because of some mental deficiency or maltreatment by others isn't justified. fiddler - Yes, asthma can be life-threatening. If I am incorrect in differentiating mild and severe asthma, then I've got lots of company. By saying "mild" asthma, all that is meant is that the person doesn't have frequent, violent episodes. It doesn't rule out the possibility of a life-threatening attack, but signifies that that is not likely. A person with this profile doesn't carry an inhaler everywhere (or even use one frequently) or take a half dozen drugs, as would somebody with a more severe case. Like many, many other conditions, the severity of the problem varies. That's all that I'm saying. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "v_p" Posted by fly on 10:25:42 6/14/2000 v_p -Seashell is quite able to respond for herself, as I see she has. I was not condescending, and the smiley face is the way we indicate that something is said in good humor. What is your excuse for your memory loss concerning the information provided concerningthe vaginal exams and the developmental questions? Or do you just automatically discount everything I say? That isn't the best strategy, because I'm right far more often than I am wrong. And I'm right about this, as others have noted. regressed toileting: Yes, abuse can cause this. But why think possible abuse when we definitely have the most common cause of regression - major disturbance in the parents' health/behavior? your belief that Beuf left stuff out and disbelief that this would be a routine physical: Given the date (near JBR's birthday) and the notation, there's every reason to believe this was an annual physical, and mothers, I believe, tend to be the one to take the kids to the doctor. As to the length of the notation, are you sure that what Ginja reposted represents the "entire" notation? What we've seen, I believe, is a report of what Beuf told Harmer, not necessarily a verbatim copy of the records. BPD has JBR's medical records (I'll provide a citation if necessary). I'll suggest you are making much too much of this. vagina police (all references) See Deemer's post above. Maybe you'll believe him/her. bloody stool: Yes, it was long before her death, and I didn't say an episode of anal abuse was impossible - just that there are lots of other causes, especially when there is a known gastrointestinal problem. The autopsy provides no reason to suspect anal abuse, and given there was an "innocent" scenario present, I think this has some relevance. in for a stomach ache? Perhaps this stomach ache was worse this time? Or perhaps stomach aches were not JBR's common problem. "The most common problem" varies across kids, I suggest. source for pediatric experts saying nothing very unusual There is no complete report, just the bottom line as reported by Dianne Sawyer. Here you go: http://more.abcnews.go.com/onair/ptl/html_files/transcripts/ptl0910b.html And PrimeTime consulted other pediatric experts about JonBenet's records, and they agreed with Dr Beuf's analysis that there was nothing unusual there for a girl her age. v_p - I'll agree with you on two points (see, I do agree with people some of the time :-) ): (1) What we have seen might not constitute every word written in JBR's records. I'd say that's almost certainly true, because there would be notations as to height, weight, immunizations, etc. that are not in what we've seen. There's no reason for that sort of thing to be reported in public discussions of the JBR case, and I would bet large sums that that is why we haven't seen "complete" verbatim reports of her records. As appropriate, the essence of the medical history are reported - the general reasons or timing for the visits. The fact that WE haven't seen everything doesn't necessarily mean Beuf hid things. It more likely reflects the context in which the reports we've seen were made (Schiller's book, I think?). (2) The frequency of the doctor visits might have been partly PR seeking validation of her fears concerning possible abuse. If we had a lot clearer indication that somebody had molested her long before her death, I'd consider this more likely. Given the situation, however, it's something that I wouldn't rule out, but also wouldn't have as the most likely explanation. I tend to go with Deemer's comment about "hysterical" parents. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Allrighty then -" Posted by v_p on 16:28:56 6/14/2000 Oh shoot, I was gonna write another long-winded reply but I'm just smooth out of time! Let me summarize. This is a debate forum. I am debating based on what I've read, life experiences, (41 years worth) and gut instinct. If you are the holder of the facts which will bring this case to a close - spit 'em out baby - otherwise SCROLL right past my future posts. Your pompousness is simply exhausting :) Respectfully, V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "v_p" Posted by fly on 15:48:26 6/15/2000 "This is a debate forum..." Right, and that means that the assertions you make are subject to challenge by others, especially if there are errors in fact or logic. Life experiences are often useful, but they don't always lead us to the most accurate or representative belief or answer. At risk of being accused of pomposity again, we need to consider other sources of information, too. BTW, I've got more life experience than you ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "She seems to be one of those types.." Posted by ConnieToo on 15:29:03 6/14/2000 She suspects something, but doesn't tell the Dr. about what she suspects. I propose, since PR was not to discipline JBR/JR's instructions, that they had some sort of agreement. I also think the Beuf knows exactly what happened to JonBenet, and who killed her. His silence speaks volumes! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "ginja - yes, it get's old" Posted by fly on 15:34:36 6/15/2000 To my fellow posters - There is information in this post that tries to correct some of the "problems" with ginja's many assertions. It isn't all just bickering. Ginja - I will plead guilty in advance for a few spots of being snide in this post. I have my limits for ignoring potshots fired at me. However, I am more disgusted than mad, so there is also a good natured poke or two. I'll recopy your posts when necessary to prove a point, and I'll not address every point, but don't assume I accepted your response as correct for those. (1) About newbies, MDs, and arrogance...Seems that it's your name I've seen newbies use when asking for information, not mine. There is no more reason for a newbie to think I'm an MD or other medical expert than for them to think you are - unless we're talking about newbies who can differentiate BS from reality :-) . If arrogance is correcting bad information or bad arguments, put me up against the wall and shoot me. However, I'm not the one throwing out the snide comments about occupations, degrees, etc. or ignoring what the experts have said. To insinuate that I inflate my credentials or have no qualifications is uncalled-for, offensive, and wrong. To be very clear: Although not my primary occupation, I've done editing and reviewing work for over a dozen major publishers (e.g., Random House, Harcourt Brace, Prentice Hall....) and my books and book chapters related to my primary occupation have been published (and thus edited) by several of them in turn; I've published in, and done editing/reviewing for, professional journals in my field and for the National Science Foundation. If anything, ginja, I tended to understate my credentials before. (2) About opinions vs. facts....When you say things like Beuf thought this, Beuf didn't do that (usually with no evidence), those are presented as statements of fact. If you want to argue that there is an implied "opinion" then I claim the same privilege and am immune from your charges. I strongly suspect, however, that most readers do not take such statements as simply opinion, but instead as representing fact. (3) About accuracy of information and citing supporting evidence... Medical Facts. Whether or not I cite sources or give you true facts rarely has any impact. Case in point, your past repeated insistence that JBR had a "blood blister," your recent claims about Beuf's use of Benedryl for asthma (which was absolutely wrong, but you classify as a debatable point), and your faulty application of the notation of epithelial erosion in the autopsy (that was the acute abrasion having little or nothing to offer concerning the origin of the hymen's irregularities). I was mind-boggled when you made the absolutely bizarre statement (especially from a woman) that for JBR to get a bladder infection would have required somebody to stick a finger up. When I said almost any health site would list "wiping the wrong way" as a common cause, your reply was (this is too typical to not post): What you're talking about here, Fly, would be a urinary tract infection, where something as simple as poor hygiene might possibly cause such. When the infection gets as far as the bladder and kidney, the infection is more severe. Again, I'm at work and don't have time to do research here and now. But like cancer, it has stages. The higher up in the system, the higher the stage. Also, when you've got a stage 3 or 4 urinary tract infection, it's caused by one of two things: (1) a simple infection that was left to get more severe and travel up the tract; and/or (2) sex (most usually). IOW, for (2), (and this is where the twisted urethra came in), there's penetration (digital or penile) that causes push the organs out of line or can pass bacteria/infection closer to ground zero, so to speak. But no matter how you look at it, JBR suffered from bladder infections and vaginitis...not urinary tract infections, of which the latter can be caused simply by poor hygiene as you note. This doesn't do much to support the idea you know much of anything about basic medical conditions, and your response very clearly indicates your unwillingness to acknowledge an error. Rather than respond with, "Boy, was that a stupid thing for me to say, " or even, "I was wrong," you responded with a bunch of gobbledygook about stages of infection. The simple fact is, ginja, bladder infections (a type of UTI) are fairly common in females, and one of the first preventatives listed usually concerns wiping properly. Other things can cause UTIs, of course, but having a finger stuck up you isn't required. To save you some time researching, try these: http://www.healthlinkusa.com/325_getpage.asp?http://gwis.virginia.edu/~std-hlth/ailments/ut-inftn.htm http://www.mayohealth.org/mayo/9605/htm/uti.htm BTW - for a description of a normal hymen that is quite similar to the description you use to support the idea that JBR's hymen was almost gone, try this: 2. Crescentic (posterior rim, horseshoe, u-shaped) = Posterior rim of hymen, with attachments at approximately the 10:00 to 11:00 position and the 1:00 to 2:00 position. No hymenal tissue below the urethral orifice (12:00). http://childlaw.law.sc.edu/manuals/resource/evidence.htm I'm not saying her hymen was normal - the opening size belies that; I'm saying your interpretation and use of the medical information is highly questionable. Other items. Citing Wecht, Meyer, and Krugman concerning the condition of the body or how JBR was abused that night is great, but citing them to substantiate your claims concerning Beuf's competance and JBR's general medical history isn't. They didn't have anything to say about that, as I've pointed out before. If they did, and I missed it, please show me. If you're not sure of something, like Beuf leaving town, don't state it as fact, and definitely don't use it to vilify somebody. I don't believe all that many people had said Beuf left, and one poster very plainly (and with citations!) posted that he was still in Boulder. Queen of dee Nile.... Rather than denying you said something and accusing me of not reading, try rereading your posts yourself. This isn't the way to handle opposing arguments or to keep credibility. (in your last post) I did not make the blanket statement that Beuf thought it (ed: asthma) was a childhood disease that would go away. (from another part of your last post) I never said his license was on the line. BUT (in a previous post) He saw her less than a month before her murder.....This is the same guy who "thought" she had asthma and ignored it, because it's just one of those childhood illnesses that goes away! Bottom line, the man's license was on the line...he sure as hell wasn't going to admit he was lousy! No. Instead, he left town! Hyperbole, off the deep end, going overboard....This is really the core of the problem. You exaggerate, distort, make totally unjustified assumptions and state them as apparent fact to support your "opinion." You ignore expert opinion. Some of the above are relevant here, but try these others: (from a previous post)All I'm pointing out is that once they left the doctor's office, it was out of sight/out of mind until the next visit. I don't see any evidence of any follow-up care at home. (from a previous post) The only monitoring the parents did was t make sure she made her important pageant dates....that her hair was bleached and her "french nails" freshened up... (insert much wringing of hands here) God forbit (sic) they should give a damn about who and what JBR was off stage!!! These and the quote in the previous section are all too typical, but certainly not all inclusive of the instances of this tendency. You have absolutely nothing to support your contention that Beuf held that attitude or that it determined his actions, as far as I can tell, but you state it basically as fact. You have no knowledge of what the Ramseys (murderers as they might well be) felt or did concerning JBR's care or meaningfulness. This hyperbole is very moving and I'm sure will be very popular because it suits the beliefs of many here, but it has little or no factual justification. You harp on JBR's abnormal medical history - even though your qualifications are minimal, at best - and say Beuf blew it because he didn't look at the big picture, etc., when it has been stated over and over again that the experts Diane Sawyer's program consulted say there was nothing out of line there. Here's that citation (Scroll down to near the end of the Beuf part): http://more.abcnews.go.com/onair/ptl/html_files/transcripts/ptl0910b.html I could go on, but this has already consumed too much time and space. Ginja, the bottom line is that you make major errors in both argument and presentation of the facts, and you do it with such authority! I do comment on other posters' questionable posts (ask v_p); I don't single you out. As I've said before, you get more attention because you post more (frequency and length), and with more perceived authority than many, and often your errors involve demonizing people. It isn't argument for argument's sake at all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Head falls to keyboard..." Posted by v_p on 16:12:35 6/15/2000 arms dangling down... :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Damn Fly!" Posted by Seeker on 16:19:17 6/15/2000 Remind me not to get you irked with me O.K.? Wow! and Wow! that was some loooong post. I do agree with some of what you posted though. I've pointed out some differences of opinion with her myself. But that's OK, we're all here to express what we believe, right? Don't let it get to you, you don't owe anyone explinations, or anything. Keep up the good posts though! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Thank you, Fly" Posted by Gemini on 17:14:32 6/15/2000 Hyperbole indeed ... exactly. For a long time, a couple of years actually, I tried to dig through those big long posts, geared to push every possible emotional button, pull only a few (of many) examples of misinformation presented as fact, and correct or question them. Then, finally, I gave up ... realizing my own limitations. I just don't have the time, patience or the medical knowledge (in many cases) to deal with it. It was very annoying and frustrating, and who did that hurt? Just me :-) . Now, I either skip these posts entirely, or try to grin and bear it, with as little comment as possible, because I figure, the people who buy it WANT it to be so and only resent the pins that prick the fantasy balloon. To Ginja: Please take a few minutes to think about what fly's saying. I used to think you were spinmaster extraordinaire, but finally came to realize it's just your writing style ... take it or leave it. If other forum members give the content full attention and credibility, whipping themselves into an emotional roadblock ... that's their privilege. My concern is that the process makes the overall content at JW less valid. But, if that's what the majority of the members want, I can simply decline to participate in those discussions and save myself the grief. Over all, i'd rather be an acquaintence than an adversary ... another reason I decided to get off your back. However, this opportunity to vent about past aggravation was too good to resist. "... a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest ..." Paul Simon p.s. Ginja, that post about the history of JW ... (WOW!), gave me reason to rethink, yet again, about your motives. Also, made me wonder whether we'd both been in the same virtual space for four-plus years. If I ever need a public spin doc, I hope you're available. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Regressed toilet training" Posted by Ginja on 16:59:03 6/15/2000 It's been noted that kids will regress, as in JBR's case, when her mother had the cancer. However, I just want to point out that her mother's cancer was "cured" in less than a year. JonBenet continued to not only urinate and defecate, but her poor hygiene habits were never broken by her now-well mother. I can go for the regression because of problems such as the cancer, but when that problem is taken out of the equation, yet the regression not only continues, but gets worse...for two more years...don't you think there's another underlying problem being ignored? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Ginja" Posted by v_p on 17:15:50 6/15/2000 What I find even stranger is the fact, according to PMPT, that Burke stopped wetting the bed at 6, about the same time JonBenet continued to wet the bed. IOW, never really caught onto the potty training deal. People will argue that this is hereditary, that it stems from under-developed bladder. It is also related to child abuse. AND, when a child is murdered in her own home and the only people around at the time are her parents, and when experts claim the autopsy reveals previous, (2-3 days prior) abuse, the bed-wetting HAS to be considered. That's all I have to say about that. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Ginja" Posted by Seeker on 17:11:34 6/15/2000 Yes, I do think there was more to it (the TT issue). I know when kids are being abused, physically, mentally, emotionally, they can exhibit just such symptoms. (don't have the statistics, but I'd be willing to bet some agency or another is keeping track) I have always been curious how Patsy could have been "miraculously" healed of that type of cancer. I've always wondered if she had lied about it for sympathy and to be the center of attention. People are more willing to do things and more compassionate when they think someone is deathly ill and needs the help. I think Patsy (IMO) was mentally ill and staged more than just her "cancer". I don't believe her stories. How can I, when they seem to change so often? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Also just thought" Posted by Seeker on 17:31:10 6/15/2000 of this angle in regards to Patsy's having cancer. Could she have been jealous of the amount of attention lavished on JonBenet? She (JB) was just a baby at the time, and from all accounts, just as darling as a doll. Patsy likes attention, craves it in fact, if we are to entertain the thought of Munchousins (however it's spelled, I'm tired), could this have been a precurser to it. I.E. Patsy fakes having cancer (women have faked having terminal illnesses for various reasons) to get the attention being paid to her daughter out of jealousy? Then as JonBenet get's older her (Patsy's) obsession with being the center of attention is by hurting her daughter. Could she have in fact, killed her daughter in a jealous rage? (I don't completely buy the bed wetting theory either) Just some thoughts and speculations. Anyone else think this is a possibility? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "potty problem" Posted by Nandee on 17:45:09 6/15/2000 I don't buy the potty problem as being the only trigger. Consider these things: JB was complaining about the pageants JB was expressing her individuality by rejecting what PR wanted her to wear on Christmas JB didn't like the doll PR had special ordered PR was probably very tired from being "perky" all Christmas day. PR was no looking forward to spending time with JR's older children the next day. Patsy was loosing control.... The one thing that seems to make her tick. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Queen of the Nile Speaks!" Posted by Ginja on 12:35:27 6/16/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:35:27, 6/16/2000 Queenie here is responding to Fly...the rest of you may just want to scroll on by. Then again, you might want to read on. Maybe you've had a bad day, or you're tired of case, of you just otherwise might need a laugh. In which case, stick around! :-) However, I am more disgusted than mad, so there is also a good natured poke or two. Uh, sorry to have disgusted you. I'd have felt bad if it was just me...but I notice you're smiling and bolding all over the place here with others, so I guess there's no need for me to be paranoid. You do pick on others and you do write long, wordy posts. How I wound up with this title of Queen of the Nile, is beyond me. You're much more deserving of the title! :-) Ginja, the bottom line is that you make major errors in both argument and presentation of the facts, and you do it with such authority! That's pretty much the spin Gem's been putting out for over three years, Fly, where've you been? Gem just said, "I used to think you were spinmaster extraordinaire, but finally came to realize it's just your writing style ... take it or leave it." That's what she wrote today. In the past, she's used the same terminology as you: too assertive (same as authoritative!). If I'm setting forth my beliefs, then of course I'm assertive. Those beliefs didn't just crop up. I've done plenty of research to get to them. We're here arguing the case (argument in the positive sense). I can't see making any kind of presentation in a milque-toast tone. If you disagree, then sling it back. I don't have a problem with style, Fly. Not mine. Not yours. It's what's behind the words. Don't fight me...fight what I'm saying. Don't get disgusted...argue your point as ferociously as I argue mine. That's my nature. That's my style. You obviously don't have a problem fighting back. Isn't it obvious I don't mind? I feed on debate; I feed on argument. Sometimes I feed on food. As far as me making major errors, doesn't everyone? Yourself included. I know. The difference is my errors are made assertively, and yours are milque-toast. The only difference I see is style. And with that, I defer back to Gem: "...take it or leave it." Personally, I'd hate to see you "leave it". As I've said before, you get more attention because you post more (frequency and length), and with more perceived authority than many, and often your errors involve demonizing people. It isn't argument for argument's sake at all. Okay, as far as frequency, boy, where have you been? For me to be posting on a weeknight is highly unusual...at least for the last three months, I've only posted to myself on weekends (as not many posters are around! lol) As far as being demonizing, I disagree. I don't attack; I rebound. "Give unto others as they give unto you" is my credo. I try to match their mood. If they slam me, I've learned to slam back. That's a pretty new way of posting for me. I used to get very hurt, and instead of responding, would sulk. But now...now I give it back. But I also pay attention to who I'm posting back to -- sometimes it may "look" as though I'm giving someone a hard time. But that poster and I have a "relationship" offline and what appears to be "demonization" online to others is really 'friendly sparring' and understood as such between myself and that poster. Soooo...for me to really respond to point here, you'd have to point out the problem (and poster)...in either case, it's either slamming back or friendly sparring. Believe it or not, even though you and I don't have an offline relationship, my feeling is that we've been in this together for years...I'm not slamming you, I consider it friendly sparring. Unfortunately, I assumed too much. In that regard, I promise not to make any more such assumptions with you. This is not slamming or flaming, just a note to myself to avoid hurting your feelings or, in your words, disgusting you. Ouch! However, I'm not the one throwing out the snide comments about occupations, degrees, etc. or ignoring what the experts have said. Looking at that comment, Fly, I'd call it snide. LOL C'mon! Lighten up! I'm not going to repost our posts back to back here, because of length. But you pulled this from a paragraph of mine that was "generally speaking". At the end of the paragraph, I said: "The bottom line with you (that would be you, Fly, iow, I'm now directing my comments specifically to you) was that a lot of the newbies look to you as they think you're some kind of medical person in the know. You're very smart, but you're not "the answer" to all medical questions. I was leveling the playing field, that's all." Now what's so bad about that? I'm complimenting you, saying you're very smart. I qualified it by saying you're not "the answer". That wasn't meant to be negative or derogatory or flaming. I was being honest in saying I was simply leveling the playing field. And isn't that what you're doing (albeit in a more snide way, imo) in these responses to me? I say you're not "the answer" to "all" medical questions. But you...you state I'm too assertive, post too authoritatively, and much of what I post is majorly erroneous. And that's a blanket statement that seems to cover all topics. At least with you I narrowed it down to the medical questions. Which do you think is more demonizing? To insinuate that I inflate my credentials or have no qualifications is uncalled-for, offensive, and wrong. Before I even defend myself here, why don't I repost your comment that set me off to respond: However, I've had a heck of a lot more experience with childhood illnesses and accidents than you have, I suspect, and I'm well versed enough in general medical matters to be able to differentiate bogus from reasonable medical statements. Now I ask you, if I had posted that, how would YOU have responded? :-) About opinions vs. facts....When you say things like Beuf thought this, Beuf didn't do that (usually with no evidence), those are presented as statements of fact. If you want to argue that there is an implied "opinion" then I claim the same privilege and am immune from your charges. I strongly suspect, however, that most readers do not take such statements as simply opinion, but instead as representing fact. The implied opinion is bolded above. I say "I think"...or "jmo"....how else can I make it more plain that it's what I think or what I query? As far as saying Beuf didn't do this...again, for a half-way decent response, be more specific. Again, pouring over medical reports daily I see what doctors do, and note that these are the same problems JBR had where Beuf didn't do as others doctors have done. Medical reports must be authorized, so I won't be able to cite them, per se, in the future. However, what I'll do is make the point, for example, that a case I'm working on had this or that and this is how that doctor responded. I hope that's okay. It's the best I can do. About accuracy of information and citing supporting evidence... Medical Facts. Whether or not I cite sources or give you true facts rarely has any impact. Case in point, your past repeated insistence that JBR had a "blood blister..." Boy, am I glad you brought that up! Many of my posts are long because I go into detail in explaining the point so that it's easy to visualize and understand. Many posters have responded by thanking me for putting it in language they understood. I don't talk over their heads using terms and terminology that only someone in the profession would understand. To that end, when I was describing hyperemia, I said it was "like" a blood blister. I was trying to define it such that posters could visualize what it was like. To simply say "engorgement of blood" may not have been easily understood (or visualized). Especially considering the fact that vascular congestion and capillary congestion can be defined in the same way: engorgement of blood. Yet they're all very different, and look very different. I'm not talking down to any posters here, don't get me wrong. You kept insisting I said it WAS a blood blister. And for all intents and purposes, maybe I did...the first time. But I corrected it. You either missed the correction, or ignored it. You then berated me when I tried to describe it's circumferentiality. You said I was wrong in my description. I called a few doctors and found it was you who was wrong, not I (or is that, "not me"?). In the back of my head, I knew you had said you were a text editor (or writer or whatever), so I even went to textbooks. And you know what? I did not find one single example of vaginal hyperemia! Not one! I spent two entire days going through medical textbooks and found hyperemia in eyes, on faces, on lungs and livers...you name it. As long as you don't say vagina. I say, where's that Vagina Police when you need them! :-) Disgusted and frustrated, that's when I called several doctors to get the real scoop. That "real scoop" didn't jibe with anything you said. I've posted them numerous times here on the forum, in chat, and in emails since the last time you berated me on this topic...around Christmastime, I think. Now, I thought that was a pretty simple way of explaining where her hymen was...or in this case, wasn't. But hey, you don't like my writing style, try a pathologist's: "The tissue from the 7:00 position contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A tissue sample taken from the lower left area of the vaginal wall -- the folds of membrane that partly cover the entrance to the vagina in a virgin -- showed "erosion" of the layer of tissue, the "epithelial" lining. The chronic inflammation there had caused part of the lining to deteriorate and erode, or slough off." I didn't even mention abrasion, but since you have, let's get into it. Under "final diagnosis" of the AR, it listed an 'abrasion and vascular congeston of the vaginal mucosa." An abrasion is a scratch mark. Although it wasn't explained "how" the abrasion got there, do we really need to go to medical college to figure this one out? Obviously, something was inserted inside JonBenet...be it finger, stick...dildo....who knows? Whatever, the insertion, one would assume, was a rubbing, in/out movement. I don't assume that a simple insertion of a stick one time caused the erosion and abrasion. I assume a back and forth, or in and out movement...enough to cause tissue to scratch and slough off and blood to engorge in the capillaries. This was at the 7:00 position, where there was no hymen, or even mucosal rim representing a hymen*. At this position, there were other injuries, including the hyperemia. Wecht believes these injuries are consistent with a right-handed person (or someone using their right hand) to digitally penetrate her and rub. I don't understand how you can be so emphatic that her hymen wasn't gone, when the AR clearly notes that it was "represented" by a mucosal rim from the 2:00 to 10:00 (Note: corrected) positions. I was mind-boggled when you made the absolutely bizarre statement (especially from a woman) that for JBR to get a bladder infection would have required somebody to stick a finger up. When I said almost any health site would list "wiping the wrong way" as a common cause, your reply was (this is too typical to not post): Are you reading the post, Fly? Talk about mind-boggling! Where, in my following response, did you see me say: "for JBR to get a bladder infection would have required somebody to stick a finger up." ??????? Here's what you're responding to. Please point out where I said the only way she could suffer this was via digital penetration: What you're talking about here, Fly, would be a urinary tract infection, where something as simple as poor hygiene might possibly cause such. When the infection gets as far as the bladder and kidney, the infection is more severe. Again, I'm at work and don't have time to do research here and now. But like cancer, it has stages. The higher up in the system, the higher the stage. Also, when you've got a stage 3 or 4 urinary tract infection, it's caused by one of two things: (1) a simple infection that was left to get more severe and travel up the tract; and/or (2) sex (most usually). IOW, for (2), (and this is where the twisted urethra came in), there's penetration (digital or penile) that causes the organs to push out of line or can pass bacteria/infection closer to ground zero, so to speak. But no matter how you look at it, JBR suffered from bladder infections and vaginitis...not urinary tract infections, of which the latter can be caused simply by poor hygiene as you note. And how did you respond the first time? This doesn't do much to support the idea you know much of anything about basic medical conditions, and your response very clearly indicates your unwillingness to acknowledge an error. Rather than respond with, "Boy, was that a stupid thing for me to say, " or even, "I was wrong," you responded with a bunch of gobbledygook about stages of infection. The simple fact is, ginja, bladder infections (a type of UTI) are fairly common in females, and one of the first preventatives listed usually concerns wiping properly. Other things can cause UTIs, of course, but having a finger stuck up you isn't required. Well! Where do I begin. With your snotty insults? Or my inability to acknowledge errors? I would first ask what the error was. Can't apologize for it, or correct it, if I don't know what it is. Then again, you didn't bother to tell me how I was wrong, if I was! You simply got snotty and slammed me. Well aren't you the mature adult? Yea, I went into the stages of UTIs because it's necessary to understand the "whole" problem, not just a segment. Just like stages of cancer. Stage 2...it hits one organ; Stage 3, its moved to a second, and Stage 4 it's in the lymphnodes. (I might have mixed up Stage 3 and 4...maybe it hits the lymps first, and then moves on)...whatever...it's the same point. It starts here...and moves on. Those moves from one place to the next is known as a "stage". Soooo...with UTIs, you've got the same basic construction...in the lower urinary tract, it's stage 1, move up to the bladder, it's stage 2, on to the kidneys, it's 3 (or something like that). When it hits the kidneys, you're in trouble. Also note, too, that my above response was in addition to the initial response where I talked about painful urinations. You don't have painful urinations with lower UTI's. Note too, that I underlined/bolded sections to show you that I did not say, as your boggled mind professes, that JB's UTI's were caused by digital penetration. I said it was a possibility...especially considering that the infection got as far up into her system to cause the painful urinations. Thank you for the cites, but I went to the source (a urologist). Needless to say, you continued your berating snottiness in describing the various different shapes and sizes of hymens. You obviously missed Szundi's Hymen 101 class. I think you also missed the point that these various shaped hymens, regardless of their shape, are represented by far more than a mere mucosal rim, as was JBR's. Meyer was explicit in his examination. He did not say she had a crescentic hymen from the 10-11 and the 1-2 positions. Specifically, he stated: "The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue." No hymen, no "curtains"...just a rim representing where the hymen was before eroded away. Hyperbole, off the deep end, going overboard....This is really the core of the problem. You exaggerate, distort, make totally unjustified assumptions and state them as apparent fact to support your "opinion." You ignore expert opinion. Some of the above are relevant here, but try these others: (from a previous post)All I'm pointing out is that once they left the doctor's office, it was out of sight/out of mind until the next visit. I don't see any evidence of any follow-up care at home. You're right, Fly. How dare I say what I think when giving my opinion!!!!! And that's what it is, my opinion. I think it's pretty obvious it was out of sight/out of mind, because where is the evidence of the followup care? Surely, if they followed the doctor's advice, they wouldn't be in his office at least once a month! Unjustified assumptions. Who are you to say so? Ignoring expert opinion? It's a catch-22 with you, Fly. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. You don't like my writing style and it bugs the hell out of you, so you nitpick. There are far more exaggerated and off-the-wall assumptions being made on this board daily than my hyperbolic opinions! And sure, when you pull them out of context, their meaning is skewered. I try to pull together a "whole, complete post", not a bit by bit slam bam thank you mame rambling. My paragraphs tie in to each other. You've taken this out of context, as you've taken many of my posts out of context. You're playing games, Fly. (from a previous post) The only monitoring the parents did was t make sure she made her important pageant dates....that her hair was bleached and her "french nails" freshened up... (insert much wringing of hands here) God forbit (sic) they should give a damn about who and what JBR was ff stage!!! And not only do you take things out of context, you even add your own remarks! To those of you who have gotten this far in this post, please note it's Fly wringing her hands, not me! Talk about exaggeration, distortion, assumption and skewering! Again, this was my opinion...I'm entitled to it. And nothing I said here was out of line or exaggerated or false. Making sure she makes her pageant dates? Remember the call to the doctor, asking how to cover up those chicken pox! Why? Because the little model had a very important appointment with the photographer. I did not make up the fact that Patsy made sure her little girl's roots were done. For crying out loud, the kid was walking around with unnatural platinum blonde hair! This is not my exaggeration. This is a fact of Patsy Ramsey's life. And good ol' CAP was there for prep night before the pageants to do JBR's nails -- french style! Again, another one of my exaggerations? Did this mother really care about JonBenet, the child? I hardly think so. Her little girl is freezing and asks to put on a sweater and is told NO! she's on display! Well ain't that the epitome of motherhood! Yea...this is my opinion based on the facts. Take it or leave it! And finally, You harp on JBR's abnormal medical history - even though your qualifications are minimal, at best - and say Beuf blew it because he didn't look at the big picture, etc., when it has been stated over and over again that the experts Diane Sawyer's program consulted say there was nothing out of line there. Here's that citation (Scroll down to near the end of the Beuf part): http://more.abcnews.go.com/onair/ptl/html_files/transcripts/ptl0910b.html Again, where do I begin. With the berating? the insults? No, I'll skip it and leave the childish antics to you! As to the "meat" of your comment, it's obvious you don't believe at looking at the whole picture. You refuse to look at anything about this investigation/crime as a whole...just parts taken out of context. A good doctor looks at the whole patient and whole history, to see if there are patterns. Especially when the patient is in his office one or more times a month. As far as Sawyer's experts, I would no more bother with them than I do with Beuf if they're willing to take a few scrappy notes and make determinations that this doctor did everything humanly possible to ensure the health and safety of his patient. The notes they were handed weren't the same notes as given Harmer. I saw that show, Fly, and I was not impressed. Maybe you don't think I'm qualified to make judgments, but I've seen enough and been involved with plenty of doctors and medical records and situations similar to this. And I've also taken Harmer's notes and showed them to a few doctors locally. Like Seeker noted, you're gonna find an expert to say whatever you want. Obviously, you prefer "experts" of Beuf's ilk. I demand more than that. Sorry. That's my opinion, and I stand by it. Argument is one thing, Fly. I love it. I love a good debate. I love going back and forth on the issues. What I don't find appealing at all is your insistence to rebut the same post over and over and over. And when you can't nitpick from it any further, you go searching the threads to pull something out of context to support your beratings. For cripes sake, we haven't talked about hyperemia since Christmas! How the hell it wound up in this thread today as rebuttal just goes to show how far you'll go to make your point, regardless of whether or not that point is valid. Your beef is with my writing style. You want me to be a wimp, not have an opinion, and blindly follow leads from someone like Diane Sawyer who's out for ratings, not justice! That's not going to happen. Sorry. In the future, I will pay attention and be sure to bold or highlight or otherwise make it pluperfectly clear that something is my opinion. Not that I haven't already...you just don't recognize "imho's" or "I think". Perhaps: WARNING! THIS IS OPINION BASED ON FACT will help in the future? I'll think of something to ensure you're not confused or misled in the future. Anyway, when I started this post, I was in a very good mood. I also felt bad thinking you were 'disgusted'. My intent was to straighten things out. But then...as I got going, and reread what you were posting, I noticed something. You were berating me for being a pompous know-it-all (oops, an assertive, pompous know-it-all), yet throughout your post, you were far more pompous, assertive and holier-than-thou. So I guess I did help you out. I took away your frustration...it became mine! If this post starts to sour, it's because I realized your agenda. I really thought better of you, Fly. Personally (WARNING! THIS IS OPINION), I thought you were above what you've evidenced here. Hopefully, you were having a bad day...or maybe you took my previous post wrong...I don't know. I hope it's just a passing thing. I'd hate to think ....well, never mind. I think you've already made it clear how you feel. And for that, I'm sorry. Edited to fix the formatting. Also, I changed the rim position to show the correct location. The * is to note that the rim goes from the 2:00 to 10:00 position; most of her injuries are in the area of the 7:00 position. The tissue was taken from there (7:00) from which capillary and vascular congestion, chronic inflammation, epithelial erosion and abrasion showed up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "seeker" Posted by v_p on 19:12:18 6/15/2000 Maybe PR was sick of JR's grieving over Beth's death and not paying attention to her. On January 8, 1994, (one year to the date of Beth's death), Patsy was given final 'all clear' on the Stage IV Cancer. I think, but I'm not positive, (going from memory), her final operation was on December 26, 1993. I found that odd - but, hell, what isn't in this case? V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "FAKE?" Posted by canadiana on 20:57:08 6/15/2000 I understand exaggeration, I even think it might be true....however, how do you FAKE having cancer?????? Wouldn't it show up on tests?????? Excuse me for losing my mind, if I am. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "well" Posted by dixie on 21:14:05 6/15/2000 I'm not convinced that it was a bed wetting issue (as much as I love ST) but I remember my mother who is now turning 60 telling us about potty training. That back then she would put my brother on the potty and keep him there with a belt tied on him like a seat belt. That way hee would have to be ther until he did his business. I wonder since Patsy is close in age, if she had something rigged up on JB to keep that sparkplug sitting on the john(no pun intended) until she gave a nightly urine sample? and on that night somehow became entangled and ended up strangled? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "not likely" Posted by Nandee on 21:07:53 6/15/2000 I don't think she faked the cancer. I saw a picture of her with no hair and that's pretty far to go to pull of a ruse. I also saw pictures where she claimed to be "emaciated" and clearly looked healthy. I think exaggeration is PR's middle name. It has been reported here at JW that the medical center where she got her treatment said that none of the stage IV cancer patients they treated survived..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "My Two Sense :-)" Posted by Lacey on 05:52:13 6/16/2000 I don't think Patsy Ramsey faked her cancer. However, I have ALWAYS felt that she exaggerates it. And information posted recently by Szundi and some of our medical buffs has bolstered this assumption, at least for me. One more thing. I don't object to posters "going at it" a la dueling banjos and I have learned and am STILL learning that a lot of things posted over the years are simply a matter of style. Ginja is an emotional poster. Fly is more matter-of-fact and I do love it when something actually gets her dander up!!!!!!! I'm an not going there with Ginja 'cause the last time I did it started out fun but it got out of control and pretty soon it wasn't funny anymore and that is my own fault. I am not as mature as Fly and some others, you may have noticed this. But I don't care and I can live with it (LOL) My point and I do have one is.. I lost my train of thought. And another thing. I don't like posts that are so long and cover so many topics that it is just too effing arduous to respond. Many times the only posters who reply to these dissertations are the chiming bobbing heads. So it becomes an ego post and they just get longer. Well that may not make sense, so what Just one more thing - :-) <---- THAT'S not a real smiley. THIS is a real smiley! Just Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Medical records and other stuff" Posted by Ginja on 05:34:09 6/16/2000 I couldn't for the life of me post or edit in this thread last night, so my apologies with my rogue formatting in my last post. I don't know what happened (even the colors changed!) and that underscoring is hard on the eyes! But my editing time expired so now we're stuck with it. Mea culpa. Also, I wanted to edit, or at least add a correction, and couldn't do that either. I screwed up with the hymenal mucosa rim position...at 2 a.m. I was a bit blurry eyed, to say the least! Anyway, it's NOT 10 - 2, it's 2 to 10. As far as medical records are concerned, no one has them outside the BPD or DA's office. As Seeker noted earlier, it depends on who's interpreting what. The autopsy report is a medical record of the pathological findings (post-mortem). But I think it's a little 'off' for us to be using Diane Sawyer's list of "experts" who looked at the records and found no problems. They weren't looking at 'THE' records, only Beuf's list...and the list he used on that show was different from the list given to Harmer. In a way, it's like Douglas doing a profile without referencing crime scene evidence, the autopsy report, or anything! He spoke to John for a few hours and came up with his now infamous bogus profile. So much for experts reviewing Beuf's list. As far as Patsy's cancer, I don't know...it's not something you can fake. WARNING! THIS IS OPINION: I don't think she had stage iv cancer, for sure. She claims she had all the treatments, but then when she describes them, she's describing other tests that have nothing to do with cancer diagnoses or treatment. Her surgery was a hysterectomy. That's one way of removing a tumor. The question is, did she really have the tumor? or simply a hysterectomy for whatever reason? She didn't lose weight, she always looked healthy. As far as loosing her hair, again OPINION!, but didn't it seem to be growing back too evenly? Looked more like she shaved her head and let it grow back in, rather than having it fall out in handfuls, leaving wisps. Her whole treatment from beginning to end (diagnosis to cure) was less than one year. Pretty amazing for someone with stage iv cancer, eh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "SAY WHUT?!" Posted by Lacey on 06:06:31 6/16/2000 >But my editing time expired so now >we're stuck with it. Mea culpa. Ginja! What are you talking about? Get your arse up there and edit that mess NOW or I won't read it!!! So there. It's hard enough to wade through your posts (but they are often worth it) without all this very distracting underlining!! You DO want us to read your post do you not??? EDIT, baby, EDIT ! . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Hey girlfriend! (aka Lacey)" Posted by Ginja on 10:46:32 6/16/2000 First, how do you make those "real" smileys? :-) What do you mean I can go back in and edit my post after all this time has expired? First, I couldn't get into the damn thing at all last night...once up, it was UP! and I couldn't get back in. But neither could I post ... kept getting the server down, try again later prompt. Oh, but wait! Maybe I can't "delete" a post after so much time? I don't know...I'll work on this within the hour. I'm at the office sick as a dog with a fever, sore throat and serious coughing and congestion. No UTIs or pain down under, so I think I'm okay! LOL Seriously, it's 1:45 and my bus comes at 2:00...I'm outta here and home and back online by 2:30. I will see you then and fix this mess! What a freakin' hassle, ya know? :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "..the leap" Posted by Nikki on 05:58:11 6/16/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 05:58:11, 6/16/2000 ..my suspicions of Patsy Ramsey began the day I viewed the first appearance of the couple on Jan 1st..via CNN ..something was not right with her or John and it was incredible CNN let her appear so V'ed down she slurred her words worse than I after a night at Shooter's... ..why wasn't the continuing wetting and bed soiling seriously discussed with Buef?...the comments by LHP..Patsy scrubbed those sheets herself..JonBenet was leaving large BMovements in her storybook bedroom..and no one was taking any action to stop it...or were they? ..this does not figure with all her Dr trips..the asthma and BM sort of go together..it sounds to me as if Patsy was hiding this fact from everyone..except the housekeeper who was there in the morning and became privy to this information..it is unsettling to know that this important 'symptom' was on a hidden agenda..unsettling coupled with the fact the child was found DOA in her own home...her skull fractured and an obvious staging attempt was made to show the entrace of a mysterious foreign intruder.. ..although there is no history of abuse..that we know..I still believe something awful..intense..and unholy took JonBenet's life and this mother was either responsible or knows the truth of it... ..a dark river runs through the heart of this..a river so deep and dark it is unfathomable..you cannot see the bottom..but on the surface the dragon appears to raise its scaly head to give us a wink.. ..catch me ..catch me ..catch me if you can... ..the word incest..was there! ..Bless this Child ..and all others that lie in the small tombs of death.. ..let us scatter roses down the streets on the dead [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "...as a female survivor of child abuse..." Posted by Dunvegan on 08:28:25 6/16/2000 Just for balance, let me say this: 1.As a child in the 1960's I experienced sexual exploitation perpetrated by an adoptive, overachieving, church-involved, politically-conservative female "guardian", and a male next-door neighbor who was a locally-active "pillar of the community." Accusing them was unthinkable. She virtually ran on of the local churches, the neighbor was very well-known and liked. But, it happened. It still shocks me that their façade presented so very seamlessly to the community-at-large. 2.Any and all evidentiary behavior of both of these adults could easily be explained away, if you look at any one incident from a dismissive point of view. 3.Whenever I hinted to (what I perceived was) a symphathetic adult what was happening, it always was dismissed. It was usually gently suggested that I must have misinterpreted someting. This was very dangerous stuff on my part: my attempts at trying to expose the adults. I knew that. I was judicious in attempting to tell my story. It was the 1960's. 4.As a child, I always knew that I had no power to successfully defend myself against the clandestine actions of these "powerful" adults. They would simply explain away each event...individually. And if I tried to go public, things would (in all likelihood) become much worse for me, without materially helping me. I was obviously also dependent on all things from these very adults. Punishment was severe. 5.It would have been a blessing for thinking adults to have taken into account the pattern, the bigger picture...and at least have entertained the possibility of abuse in the face of adult denials (in order to both be fair, and to consider the position of the powerless in such a situation. If I could have counted on this, I would have tried to come forward at some point, even as a child I was outraged and felt the injustice...I never bought into the abuser's normalicy façade. By the way: I was entered in many a childhood contest, both academic and otherwise: for many years an oil portrait of me as "Miss BlockClub Queen" (a group in which my guardian was most active) hung in our living room...hung there by the woman who raised me, entered me in the contest, and abused me. I was placed in this competition as a 9 year old and was the youngest contestant by years. Much was done to make certain I won. The highlight was sitting on the back of a convertible in our city's Rose Parade, next to the Rose Queen, in my gown and tiara, waving to the crowd with white gloved hands, a huge bouquet of roses in my lap. I always strove to overachieve and shine, and win every type of competition available, and I will tell you why. I was placed in an accelerated children's program in kindergarten, I was involved in an endless number of extracurricular activities, and graduated high school at the age of 15, going off to college immediately upon graduation. ...and I'll tell you why I exhibited such drive for all these activities: it was to establish myself as a well-liked child, hoping against hope that among the adults that came to know me because of these events one of them might offer me some protection...might, because I had distinguished myself in some (in any) way, believe my story. My guardian was brilliant at using a barber's leather strop on me for many minutes, then interrupted by a ringing phone, gather her breath back, and speak in a sparkling and cheery voice to a church committee member. I remember to this day always peering into each and every adult who congratulated me for an achievement and wondering, "Would you believe me if I tell you? Would you champion me?" I think, with a measured consideration of events, we need to allow for both the possible innocence of parties involved in any crime against a child, and the possibility that the powerless child is being silenced or that what guilty adults do in these situations is (of course) defend themselves with lies and dismissals. JonBenet's situation, so far in my mind, is not solved. I gravitate to championing her (without damning anyone out of prejudice.) I know well that unjustly accusing the adults that cared for JonBenet affords JonBenet no justice. However, I champion JonBenet, first and foremost, as she could not and cannot champion herself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "canadiana, Gemini, Seeker, Lacey, Ginja" Posted by fly on 08:59:03 6/16/2000 canadiana - No, I don't think you are going crazy. Your point is very appropriate. Seeker - Could have been 4 times that long if I'd detailed every issue. Gemini - Well said. Lacey - Yes, the raw text smiley really isn't adequate. Your whirling feature would have been especially appropriate, I'd say. Ginja - First, you were right in a previous post that asthma can be induced by exercise. That is still a physical trigger (like an allergen is), not an emotional one. As to your last reply: Thank you for proving my case. The prosecution (or defense, if you prefer) rests. However, just a couple of comments to clear up a few things: (1)I never said I edited medical texts. (2) I didn't mean you demonized posters. I meant you demonized case people (Beuf, in particular). (3) Posting assertively is great if you have your facts straight and a sound argument. From one of your earlier posts: Young girls who do not practice good toilet hygiene or who are wetting themselves at night do get bladder or vaginal infections or irritation. (this was my previous comment) (your reply) They get irritations. She had none the night she was murdered. Now if you're talking about other people wiping her...there's cause for infection there. But to get an infection to go all the way to the bladder, the person wiping her didn't wipe her, they stuck their finger(s) inside her! (bold added) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Faking cancer" Posted by Seeker on 08:55:04 6/16/2000 can be done, and has been done. Didn't any of you see Extra!? They did this big story on this woman who claimed she was dying of cancer. She shaved her head, stopped eating as much, and took laxatives to lose weight. She received gifts of money, supplies, sympathy, etc. Her husband and children (I think she had children, but not positive) were even duped! She convinced him she was dying and taking chemo! She was recently found out and exposed! She appologised to the world via Extra! She said she didn't know why she did it. I knew a girl who was always going to the doctor, claimed to have lukemia, and that she was having chemo, etc. She was a hypochondriac and wanted to be the center of attention (she was the youngest of 6) at all times! Don't tell me it can't be done! I've seen it. I don't know that Patsy did, but she might have. I'm going to see if I can find that story on extratv.com, if that's the right website addy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "woman faking cancer" Posted by fly on 09:11:51 6/16/2000 Seeker - That case was in my state, so I've seen some news reports about it. Didn't know it had been on Xtra. As I understand it, this case never involved extensive (if any) hospitalizations, much less treatment in a big NIH research program. The reports I read seemed to indicate that her family wasn't directly involved with any medical consultations or treatments. Amazing as that fraud was, it isn't even close to the level of fraud required were PR to have faked her cancer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Fly" Posted by Seeker on 09:27:26 6/16/2000 She (the faker) was good enough to be featured on a national television program though. I e-mailed Extra! to see if they could send me the complete story. I seem to remember (but my memory is getting bad) that Extra! staff talked to her doctor and she went into elaborate detail concerning her treatment. The original story touched many, many people, physicians included who offered to help her in any way possible. I'm waiting to see if they will provide the whole thing, and I'll share what they send. OK? If you have some local newspaper info, could you dig it out for me? I'm always interested in the psychology of these types of people. Just a personal interest, not a professional one. We don't know for a fact that Patsy had stage IV cancer. We can only go on her word and those who she told (convinced) that she had it. If, from what I'm reading on this board, Dr. Beouf could be "bought off" (along with AH and other "prominent" people) couldn't they "hire" a doctor to collaborate her story? Again, I'm not saying she DID fake her illness, but that she could have, for the attention. IMHO It's obvious that she craves attention and has to be the center of it all the time. I haven't seen them (the Ramsey's) not be mentioned in the news lately. There is always something that pertains to them, or is linked to them (at least it seems like it). I think the longest I've not seen them mentioned is 3 months. Just my thoughts... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Seeker & fiddler" Posted by fly on 11:33:23 6/16/2000 Seeker - I'd be interested in whatever other details you find (personal curiosity, too). The stories that appeared in our paper (sorry, didn't keep them) didn't match what you've provided. They just had the family and friends involved, no doctors (at least none treating her). I'm willing to buy an exaggeration of stage on PR's part, but I think anything beyond that is very, very unlikely. fiddler - Sorry I didn't respond to one of your points earlier. You are absolutely right that treatment and history are not the same. The primary argument I was addressing was the idea that JBR's history was abnormal and that Beuf, therefore, was a lousy doctor for not suspecting abuse. The experts said her history wasn't really abnormal. Maybe Beuf should have referred JBR because of her repeated episodes of sinusitis and coughs. Maybe not doing so was reasonable given the details of the problem. However, I believe it was the possible diagnosis of asthma that most people were saying demanded a specialist, and other treatment specifics that most people were leaping on as evidence of incompetance. I've never said Beuf should be MD of the year. I just don't think he deserves to be demonized as some here try to do. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Where's the Beuf?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:40:09 6/16/2000 does anyone know where he's practicing now, if at all? Or, is he selling shoes in a mall, saving for a second pair of slacks? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Bummer! I tried..." Posted by Ginja on 13:31:16 6/16/2000 ....and have no idea how I got a red font! Anyway... Nikki, your post #79 was magnificent! Actually, all your posts are great, but this one struck me. Outstanding! Dunvegan, thank you for sharing! I was struck by the similarities between yourself and JonBenet. You struck a chord in your second point regarding dismissive points of view...how true! And the fact that children are powerless to defend themselves...most especially when it's their own guardians who abuse them. God, and when you talked about 'that woman' taking a break from abusing you to answer the phone with such a cheery voice! That blows my mind. Yet how true. And unfortunately, I can picture not just Patsy, but also John, with their holier-than-thou attitudes, being just as manipulative and controlling. Your story is bittersweet, with so many parallels to JonBenet. As I was reading, I wondered if JonBenet was 'driven' in the same manner as you. To me, what really stands out is the fact that JonBenet's story happened to you almost 40 years ago. Nothing's changed! Supposedly society has opened up to expose abuses against children...they're supposed to have someone to turn to, someone to talk to, someone to help. And yet.....? Fly, truce! (unless you want to start a new thread...this one takes too long to load!) As far as your editing texts...give me a break...I didn't make that up! You had to post it at some point, because contrary to your beliefs, I don't make things up! I suppose I made the story up, too, that when you were a kid you fell on your head? :-) In post #85, you said something about the level of fraud required for Patsy to fake her cancer. I'm neither here nor there on this. However, she's prone to exaggerating. We've already contacted the NIH and found there were no stage iv survivors in her group. I'm not sure if that's an exaggeration or a lie on her part, but suffice it to say, if she exaggerated or lied about something like that, who's to say she's not been pulling our legs for 3 1/2 years on other issues. Like, "just a few Sundays"? Who was the poster who called the NIH? Was it Seashell? JW was on a roll with this issue back in late March (maybe earlier...when DOI was released). There was a lot of "fishiness" with an entire chapter dedicated to Patsy's cancer, diagnosis and treatment. She didn't give doctors names, she wasn't even referred by a doctor to the NIH, if I'm not mistaken. The NIH conducts test programs, but they work to a schedule. Patsy just "showed" up and demanded treatment. We were collecting information, pulling all the details together. We were trying to find out if Patsy was even in this test program. Participants are registered as numbers, no names. We got as far as learning their were no stage iv survivors. Once we found out "which" program Patsy was supposedly in, and "who" the doctors were administering it, one of us with access was going to contact those doctors. That slipped through the cracks. I'm going to email that poster and see where we left off and why. In the meantime, who was the poster who initially contacted the NIH and found out about the no stage iv survivors...I think she also found out which program it was and who the doctor in charge was...maybe even spoke to that doctor. Like I said, we dropped the ball. Let's pick it up. Seeker, you're not alone! I saw that show with the woman who faked her cancer. She was on Oprah with her husband and kids and got all kinds of money. She was overweight and no one said anything about that until after it was realized she scammed everyone. Then everyone sorta hit themselves in the forehead, like duh...we should've known she didn't have cancer, she didn't lose any weight, blah blah blah. The biggest scam was that her husband believed her! He really thought his poor, sick wife was dying! I felt so bad for him. But as Fly noted, I don't remember her actually "having" chemo treatments. I think she just said she was having them...but her husband didn't go with her, which is probably how she managed to pull the wool over his eyes. Oprah was hot! when she found out she had been scammed! Did Oprah do a followup? Good luck in your search...I'm anxious to rehear the whole story and how she pulled it all off. I'll email Szundi and pick her brain. In the meantime, I hope the posters who were involved in researching this in March come back in and pick up where they left off...or at least jog our memories as to where (and why) we didn't follow through. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Edie" Posted by fly on 13:20:44 6/16/2000 Somebody looked him up and posted on the first Beuf thread (now back a couple of pages worth of threads) that he was still listed as being in Boulder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Dunvegan" Posted by darby on 18:20:40 6/16/2000 I just wanted to comment on your post. What a horrific childhood you must have had. And you are right, nobody ever believes it can happen. Why is that? It's like people have faith in the statistics, but when it comes down to a real person summoning up the courage to tell the world that, "YES, IT HAPPENED TO ME!"...nobody believes. Was it happening to JonBenet? Well, she didn't have the best of parents, did she? One of them was able to murder her and the other helped to cover it all up. Oh, and she had been sexually assaulted while still alive the night of her murder--enough to draw blood. And she had a garrote tightened around her neck while still alive. And her vaginal opening had previously been eroded over time. Put that together with her very adult pageant costuming and demeanor. This child was being sexually abused. Thank you for speaking up for her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Thread Police on Duty!" Posted by Ginja on 18:47:40 6/16/2000 This is too good a thread to wimp out...and it will since it's so long and takes forever to load. I'm going to cut and paste the last few posts into a Beuf 3 thread. See you in 3! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Ginja" Posted by v_p on 18:45:16 6/16/2000 I'm pretty sure the poster who called NIH was Autumnborn. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]