I dont think she did, but it is an excellent article, and it brings up something I can give a little more background on, which (believe it or not) I will eventually tie in to the Ramsey case. If you notice its date, it was written in 1989. Notice where this article fits in to what Im about to tell you. At the risk of adding to my already reputed notoriety as a blowhard (probably well-deserved), this will be kind of long. So if you choose not to spend the time reading it, I completely understand. But I find things like this fascinating, and if you have the time, it might help understand the climate within the professional community at the time of JonBenets death.
During the 1980s, there was a renaissance of doctors realizing that the long-held beliefs about evidence of child sexual abuse was based on flawed information. The article you linked,
AK, was written during that period of time and is reflective of what was going on.
In the section of this article called History of Sexual Abuse Examinations it begins with Woodling and Kossoris (1981). The author (a psychiatrist) should have gone back even further to include the work of Auguste Ambroise Tardieu because he is responsible for the attitudes toward evidence of child abuse that permeated the professional community for over a century. Tardieu wrote what is probably the first medical or scientific book on child sexual abuse. He was a French doctor who became the most well-known forensic medical scientist of the 19th century. His name is still used to describe the medium-sized purpura --
Tardieu spots (or
ecchymoses) -- commonly associated with strangulation. These are the same type of smaller mark (
petechiae) were familiar with on this forum because of JonBenets AR. Because of his original documentation, his name is also used synonymously with Battered Child Syndrome as
Tardieus Syndrome. Tardieu spent a great deal of effort studying and trying to describe the full range of sexual deviances, as well as the signs of it that medical examiners and law enforcement should look for. One of those deviant behaviors he was interested in was homosexuality. He described his efforts in this area as trying to determine whether the disgusting breed of pedarasts could be physically identified for the courts. His work described signs to look for so such behaviors could be identified. I wont go into detail describing all the things he wrote about (you can search and probably find them on your own), but one of them was that while doing a rectal exam, if the anus spontaneously opened, it meant that the person was accustomed to (and anticipating) being sodomized. This line of thinking persisted until it was debunked a century later. Nevertheless, many physicians continued to use this and some of his other signs as a reliable test to determine prior experience of sodomy into the next century (and maybe some even still have this misconception).
Bruce Woodling (mentioned in your linked article) decided to look for this response in young boys and girls as a way of determining if they had been exposed to sexual abuse. During an exam, he would separate their cheeks and touch a certain area near the anus with a cotton swab. If he saw an immediate response, he assumed this to be evidence of prior sodomy. Woodling called this response
perianal wink reflex (mentioned in
AKs linked article), and his testing procedure he called the
anal wink test. He suggested it be used as one of many ways in determining possible child sexual abuse in an article published in 1981.
But back to Tardieu... He tried (admirably) to find ways to look for signs of sexual abuse in children. Unfortunately, he used what was known at the time about sexually active grown women to apply standards of what to look for in young girls. When he did (not surprisingly), he found that an alarming number of young girls had been subjected to sexual abuse. From his documentation it was concluded that incest was a widely practiced (but seldom discussed) taboo in French society. In fact, this thought was carried throughout Europe, and (this is my opinion) might have even contributed to more child abuse because of its acceptance as something commonly practiced.
Little was done to discredit Tardieus theories until the latter half of the 1900s. In fact, that is when Woodling picked up much of Tardieus work and began applying it (and his own findings) to his practice and his court testimonies. In 1983, Woodling read about the use of a newly developed device (originally designed to check for cervical cancer) that had been used in South America to examine hymens as a way of determining if a woman was a virgin. (In Brazil, a rapist could not be convicted if it could be proven that the victim was sexually experienced, and a marriage could be annulled if the groom found that his wife had had sex with someone else prior to their marriage.) Woodling got one of these devices to examine children for signs of abuse. Women have probably seen this device (a
colposcope) in their gynecologists examination rooms, even though they seldom use it.
Using a colposcope to examine girls vaginas opened up a whole new world which had been completely unseen by the naked eye. Woodling found and named many microscopic features that he interpreted as signs of abuse. Like Tardieu a century earlier, he used these misinterpreted findings to apply them to a broad spectrum of children. He also used the colposcope to measure the hymenal opening and applied the standard expressed by Hendrika Cantwell that a normal, unmolested girls hymenal opening should be no more than four millimeters (barely over an eighth of an inch).
Woodlings findings were used in what became known as the
Kern County child abuse cases (AKA, the
Bakersfield sex-ring case) involving Satanic ritual abuse (later disproved). Despite contradicting testimony in the trial from other experts, Woodling convinced the judge (judging by his statements) as well as the jury that the children had been sexually abused. They convicted the defendants on 289 felony counts. Woodlings beliefs continued to attain prominence and acceptance, in part because other professionals were reluctant to come out publicly against him in fear that they might be perceived by their colleagues or the public as defending sex abuse. And there were others convicted on the same basis in some very well-known cases. Some of those may have been guilty, but others probably --
not so much.
In 1987, the result of a study in Boston was published where known abused and non-abused girls were compared trying to differentiate between signs of abuse and natural occurrences in young girls. Regardless of which group the girls fell into, many were found to have hymen openings larger than the 4 mm standard which had been accepted prior to that. Both groups were also found to have some of the same
microtraumas identified previously by Woodling as evidence of sexual abuse.
Even two years after this study was printed, the British medical publication
The Lancet described Woodlings
anal wink as a way for physicians to check and screen children for evidence of what they still referred to as
buggery (the British term for male homosexuality). This resulted in hundreds of children (brought in for routine physicals) being identified as possible victims of abuse -- many of whom were taken by police from their parents because of suspected sexual abuse in the home. Some of our British forum members may remember that this reached the level of a national scandal when the government investigated possible abuses in their child protection system. It is around this period of time that some doctors (on both sides of the pond) began questioning just how reliable this system of screening for abuse was.
Enter a man named John McCann.
McCann had for several years been studying and documenting what he had found in his research. Part of that research was to offer a free medical checkup for children entering school or summer camp. When they showed up at a Fresno, CA hospital for the free exam, the parent was asked to sign a consent form to allow (as a part of it) examination for possible sexual abuse. Some people who showed up immediately declined consent and left. Others (hundreds) consented. Probably some of the photographs in the link
Mama2JML provided previously were taken during this study, because I noticed that much of the information was reprinted from information provided by Dr. McCann.
In the article
Anti-K linked, it mentions some of this information and it also mentions a meeting in San Diego in January, 1988, sponsored by the Center for Child Protection of the San Diego Children's Hospital, where McCann reported on this research. Some of his findings are also noted in the article and it is well worth the read. At that San Diego meeting and workshop, the conference director, Dr. David Chadwick addressed the group by saying that for some time, doctors and healthcare workers had been asking the question, Why doesnt someone look at normals? (referring to childrens genitals). And with that question, he then introduced Dr. McCann.
McCanns research over a four year period just about dispelled everything most of the doctors at the conference had been taught about what to look for as evidence of sexual abuse in children. He showed that an individual childs hymenal opening can vary in appearance, shape, and size -- even in one exam depending on different factors. Those present also saw that while in various awkward positions for examination, almost half of the childrens anuses opened and closed with no apparent stimulus, thus disproving Tardieus, Woodlings, and many others long-held belief that this anal winking was evidence of prior sexual abuse. The people who saw the presentation were shocked. And shocked is probably an understated word because the things they were told at this presentation that they had been using (some of them in court testimony) to prove sexual abuse could be routinely found in normal, non-abused (presumably) prepubescent girls. Those present were shown just how wrong they had been about so much of what they been taught to look for. Many (or probably most) left that conference with doubts about what they had been taught and had come to believe was evidence to look for in determining whether or not a child had been sexually abused.
In the year after his SD presentation, his findings were published, and many professionals began discounting Woodlings previous assertions. By then another case which had begun in 1983, was going to trial: It was started because of the claims of a mother who told police her child had been sodomized by her estranged husband -- and by a teacher at a daycare who was the grandson of the schools founder, Virginia McMartin. After first arresting Ray Buckey (the teacher) for suspicion, police released him and dismissed her claim because, in addition to the claim of sexual abuse, she also claimed that the people working at the daycare had engaged in sex with animals, and that it was all associated with Satanic rituals where sometimes participants would levitate themselves in front of the children and then fly around the room. (BTW, police were never able to confirm that anyone at the daycare could fly through the air at will.)
But then (I suppose just to be thorough in their investigation) they and the DAs office sent out a letter to other parents. The text of the letter can be found
here and linked at the end of this post. Imagine yourself a parent who received this letter (if you havent read it -- you should) about your child from the local PD and DA. Needless to say, it created an instant panic in the mind of every parent who received it (or who eventually heard about it). Hundreds of children were referred to and interviewed at a clinic (Childrens Institute International) where those who worked there developed questionable techniques for garnering repressed memories from children who at first denied any of the allegations. Eventually, many (or most) of the children began remembering things that had never happened. The memories of these children were then bolstered and confirmed by the physical examinations performed on them by a USC classmate and colleague of Woodlings, Dr. Astrid Heger. In fact, Woodling personally supervised and assisted Heger on the first examinations as well as many more of the McMartin students. Until this case had surfaced, Heger had never even used a colposcope, but she and Woodling used it to determine that about 80% of the children had been sexually abused (supposedly confirming the repressed memories brought out by the people at CII). Though she was unknown until the McMartin case, Heger was suddenly the media darling, getting requests to appear as a guest on numerous broadcasts. Despite never having been called to testify in a sexual abuse case before this, she was suddenly inundated with requests by prosecutors all over the country to testify in other trials. She was invited to give talks and training to other professionals, and to participate in peer reviews of material on the subject.
By the time the McMartin Preschool scandal reached a preliminary hearing in court (which lasted one year and eight months), Dr. McCanns work was gaining acceptance within the profession, and Dr. Woodlings theories were generally beginning to be dismissed. But he and Dr. Heger had both been relied upon from their earlier work on the case for much of what was presented in court against the seven accused defendants. Even though Heger had changed (because of McCanns work) her public positions on much of what she had earlier professed, she continued to insist in testimony that what she had found earlier was still correct. Her desperation to save her own reputation resulted in some ridiculous statements in court, where she continued to defend her conclusions despite having learned afterwards that they were incorrect.
To counter the prosecutions case, the defense wanted to have McCann testify about his findings. McCann was to show that the alleged physical evidence of sexual abuse presented by the prosecution was what could be expected to be found within the general population of normal children who had never been abused. It would have been an epic showdown (IMO) if he had been allowed to testify, but he was unable to be present when he was scheduled (Im not sure why). The defense asked for a continuance for a few weeks until its expert witness (McCann) could be there, but the judge would not grant it and deemed the defense to have rested its case. Judge Aviva K. Bobb ruled for the criminal case to proceed.
Afterwards, a new DA who had inherited the case decided that the case against five of the seven defendants was incredibly weak and dropped all charges against them. The other two (mother and son) were tried in what turned out to be the longest (seven years) and most expensive (15 million dollars) criminal trial in U.S. history. It ended up with no convictions (although much of it is still debated).
The woman who originally claimed that her son had been sexually abused (Judy Johnson) was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and hospitalized. She died in 1986 (before the prelim was completed) from complications associated with alcoholism. Heger has since changed many of her views and reformed her image. She is now well-accepted within the professional community. Woodling refused to admit his early findings were in error and is seldom ever called on to testify in court. McCanns work is accepted worldwide and has probably saved many innocent people from being convicted of horrible crimes, as well as it has helped convict many guilty. I (otg) believe there is a special place in Hell for people who commit this kind of horrible crime against innocent children. But I also believe that their special place is right next to the people who falsely accuse others of it -- knowing that it is wrong -- only to bolster their own reputations, inflate their egos, or pad their pocketbooks.
In 1994, six years after his first ground-breaking presentation at the same conference, Dr. McCann made another presentation. In it, he showed photos of a four-year-old girls genitals and asked the attendees to raise their hands if they could see signs of sexual abuse in the photos. After some began raising their hands, McCann stated that in his opinion, it was impossible to diagnose with any confidence. This demonstrated just how open to interpretation such evidence of abuse was. It also showed his reluctance to declare that a child had been abused without conclusive evidence to make his determination.
So the reason in my telling this to everyone who has had the patience and interest to read it all is twofold. First, its to show why I have no problem with posters who seriously question our opinions and beliefs. I think its healthy to have to defend what we believe, if we truly believe it. If we dont or cant, our belief is not worth defending. But the other reason is to show why I have such a great deal of respect for Dr. McCann, and confidence in what his opinion is in JonBenets case. When you read all the different expert opinions and how much they can disagree with one another, its easy to want to dismiss them all (especially when they say something stupid along with something brilliant). But when you read the opinion of Dr. John McCann, pay close attention. It was McCann who turned the medical community around to prevent normal children from being diagnosed as victims of sexual abuse. If he states that he sees evidence of sexual abuse in the microscopic slide evidence and photos taken of JonBenet (all of which we have
not seen), I tend to believe him.
Sources and Resources:
Much of this information comes from the book,
Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt, (Debbie Nathan, Michael Snedeker)
Also,
Anatomy of the McMartin Child Molestation Case (Edgar W. Butler)
http://en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Auguste_Ambroise_Tardieu
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcmartin/lettertoparents.html
http://en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
http://en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Children's_Institute_International
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/27/us/judge-s-ruling-stops-defense-in-abuse-case.html
http://www.helfersociety.org/john-mccann
http://www2.aap.org/sections/childabuseneglect/OutstandingServiceRecipients.cfm
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/jpgy/article/S0932-8610(12)80002-8/abstract
CAUTION: This link to an article by Dr. John McCann contains very graphic photos:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/5/e1094.full
