questfortrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 134
Ive been reviewing some of the posts of the last week and decided to place a summary of information about JonBenets prior sexual abuse, particularly in light of some of the gaps of knowledge about the subject.
Its pretty clear that one of the biggest (though certainly not the only!) flashpoints in the case between IDI/ABAR and RDI is the subject of prior abuse. Although Beckner disassociated the abuse from JonBenets death (maybe primarily because it could not be proven who had perpetrated the abuse), he did state the prior abuse as a fact in his AMA on Reddit. With the topic of SBP and Kolars review of experts conclusions, I believe I know what Kolar thought.
All of us have seen the various arguments pointing away from abuse. I wont list them all, but just as a reminder there were these: The inflammation to her vagina from bubble baths, bedwetting, masturbation, poor wiping habits, yeast infections, certain medical conditions, just an abnormal hymen, etc.
(BTW, regards the issue of an abnormal hymen, cynic has posted a couple times the studies of the difference in horizontal transhymenal diameter in prepubertal girls with definitive evidence of penetration trauma compared to the genitalia of alleged victims who show no definitive physical signs of acute or chronic penetration trauma to genital tissues. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...y-Project-Rebuttal-(Non-Intruder-Posters-Only Post #4)
So-o, much of what I will list here comes from the heavy lifting of posters like cynic, otg, SuperDave, LinasK and a few others. There are several discussions of behavioral signs of abuse, but in the interest of some semblance of brevity, Ill leave that for another time. Foreign Faction gives the best overview of the indications of the prior abuse.
From FF: Coroner Meyer met with Dr. Andy Sirontak, chief of Denver Childrens Child Protection Team. The inspection by Sirontak confirmed what Meyer had observed. Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death. Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.
The members of the abuse review team who furnished their expert opinions to the BPD were
Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center;
Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital;
and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis.
Two others who reviewed the photos and tissue slides from her vaginal area were Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Ronald Wright, formerly the medical examiner for the Fort Lauderdale area.
Dr. McCann was considered one of the top experts in evaluating sexual abuse in children, highly respected for his work in this arena. Among his achievements in the field of child abuse, McCann established the standards for what is considered normal and abnormal in child and adolescent examinations. He also developed the "multi-method" examination approach that is now used throughout the western world. McCann not only gave seminars to physicians and coroners about how to recognize abuse, but he was also fiercely committed to accuracy and integrity in the evaluation of it to prevent false allegations against any parents or caretakers.
There were no dissenting opinions among the review team that there was any other conclusion about JBs injuries other than abuse.
______________
Non-committal opinions were raised by
-- Dr. Michael Doberson (famous for his stun-gun theories) who believed more information was necessary to come to a conclusion of abuse;
-- Dr. Werner Spitz who only cited the acute injury, i.e., the paintbrush injury near the time of death; he did not specifically address the chronic abuse, suggesting that an opinion about it was unclear;
--and Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the CU Health Sciences program, stated, I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused on physical findings alone. Krugman added that the presence of semen, evidence of a STD, or the child's medical history combined with the child's own testimony were the only ways to confirm sexual abuse. (His opinion was widely derided by some of the abuse advisory team.)
______________
Before I add an analysis of the autopsy by Wecht, one more observation. Many of these abuse experts reference tissue slides in their analyses. My understanding is that this is because under a microscope a physician, coroner, pathologist can determine whether the tissues have been freshly injured, or if they are old injuries and are in a stage of healed or healing.
As for Dr. Wecht, he pulled no punches Here is an excerpt from an interview given several years ago.
"Let's talk now about the external genitalia, let's talk about the injuries...The injuries are for the most part old, they're chronic. A good part of the hymen is, is absent, and that's an old, old phenomenon, it's been there for a while. Then the pathologist report, and I'm taking it right from the autopsy report. He reports, superficial erosion of the vaginal mucosa, that's the lining, the delicate lining of the vaginal canal, at the 7 o'clock position, and that's been there for a while, that's not acute. And then he finds microscopically, chronic inflammation, under the microscope. That means it's been there for days, and could be longer than days, but it's not fresh . . .
The AR statement of the 7 o'clock position, as mentioned above, is "highly suggestive of sexual abuse, according to Wecht.
I apologize if this is all repetitive, especially to those whove been with the forum for a while. I simply wanted to gather it up to provide a summary of why Beckner and Kolar have drawn their conclusions. I leave it to anyone else to evaluate the subject in the context of these experts opinions. Respectfully, draw your own conclusions. I have.
Its pretty clear that one of the biggest (though certainly not the only!) flashpoints in the case between IDI/ABAR and RDI is the subject of prior abuse. Although Beckner disassociated the abuse from JonBenets death (maybe primarily because it could not be proven who had perpetrated the abuse), he did state the prior abuse as a fact in his AMA on Reddit. With the topic of SBP and Kolars review of experts conclusions, I believe I know what Kolar thought.
All of us have seen the various arguments pointing away from abuse. I wont list them all, but just as a reminder there were these: The inflammation to her vagina from bubble baths, bedwetting, masturbation, poor wiping habits, yeast infections, certain medical conditions, just an abnormal hymen, etc.
(BTW, regards the issue of an abnormal hymen, cynic has posted a couple times the studies of the difference in horizontal transhymenal diameter in prepubertal girls with definitive evidence of penetration trauma compared to the genitalia of alleged victims who show no definitive physical signs of acute or chronic penetration trauma to genital tissues. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...y-Project-Rebuttal-(Non-Intruder-Posters-Only Post #4)
So-o, much of what I will list here comes from the heavy lifting of posters like cynic, otg, SuperDave, LinasK and a few others. There are several discussions of behavioral signs of abuse, but in the interest of some semblance of brevity, Ill leave that for another time. Foreign Faction gives the best overview of the indications of the prior abuse.
From FF: Coroner Meyer met with Dr. Andy Sirontak, chief of Denver Childrens Child Protection Team. The inspection by Sirontak confirmed what Meyer had observed. Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death. Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.
The members of the abuse review team who furnished their expert opinions to the BPD were
Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center;
Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital;
and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis.
Two others who reviewed the photos and tissue slides from her vaginal area were Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Ronald Wright, formerly the medical examiner for the Fort Lauderdale area.
Dr. McCann was considered one of the top experts in evaluating sexual abuse in children, highly respected for his work in this arena. Among his achievements in the field of child abuse, McCann established the standards for what is considered normal and abnormal in child and adolescent examinations. He also developed the "multi-method" examination approach that is now used throughout the western world. McCann not only gave seminars to physicians and coroners about how to recognize abuse, but he was also fiercely committed to accuracy and integrity in the evaluation of it to prevent false allegations against any parents or caretakers.
There were no dissenting opinions among the review team that there was any other conclusion about JBs injuries other than abuse.
______________
Non-committal opinions were raised by
-- Dr. Michael Doberson (famous for his stun-gun theories) who believed more information was necessary to come to a conclusion of abuse;
-- Dr. Werner Spitz who only cited the acute injury, i.e., the paintbrush injury near the time of death; he did not specifically address the chronic abuse, suggesting that an opinion about it was unclear;
--and Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the CU Health Sciences program, stated, I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused on physical findings alone. Krugman added that the presence of semen, evidence of a STD, or the child's medical history combined with the child's own testimony were the only ways to confirm sexual abuse. (His opinion was widely derided by some of the abuse advisory team.)
______________
Before I add an analysis of the autopsy by Wecht, one more observation. Many of these abuse experts reference tissue slides in their analyses. My understanding is that this is because under a microscope a physician, coroner, pathologist can determine whether the tissues have been freshly injured, or if they are old injuries and are in a stage of healed or healing.
As for Dr. Wecht, he pulled no punches Here is an excerpt from an interview given several years ago.
"Let's talk now about the external genitalia, let's talk about the injuries...The injuries are for the most part old, they're chronic. A good part of the hymen is, is absent, and that's an old, old phenomenon, it's been there for a while. Then the pathologist report, and I'm taking it right from the autopsy report. He reports, superficial erosion of the vaginal mucosa, that's the lining, the delicate lining of the vaginal canal, at the 7 o'clock position, and that's been there for a while, that's not acute. And then he finds microscopically, chronic inflammation, under the microscope. That means it's been there for days, and could be longer than days, but it's not fresh . . .
The AR statement of the 7 o'clock position, as mentioned above, is "highly suggestive of sexual abuse, according to Wecht.
I apologize if this is all repetitive, especially to those whove been with the forum for a while. I simply wanted to gather it up to provide a summary of why Beckner and Kolar have drawn their conclusions. I leave it to anyone else to evaluate the subject in the context of these experts opinions. Respectfully, draw your own conclusions. I have.
