poor wording on my part, I'm very sorry! I don't have the ability to describe this I suppose but I meant more that, in what I've read, she didn't solidly have any evidence of violent or forceful tearing to the vaginal opening, other than the hymen being broken. but, hymens can be broken for reasons other than sexual intercourse, such as riding a bike, horseback riding, gymnastics/dance, etc. it is a vestigial structure and is very thin, therefore easy to break without intercourse taking place. most people break theirs before the first time they have sex.
the reason I described it like that is more of a personal understanding — what I meant was that in my limited knowledge of the in-depth investigation, it didn't seem to me that she had been violently abused on an everyday basis without question, which is what I would quantify as "severe." children who are being beaten, locked up, regularly penetrated by objects or body parts much larger than they are capable of (ack sorry about that awkward way of describing it... I'm trying to avoid saying something really horrific and graphic, I already feel icky talking about stuff like this as it is haha), in a very violent manner... that is what I view as severe. that is just my personal opinion. and those signs are very, very obvious and not able to be attributed to anything else, the way JonBenét's signs could be. the size of her vaginal opening could be from a regular medical intervention if she was having issues with her genitalia, such as bed-wetting.
I'm not saying John didn't do it, he could very well have. child sexual abuse perpetrated by men like him is more common than many would like to admit. I was simply saying there is enough reasonable doubt in her autopsy results regarding her "vaginal trauma" that it's possible that John is not guilty of molestation, despite me personally thinking he's sketchy and unsettling personality-wise... being sketchy doesn't make someone an offender and seeming squeaky-clean doesn't make someone innocent, we all know that.
I was just playing devil's advocate + responding to a theory that her signs could be from things other than sexual abuse, which in my experience they can.
in this case, I truly don't dismiss anyone as guilty or innocent, but I also just have this weird hunch that John didn't molest her. not because I think he's a saint, because I don't. I think he's very disingenuous, but I'm just not convinced he sexually assaulted her and never have been. I don't know why. I can't really explain it. maybe it's because in my experience abusers like to have a tight leash on their victims and often seem overly involved with them, and John seemed to be pretty distant and more focused on work and himself than on monitoring his kids. but I know it's certainly possible that I'm wrong. after all, he was the one who supposedly "got her ready for bed."
I still doubt it though. it seems very messy and I don't imagine Patsy as the kind of person to be bothered to do something like that, but maybe if she was angry enough and sick in the head enough.