John Fernie

[BBB167893]

Some experts believe there is evidence of previous sexual abuse; some don't.

It should be noted that the "aye" side is considerably larger than the "nay" side.

Regardless, if JB was the victim of repeated &/or ongoing sexual abuse, I don't think we can necessarily assume it's related to her murder. The theoretical probability pertaining to sexually abused children, especially little girls, is too high to make that leap, IMO.

How do you mean, Mama2JML?

 

[BBB167893]

So she may not have been sexually molested?!?

Possible, but highly unlikely that she wasn't IMO.

 

[pageantmom]

One more thing, what was this "intervention" for JB that was discussed in a previous post? Never read anything about it.

The intervention...I need to find the right thread about this because I didn't save it and don't know where I found it, but...
The friends said the intervention was about "the mega jonbenet thing".
They acted as if "the mega jonbenet thing" was about the pageants.
I don't believe it was about the pageants at all.
I believe the friends intervention was about jonbenet's emotional state and suspected sexual abuse.
I think now they backpeddle and say it was about pageants because thats a safer topic than abuse...everyone already knew about the pageants, but the abuse was still a secret.

 

[otg]

While 27 visits in three years seems to be (IMO) an inordinate amount, it’s not terribly unusual if you consider Patsy to be a concerned parent wanting to make sure her child’s ailments (no matter how small) are addressed. It’s what those ailments might be that, in light of what happened to her eventually, cause anyone to question the reason for the visits. Beuf’s reaction simply adds more cause to question what was going on. The doctor/patient privilege does not trump a criminal investigation. A simple search into the issue resolves whether or not he had a right to refuse sharing that information with investigators in the death of one of his patients -- he did not.

By his records, he says the last time he saw her was sometime in November of 1996, and that was a “checkup for a sinus infection”. Prior to that in August of 1996 was a “routine physical with a vaginal exam” at which “everything checked out as normal”. So unless there is something else that the good doctor is not telling in this interview (which was done over the phone, BTW), there was up to a 5 month interval between his last routine vaginal exam and the time of her death. We don’t know what would be included in what he calls a “routine vaginal exam”, but we know that the evidence of prior molestation doesn’t indicate that it had been started 5 months prior to her death. Most of the experts (IIRC) who speculated about the timeframe suggested it was probably within 2 to 3 months at most, and that it had probably escalated leading up to the acute injuries inflicted just before her death.

As to Beuf’s assertion that “you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia” in answer to a question about finding an abrasion on her hymen, he is completely avoiding answering the question. A speculum is only used for examining the inside of the vagina, and it even provides access as far back as to the cervix for a Pap smear. Because of the location of the hymen at the outer entrance to the vagina, not only is a speculum not necessary -- it would partly cover the hymen preventing its examination, and it might possibly do damage to it by its use (actually, it would probably damage it, which is why any pediatrician would try to avoid using it unless absolutely necessary). But simply parting the labia minora is enough to expose the outer wall of the hymen where an abrasion would have occurred (and did on JonBenet).

So while I am still a little suspicious of Dr. Beuf and his cozy relationship with the Ramseys, without access to JonBenet’s records (including the doctor’s notes), and access to BR’s records, we will never know anything more than we do already. All we have is speculation. And it's ridiculous the DA refused to get a court order for those records, and then allow police to just show up at his office demanding them. Then had he refused, they could have removed him from his office and denied him access until they could go through all his records looking for anything related to any of the Ramseys.

 

[BBB167893]

Informative article regarding the findings of Dr. Robert McCann and the findings of sexual abuse can be found at: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-sexual-abuse.htm

The interpretation of the injuries was developed in an interview with Cyril Wecht who spoke about the case and provided a very clear explanation. That can be found in the media links section of this forum, latest informative post by sandstorm.

Let's add this, too. According to "Child Sexual Abuse. Challenges Facing Child Protection and Mental Health Professionals," by David Finkelhor,

the majority of victims are female, and roughly 90% of offenders are male:


The peak age of vulnerability for sexual abuse is between seven and 13, but about 20% of cases involve even younger children. . .

About half the victimization of girls occurs within the family. For boys only 10% to 20% occurs in the family. . .

We also see a few cases of young children, themselves 5 through 10 years old, who victimize their peers. In most instances, these are victims of sexual abuse, who are repeating against others the acts hat have been perpetrated on them . . .

Female perpetrators are rare, but of some clinical interest, so they constitute a fourth group of importance. They are a diverse group that include some very isolated mothers, some adolescent girls under pressure to acquire sexual experience, and some women manipulated into joining the abusive activities of their boyfriend. . .

Interestingly, social and economic deprivation are not primary risk factors. Sexual abuse of children appears to be much less concentrated among children of disadvantaged social classes than other forms of child maltreatment. But sexual abuse in higher social classes is often overlooked because professionals assume it is rare. . .

The most important thing that psychologists, therapists and educators can do is to improve their ability to identify sexual abuse. But because of the shame, fear , and secrecy, most sexual abuse is still not diagnosed. When it is diagnosed, most often (two-thirds of the time) it is as a result of the explicit disclosure by a child. The child will mention the abuse to a parent, relative, friend, physician or school official, or the child will ask questions, mention activities or have sexual knowledge that will clearly signal the child’ s involvement. . .

There are certain behaviors that more than others can signal the presence of sexual abuse, but they are not specific to it. The primary one of these is sexualized behavior. . . In older children, it can mean promiscuous sexual behavior or unusually eroticized ways of dressing and acting. . .

As I said before, perpetrators are sometimes very unlikely individuals, with good reputations and a seemingly positive relationship with the suspected victim. The professional may find the accused person very likable and charming. Having a positive relationship with the child is not at all inconsistent with the possibility of sexual abuse.

Does any of this sound familiar?

The R lawyers were present in the studio observing the interview between Dr. B. and Diane Sawyer Unknown if that put any pressure on him. However, he was a very close family friend of the R’s and was there on the night of the 26th, taking a walk with JR and providing medication to PR.

As far as I'm concerned, the Dr. is compromised. He can't be trusted.

In Kolar’s book it is stated that he never ordered an internal exam of JB.

 

[pageantmom]

You know I find this extremely bizarre too. If I had a child and was having this conversation with them, I would never think to include a spouse or a grandparent. I would absolutely trust the life and well being of my child with my parents and would know beyond any doubt that they would never bring them harm. Why include people in this way unless you think they possibly needed to be included in the conversation?

I find that odd too.
It seems weird to include close family members in that conversation with your child. I mean don't get me wrong I'm aware that most abuse is committed by family members. But, usually you wouldn't assume that you needed to mention your husband, grandpa etc in this conversation because you would think "my husband wouldn't hurt our kids". I know that often it is the husband or whatever, but, you wouldn't assume that about your own husband or parents. It just wouldn't even cross your mind to think that your husband/father/big brother could even be involved in that.

 

[BBB167893]

It's true that there are "experts" who deny that there is proof of prior sexual abuse. I believe all of those who do simply say that there is not enough evidence for them to conclude decisively that there was indeed prior instances. I don't think any of them say they believe there was no prior molestation, which is a little different. (If I'm wrong on that, I'll concede if you point it out to me.)

That's my understanding of it, too. Just to add to the "not enough evidence" factor, there are some who say that it's impossible to tell from physical findings alone that abuse was motivated by sexual desires. They'd tell you only an interview with the victim under proper guidelines or the presence of an STD can be considered proof.

On a slightly different note, I'll also add this: children who are sexually abused by a person close to them often undergo what is called a "grooming" phase. This is where the perpetrator earns their confidence and may start with what they call "games" involving touching, private areas, and such like. It also refers to the use of digital penetration to stretch the vagina/anal cavity to accommodate larger objects later on. Sadly, this grooming phase often leaves no telltale signs and can go on for a long while.

A lot of people just don't understand how difficult it is to catch a child molester. How literally every single thing has to go exactly right in order for these people to get caught.

So instead of relying on "expert opinion", I highly recommend reading the AR for yourself and deciding. I have. And I have no doubt she had been molested prior to (and on) the night she died (but then, I don't claim to be an expert).

I don't, either. But it's not just physical findings. JB's behavior is an important factor as well.

 

[txsvicki]

What threw me about the autopsy report was confusion about whether or not there was an actual hymen. It seems that was gone. The scratch that night didn't tear the hymen because there was not one to tear, and there was healing inflamation. If I understood correctly, the entire vagina was inflamed, but healing, and the orifice was twice the size as it should have been. That's three things wrong right there to put with previous complaints to the doctor. Poor JonBenet.

 

[BBB167893]

What threw me about the autopsy report was confusion about whether or not there was an actual hymen. It seems that was gone. The scratch that night didn't tear the hymen because there was not one to tear, and there was healing inflamation. If I understood correctly, the entire vagina was inflamed, but healing, and the orifice was twice the size as it should have been. That's three things wrong right there to put with previous complaints to the doctor. Poor JonBenet.

That's essentially right, txsvicki.

 

[taotoo]

It just wouldn't even cross your mind to think that your husband/father/big brother could even be involved in that.

Unless it had happened to you as a child perhaps...

 

[otg]

What threw me about the autopsy report was confusion about whether or not there was an actual hymen. It seems that was gone. The scratch that night didn't tear the hymen because there was not one to tear, and there was healing inflamation. If I understood correctly, the entire vagina was inflamed, but healing, and the orifice was twice the size as it should have been. That's three things wrong right there to put with previous complaints to the doctor. Poor JonBenet.

The AR is confusing, vicki. Trying to put into words something you see is sometimes difficult. Using the description of what remained of her hymen, I took an illustration of a "typical" hymen (they do vary) and drew what the coroner described so we can get a better idea of what he was describing. It only addresses the the hymenal injuries -- not the rest of the vagina. I won't post the picture here, but I'll give you the link if you care to see it. It is "adult-rated", so know that before you click on the link. It shows the original illustration with a green line indicating where the remaining rim of tissue was described in the AR between the "2 and 10:00 positions" (marked by a green dot). The lower green line could be lower representing less remaining tissue, but there is not enough information in the AR to make that assumption. There is also a red dot showing where the abrasion was located "at approximately the 7:00 position".

http://i42.tinypic.com/aot64x.jpg

 

[otg]

You know I find this extremely bizarre too. If I had a child and was having this conversation with them, I would never think to include a spouse or a grandparent. I would absolutely trust the life and well being of my child with my parents and would know beyond any doubt that they would never bring them harm. Why include people in this way unless you think they possibly needed to be included in the conversation?

One more thing, what was this "intervention" for JB that was discussed in a previous post? Never read anything about it.

From IRMI, Steve Thomas, P-65:

Some friends of Patsy's were concerned about how JonBenet was being groomed for pageants with the heavy makeup, the elaborate costumes, and the recent addition of platinum-dyed hair. It was creating a "mega-JonBenet thing," and some friends had planned to have a talk about it with Patsy after Christmas.
​

http://books.google.com/books?id=pC...EwAw#v=onepage&q=Mega-Jonbenet" thing&f=false

 

[dodie20]

as I said before I am just reading Perfect Murder, Perfect town lawerence Shillers book about the murder. As far as I know, everyone is suspect till someone is caught. I wouldn't let him "wipe" my daughter. I find it creepy, sorry if you don't jibe with that.

ok, but if the Rs thought it was creepy, they never should have let JB go back after the 1st time it happened. Obviously, they didn't care. moo

 

[KKazoo87]

ok, but if the Rs thought it was creepy, they never should have let JB go back after the 1st time it happened. Obviously, they didn't care. moo

Just adding to this. I believe it was PR who said that they sometimes called FW "Mr. Mom". And I think it was her that said he was the one to primarily care for JB at the Whites. If Patsy was the mother she acted like she would of known if something bad was happening at the White's.
About changing her underwear, I believe FW was just a parent doing what he had to do while babysitting someone elses child. It falls into the job description. Having a daughter around the same age, he would likely know the importance of needing to change soiled underwear. And who knows how that could of happened. He could have handed her a pair of DWs underwear and said, "go change into these. We'll have to tell your mom later."