Prior Vaginal Trauma

[ChuckMaureen]

If you read what I posted, it is clear that in a 'blind' experiment, the experts were unable to distinguish between abused and non-abused girls. There is a vast range of what is normal and a 6yo with a history of infection could be similar to a child who had been abused or even to another non-abused child. It cannot be determined by examination alone. That is straight from Dr McCann himself. Combine this with the 'known' abuse that occurred that night and it further complicates the issue.

Clear and concise and IMO, spot on.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

One thing I think we can all agree on is that the whole case is complicated. From the unstated time of death, to the ambiguous cause of death to all who reviewed the autopsy, it seems like NO one reviewing this case had anything to say that could be written in stone. And to me, the coroner adds to the confusion. He tells LE present at the autopsy that he feels there is evidence of digital penetration (which by its definition is sexual abuse because of her age) yet he doesn't include it in the report nor does he put anything about her vaginal injuries being caused by sexual abuse, though he tells LE verbally she had had sexual contact. Also, there was a report (not often seen) that a partial fingerprint was lifted off the body and Mayer "chose not to put that in his report" (not my words). Is it any wonder we are still here?

I have not seen a report that provides that detail, but if true then IMO it taints the autopsy report to a degree.

It raises the possibility that other information was left out or even added beyond complete fact.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

I am reposting one of my previous posts with this edited-to-clarify version:

****************

Hi, tadpole,

bbm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole12
Hey CM.

Hymenal erosion can be attributed to more than one single or grouped cause(s)....

but not the 10-2 position of erosion. From the medical illustrations we`ve reviewed as a group, there was an obvious difference in the 10-2 erosion, vs the images of the malformed hymen, and images displaying the thinning of tissue due to hormonal change or the effects of medications.

10-2:
It is used as the criteria for inquiry into sexual abuse because it is observable and distinct.

Normal Hymenal Configuration : http://www.websleuths.com/forums/arc...ex.php/t-22887

To attribute hymenal erosion at specific positions as being specifically caused by sexual abuse is a stretch, no pun intended. I do not believe there is a pedophiles handbook that instructions to "manipulate and erode the hymen at between only the 2-10 positions." I'm not intending to be snarky, just attempting to point out that abusive entry, rubbing, shift and lateral angles, etc. might probably vary at least in some degree.

From original post:
Also, given JBR's chronic condition her doctor's exploratory, long-term observation and treatment applications would by necessity the erode hymenal tissue.

Edited-to-clarify, version:
Also, given JBR's chronic condition, her doctor's exploratory, long-term observation and treatment applications would, by necessity, erode the hymenal tissue.

 

[DeeDee249]

The word "abuse" is not included in the autopsy text.

No. And it should have been. The coroner DID say during the autopsy to LE present in the room (among them Det. Linda Arndt and I believe Trujillo) that JB's injuries were indicative of digital penetration. Why he did not include that information in the written report is something only he can tell us. I have my own opinions about why, but only he knows the real reason. It could be something as simple as this- that only his observations and findings are included and not his opinions, however expert, about what caused them? Or is there something more behind it. I do know that in other autopsies, if someone was stabbed by a knife, lets say, the coroner will put in the report that he found wounds consistent with being stabbed by a knife. Or he will state findings such as bullet holes, etc. In JB's case, as in all child murders, things like sexual contact are crimes simply because the victim is a child, but in addition the sexual contact may be the reason for the homicide itself or have something to do with it. So why Mayer seemed to deliberately downplay this aspect of JB's autopsy is something we can only guess at. According to his own words, he found evidence of sexual contact. This was a dead little girl...I'd be thinking the sexual contact would be pretty important.

 

[DeeDee249]

"That's pretty low"? Please explain what you mean.

"some of her injuries", as in plural?

I only inquired if one "violent discoloration" on her right labia majora might possibly be a birthmark (given that the coroner proved there was no underlying hemmorhage and did not offer an opinion as to what it might be or might have caused it or whether it was a natural discoloration) is not a far-fetched question.

This was not just a coroner, but he was also a medical examiner (not all coroners are). He would know the difference between a birthmark and a bruise. And when describing a decedent, tattoos, moles, birthmarks, scars, etc. are always mentioned in the written report. A violet discoloration on the labia of a child is a bruise, maybe not a fully developed one because death may have halted that process, but none the less a bruise. And it didn't belong there. Just as her death halted the process of organization of her skull/brain injury, noted in the autopsy as "no evidence of organization", the violet discoloration was likely a bruise which did not develop completely because she died.
Here we have an example of evidence that JB endured sexual contact the night she was killed trying to be explained away as a "birthmark". And I think it needs no further explanation.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

No. And it should have been. The coroner DID say during the autopsy to LE present in the room (among them Det. Linda Arndt and I believe Trujillo) that JB's injuries were indicative of digital penetration. Why he did not include that information in the written report is something only he can tell us. I have my own opinions about why, but only he knows the real reason. It could be something as simple as this- that only his observations and findings are included and not his opinions, however expert, about what caused them? Or is there something more behind it. I do know that in other autopsies, if someone was stabbed by a knife, lets say, the coroner will put in the report that he found wounds consistent with being stabbed by a knife. Or he will state findings such as bullet holes, etc. In JB's case, as in all child murders, things like sexual contact are crimes simply because the victim is a child, but in addition the sexual contact may be the reason for the homicide itself or have something to do with it. So why Mayer seemed to deliberately downplay this aspect of JB's autopsy is something we can only guess at. According to his own words, he found evidence of sexual contact. This was a dead little girl...I'd be thinking the sexual contact would be pretty important.

An opinion is one thing, proof of fact is another. If he could have identified it as fact, I expect he would have included that in his report.

Doubt is as doubt does.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

This was not just a coroner, but he was also a medical examiner (not all coroners are). He would know the difference between a birthmark and a bruise. And when describing a decedent, tattoos, moles, birthmarks, scars, etc. are always mentioned in the written report. A violet discoloration on the labia of a child is a bruise, maybe not a fully developed one because death may have halted that process, but none the less a bruise. And it didn't belong there. Just as her death halted the process of organization of her skull/brain injury, noted in the autopsy as "no evidence of organization", the violet discoloration was likely a bruise which did not develop completely because she died.
Here we have an example of evidence that JB endured sexual contact the night she was killed trying to be explained away as a "birthmark". And I think it needs no further explanation.

The coroner prooved there was no underlying hemmorhage; no bleeding, no "bruise", by definition.

 

[DeeDee249]

I am reposting one of my previous posts with this edited-to-clarify version:

****************

Hi, tadpole,

bbm

Quote:



To attribute hymenal erosion at specific positions as being specifically caused by sexual abuse is a stretch, no pun intended. I do not believe there is a pedophiles handbook that instructions to "manipulate and erode the hymen at between only the 2-10 positions." I'm not intending to be snarky, just attempting to point out that abusive entry, rubbing, shift and lateral angles, etc. might probably vary at least in some degree.

From original post:
Also, given JBR's chronic condition her doctor's exploratory, long-term observation and treatment applications would by necessity the erode hymenal tissue.

Edited-to-clarify, version:
Also, given JBR's chronic condition, her doctor's exploratory, long-term observation and treatment applications would, by necessity, erode the hymenal tissue.

There was NO exploratory exam performed on JB by her doctor, by his own admission. NO pelvic exam, NO internal observation. He examined her externally and that was all. I have never seen any report of Patsy being given creams to use on JB INTERNALLY, and if you have a link to such information please share it.

 

[DeeDee249]

The coroner prooved there was no underlying hemmorhage; no bleeding, no "bruise", by definition.

Dead people don't "bruise". She may have died before the bruise could fully form. The violet discoloration did not happen after death, and certainly didn't belong there.

 

[DeeDee249]

An opinion is one thing, proof of fact is another. If he could have identified it as fact, I expect he would have included that in his report.

Doubt is as doubt does.

The FACT is the erosion itself which was included in the report. The difference of opinion here is what caused it. It is not common in girls of her age. I do not see it as having an innocent explanation, and neither did the coroner. As other kinds of objects may be able to produce the same result, it would be unlikely to be able to prove it was a finger and not something else. But his opinion was that it was a finger. Had this case come to trial, the coroner would have been called to the witness stand, and if asked, he would have had to repeat what he had told the detectives present at the autopsy.
As has been said before- the coroner's job is to report his findings, not to solve the crime. It was up to the DA to use this information.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

This was not just a coroner, but he was also a medical examiner (not all coroners are). He would know the difference between a birthmark and a bruise. And when describing a decedent, tattoos, moles, birthmarks, scars, etc. are always mentioned in the written report. A violet discoloration on the labia of a child is a bruise, maybe not a fully developed one because death may have halted that process, but none the less a bruise. And it didn't belong there. Just as her death halted the process of organization of her skull/brain injury, noted in the autopsy as "no evidence of organization", the violet discoloration was likely a bruise which did not develop completely because she died.
Here we have an example of evidence that JB endured sexual contact the night she was killed trying to be explained away as a "birthmark". And I think it needs no further explanation.

No such a thing. <sigh>

I rarely do what I am about to, but I must be honest and straightforward and hope this forum accepts the following rant as not personal, but as at simply on a debate level, as I despise personal attacks in forums and believe they degrade intellectual discourse to an equivalency of Saturday night drink-um-up chat room folly.

I attempt to remain objective in my posts and might slip from time to time, but never with that intent.

I park emotion at the computer room door when I peruse WS forums. One must remain objective and only selectively introduce subjectivity as necessary to garner to the truth.

I hope for intellectual discourse and IMO that is abundant in this forum. What destroys that strength are the tangential remarks and off-handed snides and mostly-slight manipulations of others commentary or intent.

Honest misunderstanding and poorly communicated opinion are expected to occur from time to time and are acceptable to that degree .. but when those do indicate to becoming a "norm" I have to step back and wonder, why?

I will no longer respond to future posts from anyone that extend intents to my commentary beyond reasonable and logical observation, that suggest as if I am in some denial state or refuse to see those 'obvious, non-contestable definitive signs of on-going sexual abuse' of JBR. Such posts are useless and frankly, a waste of time.

I am open to the possibility that JBR might have experienced chronic sexual abuse and if there were definitive, unequivocal evidence indicating such abuse occurred I would accept it and comment as such.

If there was beyond-a-doubt proof I would expect that proof to be spelled out categorically and definitively in official police and autopsy reports, with on-the-record statements and point by point identification.

Yet, 14 years after the fact all we have are some LE and their agents opining in that direction without associated offers of unequivocal proof.


Opinion might be based on facts, but in and of itself opinion is never considered as fact .. except as in attributable testimony, i.e.: "it is a fact that Bob holds that opinion".


I've never commented that JBR's gentialia was not included in the Dec 25th / 26th attack, but on more than one occassion some in this forum have been insistent that I have done so and that I have attempted to "explain away the abuse" as if I have a horse in this race.

I am not an IDI'r.

I am not an RDI'r.

I am not a Ramsey apologist.

I am not an Intruder Excluder.

I have no horse in this race.

I have no preconception of anyones guilt in this case

I do have preconception of everyones innocence, unless proven otherwise.

I respect that others believe JBR was sexually molested prior to the date of her being murdered.

I have asked questions in this forum regarding aspects of the autopsy report and of LE's comments and of WS posters comments .. asking for [implied unequivocal] proof of prior sexual abuse and as of yet, what has been presented as from LE and others could be explained as with alternate cause.

That leaves room for doubt .. and innocent unless proven guilty.

Presentation of chronic disease can overlap presentation of sexual abuse, and vice versa. This fact alone requires that additional, unequivocal proof.

Assumption and opinion can go a long way in helping to solving some cases and in this case as well but certain specifics must go beyond assumption and opinion, as they require provable fact.

To date, no official witness testimony nor confession has been presented.

Most, if not all of R friends and extended family deny that such abuse occurred.

Yes, we all "know" that child molesters are fantastic and magical about hiding their predilection, that no one ever suspects them, that no one is ever aware of the behind-closed-doors abuse going on under their very noses ... even to a point where it appears a conspiracy.

But, do we really know? Is that above paragraph text so definitive and factual that it is always without exception?

In previous decades, that might have been closer to 100% "always".

Today, I suspect it is less than 100% "always". We live in a different age. Such a topic is not as taboo and ignored and swept under the rug as it was once.

Then-upcoming generations were taught and were made aware of the prevalence of such occurrence, and to be on watchful look-out and to be wareful of the signs, and then to speak up as with evidence! That continues to this day.

now .. where is the proof?

I respect others opinions. I expect that in return. Park the snide at the door. Please.

:twocents: :angel: :twocents:

 

[ChuckMaureen]

There was NO exploratory exam performed on JB by her doctor, by his own admission. NO pelvic exam, NO internal observation. He examined her externally and that was all. I have never seen any report of Patsy being given creams to use on JB INTERNALLY, and if you have a link to such information please share it.

I am searching for what you ask. I'll post if I find it.

In the interim, this is interesting reading .. includes Beuf comments:

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm

In an interview with KUSA-TV, JonBenet's pediatrician, Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the child had ever experienced sexual abuse.

"I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse," he said. "I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse. She was a very much loved child, just as her brother."

Beuf said that as a pediatrician he sees all sorts of children and he can normally tell whether a child is happy.

Beuf described JonBenet as "just a wonderful, happy kid who had the strength to deal with some very tough situations with regard to her mother's illness."

Of such childhood stress in cancer situation, I can speak firsthand.

I expect JBR's bed-wetting episodes where indication of stress resulting from the aura of her mother's cancer situation.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

There was NO exploratory exam performed on JB by her doctor, by his own admission. NO pelvic exam, NO internal observation. He examined her externally and that was all. I have never seen any report of Patsy being given creams to use on JB INTERNALLY, and if you have a link to such information please share it.

I stand corrected regarding internal examination .. Beuf commented he performed no internal exam of JBR's vagina, but he did not mention of treatment one way or the other. Is there text indicating there was no treatment?

Below are his comments regarding the examination topic.

It does cause me to revisit, but Beuf's comments in this article might make me remain with my opinion.

http://wikipageant.com/1/visit/my/ads/1/jonbenet_ramsey.htm

In addition, under microscopic examination, the vaginal mucosa was found "to contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/humen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A smaller number of red blood cells are present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen." [6]

But, what does this actually explain? Simply, JonBenet was injured vaginally. We cannot answer the questions -- why or who? We have one clue -- vaginal injury. Why does JonBenet have this injury? Was she sexually molested by some deranged pedophile intruder? Or, was this staging to make it appear as though a sexual assault took place? Since we already have a motive -- motive 1: kidnapping, it is not a difficult stretch to come to the conclusion that this motive was also false.

In a Primetime Live interview on September 10, 1997, Dr. Francesco Beuf, JonBenet's pediatrician, is interviewed:

"DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?
Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of." [7]

Although Dr. Beuf did not note any personality changes during the office visits between JonBenet and himself, he cannot state conclusively there was no internal damage because he never gave JonBenet an internal exam. JonBenet was seen five or six times in a three year period where an external vaginal exam was necessary; on three occasions JonBenet presented with pain on urination. Dr. Beuf explains the cause of these symptoms:

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: "For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have four-year-old kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age." [7]

Despite the conclusions drawn by Dr. Beuf, Dr. Ann S. Botash, Director of Child Abuse Referral and Evaluation Program and Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics, State University of New York Upstate Medical University suggests, "In the US: Vaginitis is common in adult women and uncommon in prepubertal girls." [8]

According to one study by the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information who prioritize injuries to diagnose sexual abuse: "Lower probability genital findings are as follows:

"vaginal erythema,
increased vascularity,
synechiae,
labial adhesions,
vulvovaginitis, and
chronic urinary tract infections.

Erythema or redness and swelling might be caused by genital manipulation or intrusion perpetrated by a significantly older person. However, it might also be the result of poor hygiene, diaper rash, or perhaps the child's masturbation. Increased vascularity, synechiae, and labial adhesions may be a consequence of sexual abuse, but they are common findings in children with other genital complaints.

Vulvovaginitis and chronic urinary tract infections can be sequelae of sexual abuse but also can be caused by other circumstances, such as poor hygiene, a bubble bath, or, in the case of urinary tract infections, taking antibiotics."

 

[ChuckMaureen]

There was NO exploratory exam performed on JB by her doctor, by his own admission. NO pelvic exam, NO internal observation. He examined her externally and that was all. I have never seen any report of Patsy being given creams to use on JB INTERNALLY, and if you have a link to such information please share it.

The interview below includes PR verifying she had treated JBR with Desitin. I can find no reference of Beuf ever prescribing treatment other than he suggesting for JBR to bath and learn for a better wipe habit.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-sexual-abuse.htm

June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth (JonBenet prior sexual abuse)

0575
8 TOM HANEY: Okay. And did JonBenet
9 have on more than one occasion some vaginitis or
10 infection or--
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she would,
12 like we talked about earlier, you know, her
13 wiping habits weren't terrific. And so she had
14 urinated, maybe she wouldn't wipe properly and
15 her panties would get wet, a little damp, which
16 would cause a little irritation, you know, kind
17 of like diaper rash and the same with you know,
18 bowel movements. You know.
19 So I would use -- a lot of time I
20 used Desitin or something, she had some redness,
21 you know, so I used Desitin.

0576
13 TOM HANEY: You know, how often?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: You know, I don't
15 know. I just kept the tube in her bathroom
16 drawer there. If she complained that her bottom
17 was hurting I would take a little on a tissue,
18 you know, and put it on there. Not very often.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

A more complete transcript of the Sawyer - Beuf interview .. but this transcript suggests vagina exam in questioning with Beuf eventually correcting that:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) But what about those reports that JonBenet's pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, saw JonBenet 30 times in three years?

(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Before your call, I sat down with her chart and counted. It was 27 times.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) This is the first time Dr. Beuf has gone over his records publicly.

(From taped telephone conversation) And is that unusual to see a child that many times?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Not with the kinds of problems which this child had. The majority of them were for sinus infections and for colds.

DIANE SAWYER: And by majority you mean?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably 20 of the lot. I counted three in which she'd complained of some pain in urination. And the rest of them were cold, strep throats, sinus infections.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) So many he said, there was some concern about asthma.

(From taped telephone conversation) How many times did you give her a vaginal examination?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Well, it was five or six times in that three-year period.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) We asked him to specifically review all notes that might pertain. He agreed, citing the frenzy of uninformed speculation. Be warned, these are a doctor's clinical notes about a young patient.

September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea. April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.

October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr. Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.

March 1995 -- abdominal pain and fever. Tests and exam showed no problem.

August 1996 -- another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal. We asked what he made of this number of complaints?

(From taped telephone conversation) Would that be unusual?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have four-year-old kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Dead people don't "bruise". She may have died before the bruise could fully form. The violet discoloration did not happen after death, and certainly didn't belong there.

Discoloration occurs with bleed-out .. and there was no bleed-out.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Prior abuse argument places the carriage before the horse. It uses circular reasoning, a flawed logic.

For arguments sake, take away the murder and the acute injuries and the suspicion surrounding JR and PR. What is there left? Is there enough for a charge of child abuse? No. Why? Because JBR's doctor isn't on board with the idea. JBR's own doctor isn't ready to testify. Even after being asked about it, he's not on board.

Then the accusations fly 'why would he be motivated to admit missing something'. This is simply more circular reasoning. Without the murder, nobody would've asked him about it.

In the absense of unequivocal evidence of abuse (MD's are on both sides, so its not unequivocal) some corroborating evidence or testimony that was not collected in response to a murder would be required. This is in order for the prior abuse argument to not appear fueled simply by the murder itself and the suspicion it raises. Suspicion of JR, PR, her doctor, or anyone else who doesn't participate in the argument.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

The FACT is the erosion itself which was included in the report. The difference of opinion here is what caused it. It is not common in girls of her age. I do not see it as having an innocent explanation, and neither did the coroner. As other kinds of objects may be able to produce the same result, it would be unlikely to be able to prove it was a finger and not something else. But his opinion was that it was a finger. Had this case come to trial, the coroner would have been called to the witness stand, and if asked, he would have had to repeat what he had told the detectives present at the autopsy.
As has been said before- the coroner's job is to report his findings, not to solve the crime. It was up to the DA to use this information.

I must agree the hymenal erosion was not caused by Beuf examining JBR's vagina, because Beuf commented that he indeed had not explicitly examined JBR's vagina (internal).

Beuf seems quite secure in his opinion JBR was not sexually abused (pre-murder date) .. so we have no erosion caused by pediatric examination of JBR's vagina, but we have 27 office visits, 20 or so for sinus and cold-related issues and the remaining regarding vaginal issues.

How agressive was PR's attention to and treatment of JBR's vaginal issues? PR claimed to have applied Desitin, but not very often. It seems not enough to have caused hymenal erosion.

I wonder if there is confirmation that JBR's hymen was indeed "intact" (less than the at-death opening sized @ 1cm.) and in a non-eroded state and normal throughtout JBR's life until becoming 'altered'?

Was the coroner aware of JBR's vaginal medical history?

 

[claudicici]

..this is what I don't get..the 1cm how could that have happened that night?
there's no way.I just can't imagine that.
As a mother I also can't imagine my 6 year old daughter having to have repeated vaginal exams.I don't know of anyone who's child had to have that kind of exam at that age...
I almost feel as if PR was reaching out to the DR.As if she wanted him to examine further instead of reassuring her again and again nothing's wrong it's the bubble baths .....

 

[ChuckMaureen]

BBM

Please show me the evidence that says JonBenet did not have the demeanor of an abused child. I say if you believe that she did not, you have never been around an abused child. It's a shame. No one listened or seen the signs in her life and won't accept them in her death. This child never had a chance.

Beuf suggests JBR appeared as a "happy kid".

And I mention this in another post .. I have firsthand experience of how a parent's cancer situation can be quite stressful to a child. The accumulation of stress can trigger bed-wetting episodes .. this is for those who might attempt to define JBR's bed-wetting as being a result of sexual abuse. I am NOT commenting that I believe bed-wetting might not be a result of abuse but that in this case, there is a possible alternate cause (PR's cancer and resultant appearance and possible demeanor change).

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm

In an interview with KUSA-TV, JonBenet's pediatrician, Francesco Beuf, said he never saw any indication that the child had ever experienced sexual abuse.

"I can tell you as far as her medical history is concerned there was never any hint whatsoever of sexual abuse," he said. "I didn't see any hint of emotional abuse or physical abuse. She was a very much loved child, just as her brother."

Beuf said that as a pediatrician he sees all sorts of children and he can normally tell whether a child is happy.

Beuf described JonBenet as "just a wonderful, happy kid who had the strength to deal with some very tough situations with regard to her mother's illness.