Prior Vaginal Trauma

[Holdontoyourhat]

The DNA and prior abuse are not mutually exclusive.

If prior abuse happened and in a separate incident an unknown male intruder killed JBR, wouldn't that be astronomically remote? I mean a 6 year old victimized twice in separate incidents? Was there some other IDI theory whereby an unknown male who previously abused JBR then killed her on another day?

While this discussion on prior abuse is sometimes interesting it seems to factor out other evidence. IOW the DNA tends to direct the IDI theories toward an unknown male who did not previously abuse JBR. So the discussion on prior abuse becomes somewhat moot, at least within IDI.

It also fails to characterize the killer who thru both words and deeds has demonstrated a capacity for brutal violence directed at children. Not likely a situational molester who nobody ever saw or knew about AND JBR kept quiet about.

 

[MurriFlower]

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:

:clap::clap::clap:

Wow!!

 

[MurriFlower]

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.

DD I'd be surprised if any IDI denies she was sexually abused on the night of her murder!!

What I dispute is that there is any real evidence that she was PREVIOUSLY SEXUALLY ABUSED. Nothing I have seen so far is convincing in this regard.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I should think I do not have to prove a negative, i.e.: that she did not .. I expect someone would have to prove that she did.

If you have read everything available on JonBenet and can still come to the conclusion that she wasn't abused, you won't be convinced no matter what anyone says. Your rose colored glasses seem to be working pretty well. God forbid any of these things happen to someone you love, it's almost guaranteed you won't see it.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

If you have read everything available on JonBenet and can still come to the conclusion that she wasn't abused, you won't be convinced no matter what anyone says. Your rose colored glasses seem to be working pretty well. God forbid any of these things happen to someone you love, it's almost guaranteed you won't see it.

All of LE and ME and doctors observation and opinion of the state of JBR .. has been based on post-mortem observation and examination of the body, and of testimony review and even possibly, after years of stagnant investigation, a pressure to reach to assured conclusion and conviction.


The only doctor (that we know, Francesco Beuf) to have observed JBR (re: vaginal issues) with a relative frequency while she was alive, as compared to those who have not had that opportunity, offers the following:

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

bbm

Quote:

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.

Again, that from a doctor who had observed JBR during while she was alive, and on numerous occassion.

Other web sites offer Beuf's commentary where he provided additional detail of those visits with JBR and reported that he never observed something that would lead him to believe abuse was taking place ... not physically nor emotionally.

This doctor knew the Rs before JBR was murdered. This doctor experienced the R children both from a professional perspective, and I expect even at least slightly through the prism of himself being a father.

In another interview transcript, Beuf offers that he has reported incidents of sexual abuse during his career.

There is no evidence to indicate nor even suggest that Beuf is covering for anyone in this case.

It could be argued that Beuf would have incentive to cover for himself, but that would suggest he "knew" or "held an opinion" that JBR was experiencing on-going abuse, that he chose to ignore it and allow for that young girl to continue experiencing said abuse, that he was willing to risk his practice and possibly his freedom (conspiracy charge) .. that he, as a doctor and a father would be so cold and distant from his medical and child charges as to allow such evil to prevail.


Not buying that doughnut ... the hole is too large.


What I have read (and based on trend, I expect that which I have yet to read) seem only to provide a mix of post-mortem 'fact' and 'opinion' and even disparity between sources that purport to provide a same "fact" or interview transcript.

IMO, that which is reported as fact and taken in totality, does not provide in unequivocal proof as to on-going sexual abuse.

Abuse during the murder seems undisputed. As to previous to the date of JBR's murder? Only opinion and conjecture.

I do admit what I had thought I had read regarding Beuf and vaginal examination and treatment helped lead me to more positive conclusion that that was as alternate cause.

I now recently realize that that evidence does not exist, that Beuf indeed had not actually examined the internals of JBR's vagina .. but that does not diminsh the fact that in totality as I observer it, even minus that piece .. I see no unequivocal proof of on-going abuse.

The fact that Beuf didn't look inside and did not experience the opportunity to see something that might or might not have been there does not lead me to believe that it was there .. even given the post-mortem observation. I see it as more of a possibility than I had previously thought but again, other evidence precludes me from going that far.

again .. where is the proof?

 

[BBB167893]

And of all that was shown to the panel of experts, how much of that included reports and / or photos and / or testimony from Dr. Bleuf and / or other doctors whom might have examined and treated JBR over the years?

I see no mention of that.

Wouldn't that have been unethical? Moreover, just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean there was none. The problem here is, since Dr. beuf admitted that he never looked in the first place, I fail to see what benefits could be derived.

Is it possible the investigator(s) were seeking for a specific set of responses from the panel of experts?

Ugh, like I've never heard THAT before. More conspiracy theories. Even IF I were to consider that, given the credentials of the people I mentioned, I'm hard-pressed to believe they wouldn't have thought of these things already.

I would hope even that panel of experts would admit they should have been shown records of JBR's medical history.

There was something Dr. Rau said that leads me to believe that. I'll see if I can find it.

Vaginitis is never referred to in the quoted text.

Maybe with good reason?

The "initial" or "prior" injury described in the quoted text above could be explained given the diagnosis and treatment of JBR's vaginitus condition.

I doubt that.

the hymenal opening likely would have to have been widened to accept a pediatric speculum or fiberoptic visual tool and / or to apply treatment

AHA! I got you Chuck, because I know that a speculum was never USED on JB while she was alive.

Given what I have to work with, Chuck, I'll need more than "maybes."

 

[BBB167893]

That doesn't appear to be the case in his actual findings on the subject of child sexual abuse. Part of the article I reproduce here:

"Recent research by John McCann on the ano/genital anatomy in nonabused children has established that findings often attributed to sexual abuse are found in many normal children. McCann's findings were applied to 158 children who had been medically examined in cases of alleged sexual abuse. Nearly all the findings attributed to sexual abuse were present in McCann's sample of nonabused children. " snip

That kind of strengthens my argument, doesn't it? He knows what to look for.

"Pediatricians and other qualified physicians refused to do such examinations, deferring to those few who claimed to be "specialists." Law enforcement and child protection workers quickly learned which examiners were likely to make findings supportive of an allegation of molest. Most often these examiners were attached to a "sex abuse team."

That's WHY McCann had to come up with such specific criteria. He'd been doing this for a while.

 

[BBB167893]

claudicici,

JonBenet was a sex abuse victim, there are many who do not believe such actions occur, particularly in the wealthy classes where greater virtue is said to exist as a result of their work ethic.

Sadly true.

To have abuse deniers on board actively suggesting that the BPD told deliberate lies, that the evidence does not support a conclusion of prior e.g chronic, molestation, appears to suggest their motivation may be pecunary?

That's about the only explanation I can come up with, UKGuy. I honestly don't see what is so damn hard to understand about all of this!

 

[BBB167893]

I am not including for class and social status in my observations regarding whether or not JBR was sexually abused prior to the date of her murder.

Given JBR's published medical history, and lack of family and friend witness and opinion, lack of a "perception of", lack of abuse history, lack of a "hint of", lack of telling parental demeanor and lack of JBR demeanor that might suggest sexual abuse, I can not conclude for on-going sexual abuse.

Problem with that, Chuck, is that the majority of abused kids show no demeanor issues. If they don't tell anyone, who would know?

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Beck.

 

[BBB167893]

What is the motivation for someone supporting a conclusion of chronic prior molestation where they are provided with no evidence?

I don't know. As soon as I FIND someone like that, I'll let you know!

To take an 'expert's' opinion, which is clearly subjective given that he was not present at autopsy, and attribute these findings to her having been abused by her father/brother/grandfather (any or all) over a period of time (prior to the sexual abuse that occurred at the time of her death), in order to support their theory that she was not killed by an intruder by by a member of her own family, sounds rather like someone who hopes to make a few dollars from it by writing a little old book. Pecuniary more likely.

I'll ignore that cheap shot.

 

[UKGuy]

DD I'd be surprised if any IDI denies she was sexually abused on the night of her murder!!

What I dispute is that there is any real evidence that she was PREVIOUSLY SEXUALLY ABUSED. Nothing I have seen so far is convincing in this regard.

MurriFlower,

Absence of evidence does not mean there is an absence of prior molestation. Presumably you think all the medical experts are wrong in their conclusions of prior abuse, and you with whatever expertise you have in this area has decided there was none.

The detectives in the BPD were given a tutorial on female genitalia, then they were shown pictures of JonBenet's genitals. They decided there was prior molestation, are they just mistaken, and if so why?


.

 

[BBB167893]

Not in 6 year old girls. You amaze me as well- as do some others here- in what you are willing to excuse and deny when it comes to the sexual abuse of a child.
Whether her abuser was a family member or not, this little girl was sexually abused. And to see her injuries portrayed as self-inflicted or somehow related to activities she may have taken part in is more than sickening. It is heartbreaking.

Yeah, that about sums up my feelings. I'd add in words like despicable.

 

[BBB167893]

I think misinformation presented as fact is also inexcusable.

I agree! I've seen enough of it to last be a lifetime!

 

[BBB167893]

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence-of-Prior-Sexual-Abuse
•FBI Assessment. "The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher)

•Expert Panel. "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused." (Thomas 2000a:253; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher).


http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0
Pathologists working with Boulder police say that JonBenet's vagina showed indications of long-term sexual abuse, according to Det. Thomas, citing "a panel of pediatric experts from around the country." He doesn't name them. He writes there were "no dissenting opinions among them."
"We gathered affidavits stating in clear language," he writes, "that there were injuries (to JonBenet's vagina) 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse'....'There was chronic abuse'...'Past violation of the vagina'... 'Evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse.'"
"One expert summed it up well," Thomas writes, "when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who was being physically abused."
Apparently referring to the reports of the pathologists, Det. Haney told Patsy during the 1998 interview that police had "reliable medical information" that JonBenet had been sexually abused well prior to her death. Haney did not indicate how often JonBenet had been abused, but the conclusion of the medical experts that the abuse had occurred well prior to her death meant that if JonBenet had been murdered by an intruder, the intruder wasn't responsible for the sexual abuse, unless the intruder was someone who had also been alone with JonBenet on numerous occasions well before her death.
"That's one of the things that's been bothering us about this case," Haney said.
"No damned kidding," Patsy said.
"What does it tell you?

-------------------------------------------------------

Bravo, HOTYH! Now we're getting somewhere!

I can't seem to find exactly who was on ST's 'expert panel'. I notice he doesn't list them, and you'd think he would upon introducing such a damning statement!

To tell the truth, HOTYH, I'm surprised he didn't. But you're in luck, my friend, because help is on the way! Other sources, PMPT among them, do provide their names:

-Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital);

-Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School;

-Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at University of Colorado Health Sciences Center;

-Dr. Ronald Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois;
-Dr. Virginia Rau of Dade County, Florida;

-and Dr. John McCann, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department. of Pediatrics at University of California at Davis.

Glad I could help!

Anyway there seems to be MD's on both sides of the issue. Just like the ransom note, where there are 'experts' on both sides.

I wouldn't get too happy, HOTYH. The FBI was referring to the ACUTE injuries. That's all. Now, as for there being MD's on both sides, no one who examined the tissue slides dissented.

 

[BBB167893]

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

I didn't expect it WOULD be. The autopsy report just describes the injuries. What caused them is what the coroner would tell a jury.

 

[BBB167893]

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 was WAITING for someone to mention that!

 

[ChuckMaureen]

Hi, superdave,

bubm

Bravo, HOTYH! Now we're getting somewhere!

// snippage //

I wouldn't get too happy, HOTYH. The FBI was referring to the ACUTE injuries. That's all. Now, as for there being MD's on both sides, no one who examined the tissue slides dissented.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...r-Sexual-Abuse

•FBI Assessment. "The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher)

Ok, so the FBI was referring to the "acute" injuries ...

• and those injuries are "not consistent with a history of sexual abuse."
• and the FBI "had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse." (assumed as) beyond the "acute" injuries.

FBI. No history of sexual abuse. Case closed.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Except you CAN'T separate them, HOTYH. They go hand in hand. Look, as willing as I am to concede that you may be right if JB were still alive, a living child and a dead one are different kettles of fish. You call it "circular reasoning," but to me, when a kid ends up dead in her own home with sexual injuries and there's even a slightest hint of prior abuse, it's common-f***ing-sense.

As for JB's doctor being on board or not, does the name "Ricky Holland" mean anything to anyone here? His pediatrician didn't think anything was wrong, either, and he wound up being murdered by his father.

Quite frankly, Chuck's dismissal of how often abuse goes undetected is not just wrongheaded, it's downright dangerous. Far as I'm concerned, that's precisely the problem, not just in this case, but in general. We all think we're so hip to the problem, but every single thing has to go exactly right to catch a molester. By then it could be too late, as I believe it was too late in this case.

That's my argument. And you can hang my butt from a flagpole, but I'm sticking with it.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

Now we're talking, Chuck!