I have a question that has bothered me since I started watching the tv specials and also after some things I have read about the case. According to several things I have read, there was suspicion of repeated sexual abuse. Then when I watched the CBS special about the case, there was discussion that indicated they did not believe there was a pattern of sexual abuse. So which is it? I also believe it was on the CBS special that they discussed small pieces of wood found in the vagina that they believed was from the paint brush! Anyone have any thoughts regarding prior sexual abuse? And if so, who was abusing her?
Anyone interested in understanding the supposed sexual abuse of JonBenet can read all the books available on this case and still not have concrete answers to their questions because so much depends on opinion. But in order to form an opinion, a person has to understand the issues that are in dispute. Thomas and Kolar both touch on the subject in their books, but the book by TCDG (
Listen Carefully) goes into much more detail about the autopsy report itself.
Here is what Kolar wrote about it:
The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of “cellulose material” in the membrane of the hymeneal opening consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote.
He (Dr. Meyer) noted that he didn’t consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination, and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child.
Dr. Meyer also observed signs of chronic inflammation around the vaginal orifice and believed that these injuries had been inflicted in the days or weeks before the acute injury that was responsible for causing the bleeding at the time of her death. This irritation appeared consistent with prior sexual contact.
Here is a passage from
Listen Carefully which notes individual parts from the AR with explanations of what they mean:
Microscopic slides of tissue were examined in a later stage of the autopsy and confirmed indications from the external examination that JonBenét had suffered prior, and possibly multiple incidents of sexual abuse, as well as a very recent sexual assault preceding her death. The following points were noted regarding analysis of the vaginal mucosa:
1. All of the sections contain vascular congestion (engorgement of blood visible at the microscopic level) and focal interstitial chronic inflammation (localized inflammation of the connective tissue which, due to its age, had begun the process of healing).
2. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion (erosion of the outer-most layer of cells on the vaginal wall resulting in exposure of the underlying cell structure) with underlying capillary congestion (increased blood flow to the capillaries due to exposure or injury, which is an indication of the body’s healing response).
3. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface (presence of microscopic traces of blood), as is birefringent foreign material (an unknown material found that has the optical property of light refraction).
4. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. (The absence of the migration and accumulation of white blood cells in the tissue sample indicated the injury was so recent, the body did not have time to respond to the damage).
Later, Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to JonBenét’s vaginal area. Dr. Sirontak observed the same injuries Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.
In mid-September [1997], a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation—that JonBenét 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 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.
Then there is this from Steve Thomas (quoted in
Listen Carefully):
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted that abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the number of suspects. Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
The only conclusion I can imagine coming to from all this is that JonBenet had been subjected to some type of abuse prior to, leading up to, and on the night she was killed. It is obvious from this why the Ramseys and the RST would try to diminish or deny the obvious. Continuing abuse implicates either someone from the family or someone close to the family with continued access to JonBenet.
So the question remaining is whether this abuse was
sexual abuse or simply some type of
physical abuse. This issue is best demonstrated in the thinking of, and statements from, Dr. Richard Krugman who was consulted first by the DA’s office, and then by the BPD. Krugman is sometimes cited as having said there was “no evidence of sexual abuse.” But actually the doctor was trying to differentiate between what could be
physical abuse without
sexual intent. IOW he was describing what might be physical abuse intended as punishment without sexual gratification on the part of the person doing it. But he also added that “sexual
intent” could not be determined without confirmed evidence of STD (sexually transmitted disease), the presence of semen, the child’s own testimony, or her medical history.
According to the
Bonita Papers, Krugman “
was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse.” But Krugman just happened to be considered an expert on child abuse that resulted from toileting accidents. He had written several articles on the subject before being called in. When he looked at the evidence and discovered that JonBenet was still wetting her bed, he (not surprisingly) concluded that what he called “toilet rage” was the cause of JonBenet’s genital injuries. If he had thought the injuries were
sexually motivated, it would have contradicted his theory that it happened because of her bedwetting. Steve Thomas became convinced this was the root cause of what happened and developed his theory around Patsy being responsible. To this day, many case followers still believe this to be the reason JonBenet died -- perhaps because of their early development of ideas and reluctance to change those ideas, and perhaps because of the feeling of repulsion that a parent could be guilty of harming their child simply because they had wet the bed.
The reasons Krugman seemed to be reluctant to definitively say that she had been sexually abused are based on his not knowing the intents or motivations of the person inflicting the injuries. IOW, did the person do it for his/her sexual gratification, or were the injuries being done to cause pain or discomfort as some type of punishment and just happened to be inflicted on her genitals? Krugman’s thoughts about this are demonstrated in an interview on
Burden of Proof a year after JonBenet’s death:
COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?
KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.
COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?
KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.
COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.
KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
What Krugman is saying above gets misinterpreted by many when only parts of his statements are quoted. What he seems to be saying is that the genital injuries are believed to be of a “sexual” nature by most people because of their
location. He OTOH is allowing for the possibility that the injuries were simply
physical abuse because of not being able to know the
intent of the perpetrator. Krugman never disputes or diminishes the injuries to JonBenet’s genitals. He only allows for doubt about the
reason for their being inflicted. IOW, because the assailant might not have been seeking sexual gratification, the injuries may have been inflicted only as physical punishment.
I believe that this distinction between
physical and
sexual abuse is what the CBS documentary was trying to say; but because it had been whittled down to 2 hours, they didn’t really fully explain why they were saying there was no sexual abuse. This was a big mistake on their part (IMO), but I think they were also trying to limit what was said about this to lessen their possible liabilities in any threatened legal actions.
As for myself, I’ll go on record as stating I believe the injuries were
not simply inflicted as physical abuse. IMO the person doing this had begun several months prior to her death and had begun escalating the things that were done to the point that the acute injury occurred Christmas night causing her to bleed. But this is the controversy over whether or not she was “
sexually” abused. It’s up to each of us to make our own decision about what we think.
