Was JonBenet sexually abused in the strictest sense of this term?

I am a fence sitter, I do not believe or purport to know for certain who murdered JonBenet, but I do understand how one's opinion that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to her death could sway someone to believe that she was killed by someone she knew/someone in her family. This reasoning seems plausible, i.e., for someone to sexually abuse JonBenet over the long term they would have to have been in close proximity and had access to her.

What I would like to know is where do these ideas that JonBenet was sexually abused come from? Yes, I know that there was evidence of prior trauma to the vaginal area in the autopsy report, a 1 X 1 cm hole in the hymen, repeated visits to the doctor for yeast infections, and someone somewhere mentioned that JonBenet had a vaginal opening a lot bigger than other children her age (by the way, who said this, where is it cited, and why wasn't it noted in the autopsy). But this information alone does not imply that JonBenet was sexually abused.

Just thinking outloud here... Patsy admits that she was lax in her toliet training practices with JonBenet because of her ordeal and hospitalization with cancer, but even if she had been the most diciplined in toliet training, it is not uncommon for children of this age to be bedwetters, especially if they were under so much pressure to be perfect as it seems JonBenet was and if they experience the hospitalization and subsequent separtion from a significant caregiver (i.e., Patsy) at an early age. But the fact that JonBenet was a bedwetter does not imply that she was sexually abused.

Is there scientific evidence to support the idea that bedwetting can cause yeast infections as some people on this site have asserted?

About the tear in the hymen and size of the vaginal opening, isn't it possible that any combination of things besides sexual abuse could have caused this?... Horseback riding, masturbation, the new bicycle she was seen riding on Christmas morning, or perhaps the administration of medication (vaginal suppositories/applicator tubes of medicinal creme) for treatment of yeast infections. I am no expert on the treatment of yeast infections, but I have seen enough commercials and magazine ads to know that many treatments involve insertion of some applicator tube of medicine or suppository into the vagina. Would these treatments alone be enough to cause a tear or stretching of the vagina?

I have also read on another post the suggestion that Patsy was using douches on JonBenet as treatment for her yeast infections or as a cancer prevention. Perhaps Patsy had a fear that JonBenet would get cancer as well and this fear led to a strict regime of douching, cleaning her private area, etc. There is scientific evidence that excessive douching can lead to yeast infections, and that infections in general in the urinary/pelvic/genital region can lead to incontinence/bedwetting. So maybe JonBenet wasn't sexally abused in the strictest sense of the word, i.e., her body was not invaded for the gratification of another, but rather she was subject to an excessive cleansing regime based on an obsessive fear by Patsy that JonBenet would otherwise get cancer.

Sometimes when we are given a set of observable facts (i.e., tear in the hymen, vaginal trauma, etc.) it is quite easy to make a jump to conclude one scenario (sexual abuse). I am reminded of the old joke "What animal is gray, has big ears, and a trunk?" First thing kids think of is an elephant, but the answer is a mouse with a suitcase. Maybe that is the case here, maybe the facts fit another scenario.

PS. Yes, I am aware of the evidence that JonBenet had fibers on her genital area from JR's clothing, but as I have posted before, this information alone does not mean she was sexually abused. She lived in the same house and shared the same washer/dryer as her family, her father could have helped her get out of the bath and thus transfered fibers, or any other plausible, non-sexual way.

I think you make some good points, leigh.


My daughter has been plagued by yeast infections since birth. It really bothers me to read an accusation by people that JBR's infections were caused by molestation. While I'm sure they can be, there are also numerous other causes. Yeast infections in young girls is actually quite common. Many girls are genetically prediposed to have frequent recurrences. I know, because the women in my family are. My daughter was born with thrush (yeast in the mouth), which basically would not go away for the first two years of her life, despite multiple treatments with different meds. She also was frequently treated for skin yeast on her bottom while in diapers. Moisture from urine created prime breeding ground for the fungus, even though I would change her diaper immediately. There was no containing it. Yeast is a nasty fungus...ever heard of systemic yeast infections? If not, google it.

edited to say:
Chronic, or systemic, yeast infections can also cause the "chronic inflammation" noted on the autopsy report.

also edited to add:
The standard treatment of vaginal yeast infections in children is a topical ointment called Nystatin. There should be no penetration- no Monistat- used on young girls. Therefore, the hymenal damage should not have occured this way. That is not to say that Patsy wasn't anal enough to try adult cream on JBR, but she shouldn't have. It is not safe. And douching?? Horribly bad for everyone- adults included.

leighl said:

What I would like to know is where do these ideas that JonBenet was sexually abused come from? Yes, I know that there was evidence of prior trauma to the vaginal area in the autopsy report, a 1 X 1 cm hole in the hymen, repeated visits to the doctor for yeast infections, and someone somewhere mentioned that JonBenet had a vaginal opening a lot bigger than other children her age (by the way, who said this, where is it cited, and why wasn't it noted in the autopsy). But this information alone does not imply that JonBenet was sexually abused.

Just thinking outloud here... Patsy admits that she was lax in her toliet training practices with JonBenet because of her ordeal and hospitalization with cancer, but even if she had been the most diciplined in toliet training, it is not uncommon for children of this age to be bedwetters, especially if they were under so much pressure to be perfect as it seems JonBenet was and if they experience the hospitalization and subsequent separtion from a significant caregiver (i.e., Patsy) at an early age. But the fact that JonBenet was a bedwetter does not imply that she was sexually abused.


About the tear in the hymen and size of the vaginal opening, isn't it possible that any combination of things besides sexual abuse could have caused this?... Horseback riding, masturbation, the new bicycle she was seen riding on Christmas morning, or perhaps the administration of medication (vaginal suppositories/applicator tubes of medicinal creme) for treatment of yeast infections. I am no expert on the treatment of yeast infections, but I have seen enough commercials and magazine ads to know that many treatments involve insertion of some applicator tube of medicine or suppository into the vagina. Would these treatments alone be enough to cause a tear or stretching of the vagina?



Sometimes when we are given a set of observable facts (i.e., tear in the hymen, vaginal trauma, etc.) it is quite easy to make a jump to conclude one scenario (sexual abuse). I am reminded of the old joke "What animal is gray, has big ears, and a trunk?" First thing kids think of is an elephant, but the answer is a mouse with a suitcase. Maybe that is the case here, maybe the facts fit another scenario.

Click to expand...

I would also like to add that children have been known to play Doctor and nurse or to play out a similiar fantasy. I don't find it unusual that JB's hymen was torn or that the vagina was enlarged. Children are known to be curious about their bodies and the bodies of other children and I don't think JonBenet was an exception.

This is in no way an indication of sexual abuse especially when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever the parents were abusers.
I have no idea why sexual abuse has even been brought into this.

The fact an object was inserted during the crime doesn't mean the crime was sexually motivated. In fact, although I am sure there are exceptions in the sick mind of a pedophile,it leads me to believe the crime was not sexually motivated because most pedophiles have actual intercourse with the child.

Originally Posted by leighl
I am a fence sitter, I do not believe or purport to know for certain who murdered JonBenet, but I do understand how one's opinion that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to her death could sway someone to believe that she was killed by someone she knew/someone in her family. This reasoning seems plausible, i.e., for someone to sexually abuse JonBenet over the long term they would have to have been in close proximity and had access to her.

Click to expand...

Children who are sexually abused and subsequently murdered are most often murdered by their abuser. However, if you examine the evidence it is clear that there was much staging to make it appear that she was killed by a sadistic pedophile who sexually abused her then killed her. The prior sexual abuse noted by many qualified experts is a red flag. It explains WHY the panties were changed, she was cleaned up in her genital region and redressed. What other reason to stage that if not to attempt to cover up the now known prior sexual abuse? An intruder has no reason to stage a crime scene, and the Ramsey's would have no reason to do something as disgusting and vile as shoving a paintbrush handle inter her vagina without a very particular REASON.

Originally Posted by leighl
What I would like to know is where do these ideas that JonBenet was sexually abused come from? Yes, I know that there was evidence of prior trauma to the vaginal area in the autopsy report, a 1 X 1 cm hole in the hymen, repeated visits to the doctor for yeast infections, and someone somewhere mentioned that JonBenet had a vaginal opening a lot bigger than other children her age (by the way, who said this, where is it cited, and why wasn't it noted in the autopsy). But this information alone does not imply that JonBenet was sexually abused.

Click to expand...

Everything you mentioned about the degraded hymen, the twice normal sized opening of her vagina, etc. ARE indications of prior sexual abuse that would have included digital penatration. Dr. Wecht explained that the evidence of tissue healing demonstrated that she was sexually abused 48 to 72 hours prior to her death. Other experts upon further examination including tissue samples/slides concluded that the sexual abuse was chronic. There are MANY posts here and elsewhere that explain this in detail with quotes and links, etc., but quite frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of doing other people's homework for them. There is a search function and it functions quite well. Google is also your friend.

Originally Posted by leighl
Just thinking outloud here... Patsy admits that she was lax in her toliet training practices with JonBenet because of her ordeal and hospitalization with cancer, but even if she had been the most diciplined in toliet training, it is not uncommon for children of this age to be bedwetters, especially if they were under so much pressure to be perfect as it seems JonBenet was and if they experience the hospitalization and subsequent separtion from a significant caregiver (i.e., Patsy) at an early age. But the fact that JonBenet was a bedwetter does not imply that she was sexually abused.

Click to expand...

JBR was not JUST a bedwetter. She urinated and deficated when she was awake as well. THAT is a common symptom of sexual abuse. And Patsy would NEVER admit that she was lax in her toilet training practices... Patsy admit she was a bad mother??? HA!

Originally Posted by leighl
Is there scientific evidence to support the idea that bedwetting can cause yeast infections as some people on this site have asserted?

Click to expand...

Any pediatrician who is presented with a patient that has wetting/soiling issues and also has genital irritation and vaginal yeast infections would be negligent in not concluding that it might be a case of sexual abuse and take the appropriate steps. JBR's pediatrician was negligent in this respect.

Originally Posted by leighl
About the tear in the hymen and size of the vaginal opening, isn't it possible that any combination of things besides sexual abuse could have caused this?... Horseback riding, masturbation, the new bicycle she was seen riding on Christmas morning, or perhaps the administration of medication (vaginal suppositories/applicator tubes of medicinal creme) for treatment of yeast infections. I am no expert on the treatment of yeast infections, but I have seen enough commercials and magazine ads to know that many treatments involve insertion of some applicator tube of medicine or suppository into the vagina. Would these treatments alone be enough to cause a tear or stretching of the vagina?

Click to expand...

The totality of the evidence is highly suggestive of sexual abuse, and the experts have spoken to that. She was sexually abused. Period.

Originally Posted by leighl
I have also read on another post the suggestion that Patsy was using douches on JonBenet as treatment for her yeast infections or as a cancer prevention. Perhaps Patsy had a fear that JonBenet would get cancer as well and this fear led to a strict regime of douching, cleaning her private area, etc. There is scientific evidence that excessive douching can lead to yeast infections, and that infections in general in the urinary/pelvic/genital region can lead to incontinence/bedwetting. So maybe JonBenet wasn't sexally abused in the strictest sense of the word, i.e., her body was not invaded for the gratification of another, but rather she was subject to an excessive cleansing regime based on an obsessive fear by Patsy that JonBenet would otherwise get cancer.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that Patsy was douching her daughter. That's silly rumor. There is no evidence that douching prevents cancer, and I see know reason why Patsy would go against medical advice, and no medical practitioner would advise douching for any reason. The totality of the evidence is highly suggestive of sexual abuse, and the experts said that's what it was.

Originally Posted by leighl
Sometimes when we are given a set of observable facts (i.e., tear in the hymen, vaginal trauma, etc.) it is quite easy to make a jump to conclude one scenario (sexual abuse). I am reminded of the old joke "What animal is gray, has big ears, and a trunk?" First thing kids think of is an elephant, but the answer is a mouse with a suitcase. Maybe that is the case here, maybe the facts fit another scenario.

Click to expand...

THE EXPERTS HAVE SPOKEN.

Originally Posted by leighl
PS. Yes, I am aware of the evidence that JonBenet had fibers on her genital area from JR's clothing, but as I have posted before, this information alone does not mean she was sexually abused. She lived in the same house and shared the same washer/dryer as her family, her father could have helped her get out of the bath and thus transfered fibers, or any other plausible, non-sexual way.

Click to expand...

There was a paintbrush handle stuck up her vagina and you're trying to say she wasn't sexually abused? Granted, the paintbrush handle was part of the staging, but it was shoved in her nonetheless, and we must ask ourselves why. Why was she wiped down in that region, why were her panties changed, why do the Ramsey's lie about her panties being changed, why was she redressed to make it appear that her panties weren't changed? The fibers from JR's shirt are there because his shirt either came into contact with her genitals from sexual abuse immediately prior to her death or was used to clean her genital region afterward. Fibers are ALWAYS significant depending on where they were found and from where they came particularly when there is no logical reason for them to be there and the Ramsey's make statements when questioned denying those items came into contact with those places the fibers were found.

Please... do yourself a favor and put in some research time. These same questions have come up over and over and over again for years.

"What I would like to know is where do these ideas that JonBenet was sexually abused come from? Yes, I know that there was evidence of prior trauma to the vaginal area in the autopsy report, a 1 X 1 cm hole in the hymen, repeated visits to the doctor for yeast infections, and someone somewhere mentioned that JonBenet had a vaginal opening a lot bigger than other children her age (by the way, who said this, where is it cited, and why wasn't it noted in the autopsy). But this information alone does not imply that JonBenet was sexually abused."

You make one good point: sexual abuse is done for the gratification of the abuser. We can't be sure that this was not just physical damage done for other reasons.

"PS. Yes, I am aware of the evidence that JonBenet had fibers on her genital area from JR's clothing, but as I have posted before, this information alone does not mean she was sexually abused. She lived in the same house and shared the same washer/dryer as her family, her father could have helped her get out of the bath and thus transfered fibers, or any other plausible, non-sexual way."

She'd never worn those panties before.

"The totality of the evidence is highly suggestive of sexual abuse, and the experts have spoken to that. She was sexually abused. Period."

Yes, when you take everything into account, it's inescapable.

I think that if there was just a single issue occurring by itself (say, just the vaginitis, or just the torn hymen, or just the abnormally large vaginal opening) that one wouldn't automatically assume sexual abuse, but the fact that they all occur together in one child makes it hard to explain away as anything but sexual abuse. All of these things must be taken together, and cannot be considered in isolation.

I've always thought the crux of this case is the sexual abuse. It's the only thing that explains the Ramseys's behavior and the staging of the body.

Karen

Karen, you just hit it on the head.

I'll dig up what Dr. McCann had to say. He can explain it better than I can.

leighl said:

I am a fence sitter, I do not believe or purport to know for certain who murdered JonBenet, but I do understand how one's opinion that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to her death could sway someone to believe that she was killed by someone she knew/someone in her family. This reasoning seems plausible, i.e., for someone to sexually abuse JonBenet over the long term they would have to have been in close proximity and had access to her.

What I would like to know is where do these ideas that JonBenet was sexually abused come from? Yes, I know that there was evidence of prior trauma to the vaginal area in the autopsy report, a 1 X 1 cm hole in the hymen, repeated visits to the doctor for yeast infections, and someone somewhere mentioned that JonBenet had a vaginal opening a lot bigger than other children her age (by the way, who said this, where is it cited, and why wasn't it noted in the autopsy). But this information alone does not imply that JonBenet was sexually abused.

Just thinking outloud here... Patsy admits that she was lax in her toliet training practices with JonBenet because of her ordeal and hospitalization with cancer, but even if she had been the most diciplined in toliet training, it is not uncommon for children of this age to be bedwetters, especially if they were under so much pressure to be perfect as it seems JonBenet was and if they experience the hospitalization and subsequent separtion from a significant caregiver (i.e., Patsy) at an early age. But the fact that JonBenet was a bedwetter does not imply that she was sexually abused.

Is there scientific evidence to support the idea that bedwetting can cause yeast infections as some people on this site have asserted?

About the tear in the hymen and size of the vaginal opening, isn't it possible that any combination of things besides sexual abuse could have caused this?... Horseback riding, masturbation, the new bicycle she was seen riding on Christmas morning, or perhaps the administration of medication (vaginal suppositories/applicator tubes of medicinal creme) for treatment of yeast infections. I am no expert on the treatment of yeast infections, but I have seen enough commercials and magazine ads to know that many treatments involve insertion of some applicator tube of medicine or suppository into the vagina. Would these treatments alone be enough to cause a tear or stretching of the vagina?

I have also read on another post the suggestion that Patsy was using douches on JonBenet as treatment for her yeast infections or as a cancer prevention. Perhaps Patsy had a fear that JonBenet would get cancer as well and this fear led to a strict regime of douching, cleaning her private area, etc. There is scientific evidence that excessive douching can lead to yeast infections, and that infections in general in the urinary/pelvic/genital region can lead to incontinence/bedwetting. So maybe JonBenet wasn't sexally abused in the strictest sense of the word, i.e., her body was not invaded for the gratification of another, but rather she was subject to an excessive cleansing regime based on an obsessive fear by Patsy that JonBenet would otherwise get cancer.

Sometimes when we are given a set of observable facts (i.e., tear in the hymen, vaginal trauma, etc.) it is quite easy to make a jump to conclude one scenario (sexual abuse). I am reminded of the old joke "What animal is gray, has big ears, and a trunk?" First thing kids think of is an elephant, but the answer is a mouse with a suitcase. Maybe that is the case here, maybe the facts fit another scenario.

PS. Yes, I am aware of the evidence that JonBenet had fibers on her genital area from JR's clothing, but as I have posted before, this information alone does not mean she was sexually abused. She lived in the same house and shared the same washer/dryer as her family, her father could have helped her get out of the bath and thus transfered fibers, or any other plausible, non-sexual way.

Click to expand...

I also agree that you raise some good points - points I have often thought about and points others have raised before.

I believe the totality of the evidence suggest sexual abuse. If it were one or two questionable things, I might sit of the fence more. But, as others have pointed out - and these facts are well-doumented on the internet and on this board, IMO:

-Degraded hymen
-Vaginal opening twice as large as it should be
-Evidence of tissue healing showing abuse to vaginal area days prior to her death
-Soiling/defecating issues while asleep and awake
-More than one vaginal infection/UTI over the years from the medical records we know of (there are several calls to Dr. Boeuf and visits to the school RN that were for issues that havent been disclosed)
-JR fibers found in new underwear she had never worn before
-Sexual staging of crime with paintbrush in vagina yet no other indication of other penetration

I just can't explain every piece of it away - even if I want to because the alternative explanation is so sad.

kayebee said:

I think that if there was just a single issue occurring by itself (say, just the vaginitis, or just the torn hymen, or just the abnormally large vaginal opening) that one wouldn't automatically assume sexual abuse, but the fact that they all occur together in one child makes it hard to explain away as anything but sexual abuse. All of these things must be taken together, and cannot be considered in isolation.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's the totality of the evidence that makes it absolutely clear. :clap:

Leighl said
"I have also read on another post the suggestion that Patsy was using douches on JonBenet as treatment for her yeast infections or as a cancer prevention. Perhaps Patsy had a fear that JonBenet would get cancer as well and this fear led to a strict regime of douching, cleaning her private area, etc. There is scientific evidence that excessive douching can lead to yeast infections, and that infections in general in the urinary/pelvic/genital region can lead to incontinence/bedwetting. So maybe JonBenet wasn't sexally abused in the strictest sense of the word, i.e., her body was not invaded for the gratification of another, but rather she was subject to an excessive cleansing regime based on an obsessive fear by Patsy that JonBenet would otherwise get cancer."


Hi, leigh, I remember reading that Patsy's sister Pam had a hysterectomy because she was afraid of getting cancer. I don't remember the source or if it's true. Patsy also mentioned in one of her early (1st in Atlanta after JonBenet's funeral?) interviews that JonBenet wouldn't have to worry about (suffer with or get?)cancer.

quote=pagingDr.Detect

ST - pg 253*

"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."

Experts' Opinions of Prior Abuse Was Present

PMPT - pg 437

- Dr. Cyril Wecht*

- Dr. David Jones
Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics
University of CO Health Sciences Center

- Dr. James Monteleone
Professor of Pediatrics
St. Louis University School of Medicine
Director of Child Protection
Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital

- Dr. John McCann**
Clincial Professor of Medicine
Dept of Pediatrics
Univeristy of California at Davis

- Dr. Richard Krugman
Dean of Colorado University Health Sciences Center

- Dr. Werner Spitz

- Dr. Ronald Wright
Former Medical Examiner
Cook County Illinois
~Stated flatly that it was clear the girl's vagina had been penetrated. ... He too took issue with Krugman's interpretation: "Somebody's injured her vagina. And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?" Wright asked.~


*Cyril Wecht was indignant with and openly critical of Dr. Krugman's statements:
"How can anybody say, with the blood and the abrasions, that this was not suxual assault? What is he [Krugman] talking about?"
PMPT pg 361

**http://news.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mccann.html
Among his achievements in the field of child abuse, McCann established the standards for what is considered normal and abnormal in child and adolescent examinations. He also developed the "multi-method" examination approach that is now used throughout the western world. His research in the healing of anal and genital injuries in children also is used by examiners to determine evidence of child abuse. His study on postmortem perianal findings in children and adolescents is standard reference in the field, and he has jointly published a cd-rom atlas, called "The Anatomy of Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse," that is used as a reference among examiners everywhere. Moreover, based on his research and reputation, McCann is invited to speak throughout the world, from India to Sweden to England before the British Royal Society of Medicine about the field of child abuse.





Precise summary of physicians' opinions on if there was prior abuse.

Seven physicians on whether or not there was prior sexual abuse of JonBenet.
All seven experts agreed there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse, although one appeared to be undecided.

Five of the medical doctors believed that prior sexual abuse had occurred:

• Cyril Wecht
• David Jones
• James Monteleone
• John McCann
• Ronald Wright

Two of the medical doctors were unclear in their responses:

• Richard Krugman
• Werner Spitz

To think that she got these injuries from horseback riding, bike riding, or masturbation is just ludicrous, IMO!:doh: :snooty: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

P.S. Even a one-time molestation is sexual abuse, it doesn't have to be rape or penile penetration to qualify!!!!!

LinasK said:

quote=pagingDr.Detect

ST - pg 253*

"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."

Experts' Opinions of Prior Abuse Was Present

PMPT - pg 437

- Dr. Cyril Wecht*

- Dr. David Jones
Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics
University of CO Health Sciences Center

- Dr. James Monteleone
Professor of Pediatrics
St. Louis University School of Medicine
Director of Child Protection
Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital

- Dr. John McCann**
Clincial Professor of Medicine
Dept of Pediatrics
Univeristy of California at Davis

- Dr. Richard Krugman
Dean of Colorado University Health Sciences Center

- Dr. Werner Spitz

- Dr. Ronald Wright
Former Medical Examiner
Cook County Illinois
~Stated flatly that it was clear the girl's vagina had been penetrated. ... He too took issue with Krugman's interpretation: "Somebody's injured her vagina. And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?" Wright asked.~


*Cyril Wecht was indignant with and openly critical of Dr. Krugman's statements:
"How can anybody say, with the blood and the abrasions, that this was not suxual assault? What is he [Krugman] talking about?"
PMPT pg 361

**http://news.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mccann.html
Among his achievements in the field of child abuse, McCann established the standards for what is considered normal and abnormal in child and adolescent examinations. He also developed the "multi-method" examination approach that is now used throughout the western world. His research in the healing of anal and genital injuries in children also is used by examiners to determine evidence of child abuse. His study on postmortem perianal findings in children and adolescents is standard reference in the field, and he has jointly published a cd-rom atlas, called "The Anatomy of Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse," that is used as a reference among examiners everywhere. Moreover, based on his research and reputation, McCann is invited to speak throughout the world, from India to Sweden to England before the British Royal Society of Medicine about the field of child abuse.

Abuse or Not Summary​

Precise summary of physicians' opinions on if there was prior abuse.

Seven physicians on whether or not there was prior sexual abuse of JonBenet.
All seven experts agreed there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse, although one appeared to be undecided.

Five of the medical doctors believed that prior sexual abuse had occurred:

• Cyril Wecht
• David Jones
• James Monteleone
• John McCann
• Ronald Wright

Two of the medical doctors were unclear in their responses:

• Richard Krugman
• Werner Spitz

KRUGMAN




PMPT pb pg 467
"JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused on physical findings alone."
Krugman added that the presence of semen, evidence of a STD, or the child's medical history combined with the child's own testimony were the only ways to confirm sexual abuse.

What Krugman has described are general guidelines to identify sexual abuse in a child. Krugman has not denied physical evidence of past sexual abuse, and goes on to describe how to generally identify chronic sexual abuse in a child.

This statement caused Cyril Wecht to publicly criticize Krugman's report. Wecht said "What is Krugman talking about?"

SPITZ
PMPT pb pg 557 & 560
"The injury to JonBenet's vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death -- not earlier."









Spitz was referring to the acute injury to the vagina; that which had occurred that night, not the chronic injury. He made that acute injury conclusion based on Meyer's description of the vaginal mucosa,

"Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen"​

which means there were no white blood cells present at the site of injury, which means she died before the white blood cells could arrive at the site of the injury.





PMPT pb pg 560








Spitz commented on the chronic injuries to the vagina by stating

"There is no clear indication of prior penetration."​

Notice that Spitz did not say there was no prior penetration. He said there was no clear indication of prior penetration; he was cautious and undecided.





JTPF pg 17
Internationally known forensic psychiatrist Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber studied the autopsy report and came to the conclusion that JBR's vaginal injuries, - new and healed - raised the chilling possibility that she had been the victim of sexual abuse in the past - in the weeks or even months prior to the murder.



​

To think that she got these injuries from horseback riding, bike riding, or masturbation is just ludicrous, IMO!:doh: :snooty: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

P.S. Even a one-time molestation is sexual abuse, it doesn't have to be rape or penile penetration to qualify!!!!!

Click to expand...

Thanks LinasK for a great post with links to back up everything. I believe that JonBenet was sexually abused as well.It is almost always someone who has access. Whether this person killed her or others were involved to hide the dysfunction is what we spend our time trying to discern.

The comments about horseback riding, bike riding or masturbation are ludicrous. This is a dysfunctional mind trying to absolve the perp.The reasons are innumerable but the results are dysfunction.There is no other way and JonBenet is dead. Because of someone else and someone else who uses denial as a way to absolve.

I ditto that thanks, LinasK. Great post.

For the posters here who think that John and Patsy Ramsey were these wonderful and loving parents, who could never harm JB, I am wondering what your thoughts are on this information?

Er... LinusK was quoting what I posted. Not to be a pain in the bum, but it took a lot of time to find that info, so credit where it's due, huh?. But thanks LinusK and anyone else that reposted it... it should be plastered all over this site so we don't have to keep arguing the point.

Just because someone asks a question, poses alternative theories for the interpretation of data, or otherwise challenges what someone else has to say, this does not give someone else (many of the posters above included) the right to make a personal attack, e.g., "This is a dysfunctional mind trying to absolve the perp."

I was simply asking a question, that is the purpose of this forum, to discuss, examine the evidence, speculate, challenge ideas, and ultimately find justice for JonBenet in the process. There is no need to make derogatory statements toward or value judgements about someone you don't even know just because they asked a question or posed a point of view contrary to that which you believe.

And to be clear, little to none of the information presented above is fact, no matter how many web links, book citations, so called expert witnesses, etc. you include in your presentation of information as "back up." Quoting someone else does not make your opinion better than another, no matter how many people there are that may agree with you. Of course the physicians and expert witnesses cited above concluded that JonBenet was sexually abused, they were hired to do so in support of the prosecution. The opposing side could probably find just as many expert witnesses to interpret the data with an equally convincing, alternative theory.

Unless one of you guys were the perpetrator (I do not think any of you were, I am not pointing fingers, just making a point), witnessed the alleged abuse, or heard first hand from JonBenet or the perpetrator, then none of you know for certain that she was sexually abused. You are simply attaching a theory to a series of evidence, a partial list of evidence at that -- not all information has been released/leaked to the general public, and even then the crime scene was contaminated so that even the investigators do not have a complete picture of what happened.

All we have to work with in this case is the evidence we are allowed to view. No one here, no matter how long they have been a member on this or another forum, or how much they have read about this case, etc. has some sort of divine right or superior insight on this case. The evidence is neither true nor false, it simply is. We all make interpretations as to what the data means, and only these interpretative theories may later be regarded as true or false.

One final note, the insinuation that discussing a point with someone who does not necessarliy agree with you, or even someone that perhaps agrees but examines other points of view to find something that may have been previously overlooked, is like hitting your head against a brick wall (i.e., :banghead: ) seems to totally conflict the purpose of being part of a forum. Why get so upset to the point of beligerance (on this point, I am not just referring to the replies in this particular post, I have seen it occur in other posts) if someone doesn't agree with you? If you only wanted to be part of a "forum" where people agree with you and constantly pat you on the back for your like-minded opinions, then perhaps you should start up a forum called, e.g., "the only post here if you believe x theory forum." It seems to me that constantly putting forth the same theory, repeating what has already been theorized over and over, despite not solving the case or moving forward, is the behaviour more compatible with hitting one's head against a wall. If we keep trying to interpret the data and solve this case with the same old theories presented over and over in the past ten years, then we will never move forward/find justice for JonBenet: If the key doesn't fit, restart and make a new one. If people would put half the time and energy they have spent getting angry, making rude, belittling remarks, etc. toward opposing views on to the more important task of solving this case, regardless of whether or not the outcome is compatible with one's personal views and prejudices, perhaps this case would have already been solved. So, for the sake of moving forward on JonBenet's behalf, could we all put aside our egos long enough to make a scientific analysis and examination of the data, rather than slapping opposing view points down. It is going to take all of us together, each with our unique experiences and points of view, to solve this.

As I have read the speculation and different opinions about JBRs possible sexual abuse I have grown very uneasy for mothers and fathers of little girls. If this is the assumptions being made when the reason could be equally benign, parents are in grave jeopardy, imo.

There are so many reasons why things appear the way they do that has nothing to do with sexual abuse.

Little girls have been known to erode their hymen just by repetitively riding their bikes or horses. They even fall sometimes on the bike seat and then some poor little girls are just prone to have infections that when healed have left scar tissue especially if it is a reoccurring problem.

I see nothing that shows me JB has ever been previously touched before the night she was murdered.

Imo, we are feeding off of hysteria and sensationalism and that is not the way to go.

Ocean

SuperDave said:

She'd never worn those panties before.

"The totality of the evidence is highly suggestive of sexual abuse, and the experts have spoken to that. She was sexually abused. Period."

Yes, when you take everything into account, it's inescapable.

Click to expand...

There are also experts that have stated JonBenet was not sexually abused.
You are wrong, it is not inescapable.

JonBenet's own physician that had seen her for many years, even stated that she had never seen any signs of sexual abuse. Do you honestly think Burke would have been allowed to live in the house with Patsy & John for the past ten years, if it had been conclusively proven that JonBenet had been sexually abused. Perhaps you can fill me on the reasons why CPS failed to remove Burke from the home and charges were never filed against the Ramsey's for Child abuse.

magnolia said:

There are also experts that have stated JonBenet was not sexually abused.
You are wrong, it is not inescapable.

JonBenet's own physician that had seen her for many years, even stated that she had never seen any signs of sexual abuse. Do you honestly think Burke would have been allowed to live in the house with Patsy & John for the past ten years, if it had been conclusively proven that JonBenet had been sexually abused. Perhaps you can fill me on the reasons why CPS failed to remove Burke from the home and charges were never filed against the Ramsey's for Child abuse.

Click to expand...

Referring to the bolded section above, her physican was a pediatrician who never admitted to doing a pelvic examination on her. He just stated he never saw evidence of molestation. If he didn't do a pelvic exam, how could he know what condition her hyman was in, or the size of her vagina for that matter?

Do you honestly think Burke would have been allowed to live in the house with Patsy & John for the past ten years, if it had been conclusively proven that JonBenet had been sexually abused.

Click to expand...

I do honestly believe that there are those of the Kennedy/Camelot mindset to whom appearances and self-gratification are everything. Often these people are known as Narcissists. Narcissists live in their created world, totally ignoring facts and evidence, and they believe that everyone else views them and their world through their (the Narcissists') eyes.

Here's some info on Narcissism that can be found at http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20051209-000005.xml

"But narcissism isn't just a combination of monumental self-esteem and rudeness. As a personality type, it ranges from a tendency to a serious clinical disorder, encompassing unexpected, even counterintuitive behavior. The Greek myth of Narcissus ends with the beautiful young man lost to the world, content to forever gaze at his own reflection in a pool of water. Real-life narcissists, however, desperately need other people to validate their own worth. "It's not so much being liked. It's much more important to be admired. Studies have shown narcissists are willing to sacrifice being liked if they think it's necessary to be admired," says Roy Baumeister, a social psychologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Deep desire to be at the center of things is served by extreme self-confidence, a combination that makes narcissists attractive and even charming. Buoyed by a coterie of admiring friends and associates—protected by the armor of positive self-regard—someone with a mild-to-moderate case of narcissism can float through life feeling pretty good about himself. Since they feel entitled to special treatment, they are easily offended, and readily harbor grudges. Yet narcissists are often very popular—at least in the short term.

The beauty of being a narcissist is that even when disaster stares you in the face, you feel neither doubt nor remorse. In a recent study, for example, researchers asked a pair of participants to undertake a task that was rigged to fail. Most people tend to protect their partner, sharing either the credit or the blame. "But the narcissists would say, 'It's totally the other person's fault.' They're completely willing to step on someone," says narcissism researcher Keith Campbell, associate professor of social psychology at the University of Georgia.
<snip>
Romantic relationships become just another way for them to pump up their own self-image. Narcissists look for mates with very high social status (for example, looks or success) which complements an inflated sense of self.
<snip>
And after all, they're experts at making people admire them. Best-case scenario: when narcissists date each other. That way, both can have a self-confident, impressive and shallow mate—and leave the rest of us in peace.

etc...."

I believe that PR and JR held onto their Camelot as best they could, but no doubt were shocked that others were view them as possible murderers.

When JR marries again, and he will marry again, it'll be another trophy wife--someone who can feed his ego and believe the webs he weaves. Are there any available Kennedy women right now???

"Little girls have been known to erode their hymen just by repetitively riding their bikes or horses. They even fall sometimes on the bike seat and then some poor little girls are just prone to have infections that when healed have left scar tissue especially if it is a reoccurring problem."

Yeah? So how did her vaginal tissue itself get so worn off?

"JonBenet's own physician that had seen her for many years, even stated that she had never seen any signs of sexual abuse."

Not only had he not seen her for several months, he never performed an internal exam.

"Perhaps you can fill me on the reasons why CPS failed to remove Burke from the home and charges were never filed against the Ramsey's for Child abuse."

I can, but I doubt you'd like it!

Leighl, I was not attacking anyone but the perp.And there was a perp and this person has a dysfunctional mind. I was responding to LinasK and I failed to credit another poster for research but there is nothing else.Honestly,I don't believe I read your post but was looking for links that supported theories and used those and personal experience to make a determination and a statement.This is all my opinion of what transpired.I am not LE.But, this is an opinion and discussion board and this is why wecome here.