On prior sexual molestation

On prior sexual molestation

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
jameson

Asheville, NC

#1 Nov 3, 2009
Quotes from A&E documentary
.
Tracey to Dr. Beuf: JonBenet was brought to see you on 27 occasions. Does this number of visits strike
you as excessive?
Dr. Beuf: No, I don't think it's excessive under the circumstances. I went through her chart and
summarized the types of visits she had in the office in the few years prior to her death. She was here three
times for annual well-child visits, one time for stomach ache, one time for vaginitis, one time for a bruised
nose from a fall at a local market, and 21 times for colds, sinusitis, ear infections, bronchitis, pneumonia,
hay fever, and possible asthma. A pretty wide spectrum of generally allergy and respiratory system
associated problems which are not uncommon with kids her age.
Tracey: So that number 27, one would expect that other children would have similar numbers of
visits?
Dr. Beuf: Some more and in some cases less than others.
Tracey: In that kind of time frame?
Dr. Beuf: Yes.
Tracey: Did you see any signs of any kind of sexual or physical abuse of JonBenet Ramsey?
Dr. Beuf: I saw absolutely no signs of sexual abuse. I had no suspicion of it.
Man: Other media stories have suggested that vaginal inflamation released in the autopsy
report suggests previous sexual abuse. This conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical
opinion.
Dr. Thomas Henry:{Denver Medical Examiner} From what is noted in the autopsy report, there is no
evidence of injury to the anus, there is no evidence of injury to the skin around the vagina, the labia.
There is no indication of healed scars in any of those areas. There is no other indication from the autopsy
report at all that there is any other previous injuries that have healed in that area.
Man: But the absence of physical evidence in itself is not conclusive. So is there any other
evidence for the media's claim?
Man: Lucinda Johnson is John Ramseys first wife.
Man to Lucinda: A blunt question, is John Ramsey a child abuser?
Lucinda: No he is not. He is affectionate, he is kind and very gentle.
Man: Any suggestions from other family, other friends, school friends, so on, that that may
be the case.
Lucinda: No. There have never been other suggestion from any other source.
jameson

Asheville, NC

#2 Nov 3, 2009
Man: Peggy Ramsey, John's sister-in-law. Is John someone who would abuse children?
Peggy: No. No he is not and it hurts so much that people would even say it or think it. There is
no truth to that. If we thought there was, we certainly would have spoken up as a family. We
would have gotten together and said, look, you know, you need help but nothing like that ever, ever,
ever crossed our minds.
Man: John Ramsey's first son, John Andrew:
John Andrew: No, there was never any abuse in my family. Zero. None. There was never any
touching or anything weird that might be kind of seen as sexual abuse by some. Never.
Man: This is John Ramsey's oldest daughter, Melinda.
Melinda: I'm John Ramseys daughter. I grew up with him, he raised me and I saw him raise JonBenet
and I don't understand why they don't believe me --- That he is the most caring father in the world. He
has never, ever, ever abused us in any way. I just wish I could say something to convince them.
Man: These are family members but what they are saying is supported by Boulder social services.
After the murder they videotaped a long interview with JonBenét's 9 year old brother Burke. The police
watched from behind a two way mirror. Social Services later reported that there was no indication of
either physical or sexual abuse.
The police declined to take part in this program but even their inquiry supports the family.
Many months of investigation into possible sexual abuse, according to one law enforcement
official, had yielded zero - "Friggin' Zero!"
~~~~~~~~~~
From Schiller's book -- page 305 - "The FBI believed that JonBenét's vaginal trauma was not consistant
with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse." They felt
the sexual assault was not done for personal gratification but for staging.
.
jameson

Asheville, NC

#3 Nov 3, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~
On five occasions he did a brief examination of the external genitalia. He said on Primetime live that he
never did a speculum exam and did not suggest in any way that he did any type of internal exam. Here
is the information on those 5 "vaginal" exams.
.
9/1993 -age 3 - JonBenét had had a recent bout of diarrhea and was complaining of pain during
urination and there was vaginal redness. Typical treatment would be plain water baths, possibly use of
an ointment.
.
4/1994 - age 3 - another visit concerning pain during urination - possibly related to bubble bath (a
known irritant). This is in the doctor's records and appears to be the only time bubble bath caused the
problem. Again, the typical treatment would be plain water baths and possibly an ointment.
.
10/1994 - age 4 - a routine physical, no inflammation noted. It WAS noted that she OCCASIONALLY
wet the bed - not unusual - Dr. Beuf told Primetime live that 20-25% of children wet the bed
occasionally at the age of 4.
.
3/1995 - age 4 - JonBenét was brought to the doctor with abdominal pain and fever. He did a full
physical check on her and ran tests.
.
8/1996 - age 5 - A routine physical (possibly a pre-school exam). Nothing noted as abnormal.
.
This is the extent of the external "vaginal" exams performed on JonBenét.(ò¿ó Since the
only times she had genital irritations were over three years before the murder, I think they have to be
considered unrelated to the crime.)
.
The last time Dr. Beuf saw JonBenét as a patient was five weeks before she died - a check-up after a
sinus infection.
.
After the murder, Dr. Beuf issued a statement - "My office treated JonBenét Ramsey from March,
1993 through December, 1996. Throughout this period, there has been absolutely no evidence of abuse
of any kind."
.
On February 14, 1997, Dr. Beuf was interviewed on KUSA-TV. He reported that they did ask him
about prior sexual abuse of JonBenét. His answer? "I told them absolutely, categorically no. There was
absolutely no evidence - either physical or historical."
.
In the British Documentary produced in the first half of 1998, Dr Beuf said , "I saw absolutely no signs
of sexual abuse. I had no suspicion of it. I always think about sexual abuse with any child ... who comes
through this practice, because it is such a terribly destructive thing ... in JonBenét's case I saw
absolutely no evidence."

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#4 Nov 3, 2009
The Ramseys were a cash cow for Dr. Beuf and he wasn't looking for signs of digital penetration.

Yes, I think Dr. Beuf was lying FOR the Ramseys and if he wants to come here and sue me, fine, let him. I know some things about Dr. Beuf, so I'm not waiting on a lawsuit.

Experts on child molestation said JB's autopsy showed signs of prior molestation, prior to that night, prior to being molested by someone with a paint brush. I can post that expert testimony here, but not now. I have to go out. Plenty of other posters can post the information as well.

What's wrong, jameson? Why come out of your hole? Are people getting too close to the truth for you to handle? Irrefutable truth?
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#5 Nov 3, 2009
CSIEngland wrote:
Experts on child molestation said JB's autopsy showed signs of prior molestation, prior to that night,
I don't think so. The slight damage could not be definitively determined to be "molestation" at all let alone "sexual" in nature.
CSIEngland wrote:
prior to being molested by someone with a paint brush.
There is nothing definitive that shows the paintbrush was inserted in the vagina. It is just as likely that a shard was transfered by a finger.
jameson

Asheville, NC

#6 Nov 3, 2009
If your experts are credible people who actually worked on the case .... and didn't put out a vague report to "push buttons during questioning", I would love to see them. I remember one "expert" report (Seraph) that was discredited soon after it was released.

If your experts were so sure, why didn't they go on 20/20 or 48 Hours? Surely they would have been welcomed. I think their public silence may be because they knew they weren't really willing to swear under oath that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse.

As for me coming out of my hole... nice to know you missed me.*grin* Just time to remind people that the Ramseys were cleared for good reason. The BORG never found any evidence against them. Hence no arrest, no trial, nothing but a statement by the DA clearing them based on the same DNA that will expose the killer if he makes any mistakes.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#7 Nov 3, 2009
jameson wrote:
As for me coming out of my hole... nice to know you missed me.*grin* Just time to remind people that the Ramseys were cleared for good reason.
You and Lacy make quite the pair.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#8 Nov 3, 2009
Lacey
koldkase

Athens, GA

#9 Nov 3, 2009
Maybe you've been in that hole too long, jams. The new DA and Beckner UNCLEARED the Ramseys. You must have missed it.

Who can put stock in the pediatrician who examined JonBenet 30+ times, yet MISSED the chronic vaginal injuries found at autopsy? To admit AFTER SHE WAS MURDERED that he missed it would be rather embarrassing for Dr. Beuf. But then, he did admit he never did examine JonBenet for molestation, so how would he know anyway?

The evidence of chronic vaginal injuries is INARGUABLE. That she was sexually assaulted the night she was murdered would be one HELL of a coincidence. Of course, the Ramseys have ridden that "coincidence" train to freedom for 13 years now.

And the list of experts is long and distinguished who have said ON TV AND PUBLICLY that she was sexually assaulted before that night. You know this, but just don't listen, jams, because you KNOW that is the kiss of death for your INTRUDER theory.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#10 Nov 3, 2009
Cyril Wecht, MD. Wecht's detailed analysis of the autopsy report explains the forensic evidence supporting his view there had been prior sexual abuse.

Robert Kirschner, MD. University of Chicago, Department of Pathology:

1997 Statement. "The vaginal opening," according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, "was twice the normal size for six-year-olds." The genital injuries indicate penetration," he says, "but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation."

John McCann, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics at University of California at Davis.

McCann Assisted BPD. In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos.

General Findings. According to McCann, "...examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet."

Specific Evidence of Prior Abuse. "There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia."

Expert Panel. 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."

In other words, JB was not sexually assaulted on the night of her murder as one would thing of "conventional" sexual assault, i.e., rape, but she had been sexually molester over a period of time.
jameson

Asheville, NC

#11 Nov 4, 2009
"The vaginal opening," according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, "was twice the normal size for six-year-olds." The genital injuries indicate penetration," he says, "but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation."

Had that been the case, it would have been stated clearly in the autopsy. According to Dr. Mike Dberson and the medical books he showed me to explain this situation, her cervix showed no evidence of prior injury, neither did the walls of the vagina or the hymen. The vagina was not stretched and as for the measurements, they can vary depending on the position of the child during examination.

Yes, there was a minor irritation that could easily be explained away if she was not wiping carefully and fully -- and the skid marks on other pantied found in her room testify to her poor habits there.

But there was no physical evidence of prior assault on that child's private parts.

The doctors who wanted to have face time on TV, who wanted to support cops they may have believed were absolutely unable to be wrong -- they spun things hard -- but the fact is still there - the coroner did not indicate any evidence of prior bruising, tears or stretching in the area.
Jack

Johnson City, TN

#12 Nov 4, 2009
This could have been one of the strong factors leading to JB's death.someone had to get her out of the picture before she started talking.and if this was true,which I have no doubt it was true.then this points to someone close to the family.
Legal_Eagle

Roanoke, VA

#13 Nov 4, 2009
Jack wrote:
This could have been one of the strong factors leading to JB's death.someone had to get her out of the picture before she started talking.and if this was true,which I have no doubt it was true.then this points to someone close to the family.
Even better, it points to someone IN the family. 4 people in the house, and only 3 wake up the next morning. DO THE MATH JACK.
Patricia Fox

Hogansville, GA

#14 Nov 4, 2009
jameson wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~

.

.
4/1994 - age 3 - another visit concerning pain during urination - possibly related to bubble bath (a
known irritant). This is in the doctor's records and appears to be the only time bubble bath caused the
problem. Again, the typical treatment would be plain water baths and possibly an ointment.
.

.
It sounds more like a urinary tract infection to me and should have been treated with antibiotics. No wonder she had to keep coming back. Plain water and a topical ointment wouldn't come close to solving the problem. Too bad Dr. Beuf did not look farther than it "POSSIBLY being caused by bubble bath".

Burning and itching could result from chapped labia but the PAIN does not fit in with this.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#15 Nov 4, 2009
jameson wrote:
If your experts are credible people who actually worked on the case .... and didn't put out a vague report to "push buttons during questioning", I would love to see them. I remember one "expert" report (Seraph) that was discredited soon
Some experts are concerned with actually solving the crime and seeing justice done, not stabbing people in the back for money.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#16 Nov 4, 2009
BrotherMoon wrote:
Lacey
Actually, I think you had it right the first time. I think it's Lacy. I see it both ways, and in the newspaper, too, but reporters aren't known for their accuracy. Should be, but they aren't.

“Sarah Palin, Go Home!”

Since: Aug 09

Bexley, Ohio

#17 Nov 4, 2009
koldkase wrote:
And the list of experts is long and distinguished who have said ON TV AND PUBLICLY that she was sexually assaulted before that night. You know this, but just don't listen, jams, because you KNOW that is the kiss of death for your INTRUDER theory.
That and the pineapple, which JB ate after coming home from the Whites' dinner is the kiss of death to the IDI theory. Absolutely.
Capricorn

New York, NY

#18 Nov 5, 2009
jameson wrote:
"The vaginal opening," according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, "was twice the normal size for six-year-olds." The genital injuries indicate penetration," he says, "but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation."
Had that been the case, it would have been stated clearly in the autopsy. According to Dr. Mike Dberson and the medical books he showed me to explain this situation, her cervix showed no evidence of prior injury, neither did the walls of the vagina or the hymen. The vagina was not stretched and as for the measurements, they can vary depending on the position of the child during examination.
Yes, there was a minor irritation that could easily be explained away if she was not wiping carefully and fully -- and the skid marks on other pantied found in her room testify to her poor habits there.
But there was no physical evidence of prior assault on that child's private parts.
The doctors who wanted to have face time on TV, who wanted to support cops they may have believed were absolutely unable to be wrong -- they spun things hard -- but the fact is still there - the coroner did not indicate any evidence of prior bruising, tears or stretching in the area.
Dr. Doberson did not perform the autopsy OR the examination. He is not a credible source for THIS discussion. Her "poor habits" are not responsible for an enlarged hymen. Gee, one would think that Dr. Beuf/oon would have advised Patsy that JBR's poor habits were causing a problem and gee, one would have thought that Patsy would begin to address it, INSTEAD OF having to call the doctor a bazillion times for the SAME THING. We could either believe she was being molested prior to her murder, OR, we could believe that despite the MANY visits to the doctor for vaginal concerns, that Patsy chose to ignore JBR's predisposition to vaginal infections, etc. due to poor hygiene.

I tend to think its both. Patsy was only concerned with OUTSIDE appearances; vaginitis, or other injuries that couldn't be seen by the pageant judges or other people were ignored. Just like the prior abuse!

Dr. Doberson and yourself sitting around with some medical books with you looking at the pictures are hardly impressive enough to change the ACTUAL findings of the REAL doctors and investigators in this case.

In another time on another forum, you might have folks oooohing and ahhhhing at your make believe info, but here, you have to do a lot more than make a statement. In the real forensic world, your word isn't worth much in solving a case, especially this one. You should consider leaving it to the EXPERTS; they know more than you do
jameson

Asheville, NC

#19 Nov 6, 2009
OK - Then since Krugman, Kirchner, Wecht and McCann "... did not perform the autopsy OR the examination, THEY are not credible sources for THIS discussion."

The man who did perform the autopsy has never said there was physical evidence of prior molestation. Not one person will be able to find any interview where he says he found THAT evidence when he did the autopsy because he never said it.

The BORG police, their "experts" who were asked to come up with reports that might upset the Ramseys and prompt them to cave in and confess, and the online lynch mob can't ever prove what was not true. There was simply no evidence of sexual assault before the night of her murder.

And the exculpatory evidence - the stun gun, duct tape, cord, boot print, handwriting and DNA all worked to clear the Ramseys --- and no one discredited the clearing at all. The new DA basically said if anyone could explain away all that exculpatory evidence and came up with convincing evidence it was the family, he wouldn't ignore it -- but that isn't going to happen and the family will remain off the suspect list.
jameson

Asheville, NC

#20 Nov 6, 2009
Patricia Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds more like a urinary tract infection to me and should have been treated with antibiotics. No wonder she had to keep coming back. Plain water and a topical ointment wouldn't come close to solving the problem. Too bad Dr. Beuf did not look farther than it "POSSIBLY being caused by bubble bath".
Burning and itching could result from chapped labia but the PAIN does not fit in with this.
She didn't return to the doctor for further treatment for that problem so my guess is that he diagnosed it properly and treated it properly. As for her not having any pain from bubble bath, you can't state that as a fact. Some people can get very uncomfortable if they don't rinse soap from that area. No matter what, he didn't feel it was related to any assault on the child and said so.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why would the Ramsey's do so many stupid things... 38 min 43_Holding 320
News JonBenet Ramsey Investigator -- My Theory Burke... 39 min Miz Adventure 156
The Evil Super Family 44 min Miz Adventure 169
Stines phone records 54 min Miz Adventure 11
Irene Pasch weds James d. Ramsey 1 hr Kauna 1
News JonBenet Family Attorney: CBS Lawsuit Coming So... 12 hr KCinNYC 7
S.B.T.C: Weird coincidence? (Mar '10) 13 hr DedRed 356
More from around the web