Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Experts on the case agreed she was molested. What they can't say, if she had been molested the nite she died.
The thing is, who are the experts? It seems that they all contradict each other. Here's one:
"Dr. Francis Beuf, the Ramseys' pediatrician, was later interviewed and... in regards to any evidence of sexual abuse, he stated that in all the times he had examined JonBenet, he had never seen any evidence of any such abuse. Other stories claimed that the 'vaginal abrasion' mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states: '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 and there is no other indication of any 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 particular area.' Unfortunately, the absence of physical evidence, in itself, is not conclusive, but statements given to the media..."
This source came from CrimeLibrary (but with this case, one wonders as to its accuracy).
The thing is, who are the experts? It seems that they all contradict each other. Here's one:
"Dr. Francis Beuf, the Ramseys' pediatrician, was later interviewed and... in regards to any evidence of sexual abuse, he stated that in all the times he had examined JonBenet, he had never seen any evidence of any such abuse. Other stories claimed that the 'vaginal abrasion' mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states: '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 and there is no other indication of any 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 particular area.' Unfortunately, the absence of physical evidence, in itself, is not conclusive, but statements given to the media..."
This source came from CrimeLibrary (but with this case, one wonders as to its accuracy).
JBR had no hymen.
Her own doctor had treated her repeatedly for urinary tract infections, a classic symptom of sexual abuse in children.
He also failed ask the appropriate questions of PR and turned a blind eye to something that should be perhaps reportable.
The thing is, who are the experts? It seems that they all contradict each other. Here's one:
"Dr. Francis Beuf, the Ramseys' pediatrician, was later interviewed and... in regards to any evidence of sexual abuse, he stated that in all the times he had examined JonBenet, he had never seen any evidence of any such abuse. Other stories claimed that the 'vaginal abrasion' mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states: '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 and there is no other indication of any 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 particular area.' Unfortunately, the absence of physical evidence, in itself, is not conclusive, but statements given to the media..."
This source came from CrimeLibrary (but with this case, one wonders as to its accuracy).
I had a baby girl. They checked her genitals at birth, again at six weeks, and that was that.
The thing is, who are the experts? It seems that they all contradict each other. Here's one:
"Dr. Francis Beuf, the Ramseys' pediatrician, was later interviewed and... in regards to any evidence of sexual abuse, he stated that in all the times he had examined JonBenet, he had never seen any evidence of any such abuse. Other stories claimed that the 'vaginal abrasion' mentioned in the autopsy report suggested sexual abuse, however this conclusion is not supported by the balance of medical opinion. Dr. Thomas Henry, the Denver medical examiner states: '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 and there is no other indication of any 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 particular area.' Unfortunately, the absence of physical evidence, in itself, is not conclusive, but statements given to the media..."
This source came from CrimeLibrary (but with this case, one wonders as to its accuracy).
This is quoted from the crime library as well.
Wecht decided that molestation was the primary motive and that the death itself was accidental.
As he paid attention to the case and read the portion of the autopsy report that was released, he noted items that supported the likelihood of chronic sexual abuse—that is, her vaginal injury had not occurred at the time of the crime. It may have been done by a finger or some object, not via outright rape, but he believed it was clear that before the murder someone had behaved inappropriately with the child.
People both inside and outside of the investigation reacted to that statement.
Yet as more of the autopsy report was released, he felt more certain of his analysis, and recent events appear to bear him out.
"I have learned that the police called in three separate child sexual abuse experts," he reports. "They separately and independently came to the same conclusion that there was evidence of prior sexual abuse. Not that I needed anybody to hold my hand, but for saying that same thing I took abuse on national television from self-appointed Ramsey defenders and sycophants. But it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, a little girl with half of the hymen gone and she's dead, and you've got a tiny abrasion, a tiny contusion and a chronic inflammation of vaginal mucosa. That means it happened more than 72 hours earlier; we don't know how long, or how often it was repeated, but chronic means it wasn't from that night. This was a tragic, tragic accident. This was a game that had been played before."
I don't believe the child was repeatedly examined.
It sounds as if you're right. From Webbsleuths:
Dr. Beuf saw JonBenét 27 times between March, 1993 and November, 1996. Most of those visits were for sinus infections and colds. There was one for an injured finger, another after a fall in a grocery store.
On five occasions he did a brief examination of the external genitalia. He said 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. Not known if he looked at her genitals, but possible so included in this list.
.
8/1996 - age 5 - A routine physical (possibly a pre-school exam). Nothing noted as abnormal. Again, no indication of any specific check of the genitals.
This is the extent of the external "vaginal" exams performed on JonBenét.
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."
Dr. Beuf saw JonBenét 27 times between March, 1993 and November, 1996. Most of those visits were for sinus infections and colds. There was one for an injured finger, another after a fall in a grocery store. On five occasions he did a brief examination of the external genitalia. He said 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. Not known if he looked at her genitals, but possible so included in this list.
.
8/1996 - age 5 - A routine physical (possibly a pre-school exam). Nothing noted as abnormal. Again, no indication of any specific check of the genitals.
This is the extent of the external "vaginal" exams performed on JonBenét.
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."
This is highly irregular.
Genital examinations are considered traumatic for children and to be avoided at all costs. It is most certainly NOT part of any regular pediatric examination past the first year of life, unless a specific problem presents itself.
My own children never had their genitals examined by anyone after birth.
So the question remains - WHY was she put through these repeated genital examinations?
Her own doctor had treated her repeatedly for urinary tract infections, a classic symptom of sexual abuse in children.
He also failed ask the appropriate questions of PR and turned a blind eye to something that should be perhaps reportable.
i had urinary tract infections several times as a child. that alone does not constitute evidence of sexual abuse.
i think all of the evidence by now shows that the ramseys did NOT do it. patty ramsey, to my knowledge, did not possess the equipment necessary to leave a sperm sample in her daughter's body. not only that, but there was ample opportunity for someone to come into that house, and evidence suggesting that was given short shrift.
i think that the tendency here is for people to latch on to the easy answer, because they want answers. jon-benet's death was horrific and a tragedy, and people want to find an answer to that, something that satisfies them and perhaps makes them feel that this won't happen to their own child. after all, if it's the parents who did this, then we have one less freak wandering the streets who is murdering and raping children in their own homes. unfortunately, a clear look at the evidence (which the police were unable or willing to cast) has made this case the whodunit we have today. and there are many, many cases of children being abducted out of their own homes, even sexually assaulted, while the parents sleep. this we know to be true.
people murder their children every day. when they do so, there is usually evidence of horrific abuse beforehand. when there isn't, it is usually a case of a woman killing her children due to mental illness or post partum depression. sometimes abuse is evident before in those cases, but sometimes not. sometimes mothers will love and care for their children all their lives, and one day simply snap. but to my knowledge, there has never been a child killing by the parents under these circumstances. this has all the hallmarks of a very clever child killer who has continued to escape detection. parents don't just sexually murder their children on christmas night, leave the body in the house, and do so with no prior evidence of abuse or even evidence of behavioral problems- either from their earlier children, themselves, or job-benet. happy adjusted children are not habitually abused and remain happy adjusted children.
this thread has gone on for quite a while. i personally would like to see some speculation on WHO ELSE could have done this, because i don't believe the parents did. perhaps i will start another thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
