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.

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.
.

Since JonBenet didn't have the best bathroom habits, the inflammation could have been a direct result.

For those who think it odd for a six-year-old not to wipe themselves well, I can still distinctly remember my own kids having difficulty with it at this age, and they would often call for us to help them.

Rainsong

"There are many causes of a diaper rash. Most diaper rashes are due to prolonged contact with wetness, bacteria from bowel movements, and chemicals in the urine."

"Diaper rashes usually have no long-term effects. It is possible that chronic rashes or those that become severely infected could lead to scarring."

health.discovery.com/diseasesandcond/ encyclopedia/2687.html

any person who doesn't take care to keep the area clean and dry can have a "diaper rash" - - even a "chronic' one. Doesn't have anything to do with sex.

If JonBenét had been a victim of sexual abuse, there woul dhave been other evidence -- physical and emotional. It wasn't there.

A six year old shouldn't have diaper rash, a six year old shouldn't need diapers.

I know of teenagers who have had problems because they wore fancy panties without cotton liners.

Rashes are not rare in females. And without other symptoms or injuries, a rash is NOT hard evidence of any abuse.

Another thing, bubble baths or soap or shampoo sitting in the bath water can also cause rashes. We've eliminated bubble baths all together for they gave my daughter many rashes. Her skin is just too sensitive for the harshness of the soaps/bubbles.

There is nothing weird about rashes in little girls at that age. If you have a little girl or have had a little girl, you should know this unless your little girl was exceptionally clean and perfect!

Fact is, there is NO evidence of any prior assault - - not sexual or anything involving the use of a garrote. The evidence does not support Wecht's theory. IMO, he is discredited.

(Yeah, he was right about the garrote being in place when she was struck on the head, but like a broken clock that is right twice a day, that single correct assessment does NOT make everything else he says credible.

Sorry, CORRECTION: I just recalled that the reason for that person going to prison was not for ripping off Access Graphics. That person did indeed rip off Access Graphics and was sent to prison for something else (but could be related to the downfall in business). My sympathies to that person whose fortunes fell down while Access Graphics soared.

This cannot be true. The Ramseys interviews took place between 25-27th June 1998. The British documentary which showed on 9th July 1998 covered the accusations of sexual abuse which had been made against John Ramsey. Both Ramseys were involved in that discussion as were numerous members of the Ramsey family and extended family.

That documentary was filmed in February 1998.

Patsy therefore, must have been aware of the gossip and speculation about JBR being sexually assaulted since at least February 1998 - 5 months prior to those interviews.

It is interesting how Haney told Patsy about the prior assault and then asked he if that information might change any of her earlier answers - - like she would turn on John or Burke at that point.

She stood firm and told him - NO SIR - I have told the truth!

The questioning revealed that the cops really were fishing. They were hoping to catch something - - but came up with nothing, nada,zilch.

The interrogation was not fact-finding and following all leads - - it was 90% a hopeful trap. But there was no guilt there, neither Ramsey gave them a thing that pointed to their guilt.

I disagree. The Ramseys spoke of thse rumours themselves on Tracey's documentary. Patsy described Cyril Wecht on the Geraldo Rivera Show - that was when he accused 'Daddy' of 'playing with the little girl'. It was abundantly clear on the documentary that questions were being asked about sexual abuse within the family. Melinda Ramsey said that she would know more than anyone if John Ramsey was into that kind of thing.

The rumours were there from the start and the family were aware of those rumours long before the June 1998 interviews. You have little to gain from suggesting otherwise.

No one ever told them that there was physical proof of prior assault - - that was something Haney threw on the table. (Though it was in great dispute if such evidence existed. I don't see it and neither did the coroners I spoke to. The BORG simply says not all abuse leaves bruises or injuries - - - they always fall back saying petting or making her touch someone else would leave no injuries.)

That is quite a different matter from what you stated above -ie that they were unaware of the gossip.

Am I right, Jameson?

Jameson said "Patsy was totally unaware - until the June 1998 interrogation - that there was ANY gossip or speculation about JBR being sexually assaulted before the murder."

I tend to agree that the sexual assault was only that night and only done for purposes un-related to personal gratification.

Ofcourse the BPD/FBI/DA viewpoint is that the parents did it as part of some impromptu, overly elaborated plot whereas I think it is simply a red-herring left by the intruder to deflect investigators and to be a none too subtle "added touch" for the parents to dwell on.

Tom Haney was stating there was physical evidence of prior assault.

The Ramseys had never heard that - - they believed it was just hateful gossip with NO support in the evidence. Haney was trying to say something different.

The emphasis I wanted to make in Post 15 was that if the "movie: Ricochet pedophile set-up theory" is correct, then there is great importance to paying attention to whom ever suggested that John Ramsay was a pedophile in the first place. My understanding is that according to Ms.Dilson, her boy friend blurted this out on the very day of the murder while at the same time declaring he knew nothing about the Ramsays or Access Graphics.

Many women are allergic to the perfumes and colors in toilet paper. They cause irritation and redness and sometimes a rash. I had this problem for a long time until I read about it and switched to white TP only.

On external examination at the autopsy, blood was found in her underpants. Physical injuries included: "1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1x1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified."<6>

In addition, under microscopic examination, the vaginal mucosa was found "to contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/humen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A smaller number of red blood cells are present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen." <6>

But, what does this actually explain? Simply, JonBenet was injured vaginally. We cannot answer the questions -- why or who? We have one clue -- vaginal injury. Why does JonBenet have this injury? Was she sexually molested by some deranged pedophile intruder? Or, was this staging to make it appear as though a sexual assault took place? Since we already have a motive -- motive 1: kidnapping, it is not a difficult stretch to come to the conclusion that this motive was also false.

In a Primetime Live interview on September 10, 1997, Dr. Francesco Beuf, JonBenet's pediatrician, is interviewed:
"DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.
DIANE SAWYER: Did you see in any of these examinations any sign of possible sexual abuse?
Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: No, and I certainly would have reported it to the social service people if I had. That's something that all of us in pediatrics are very acutely aware of." <7>

Although Dr. Beuf did not note any personality changes during the office visits between JonBenet and himself, he cannot state conclusively there was no internal damage because he never gave JonBenet an internal exam. JonBenet was seen five or six times in a three year period where an external vaginal exam was necessary; on three occasions JonBenet presented with pain on urination. Dr. Beuf explains the cause of these symptoms:
Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: "For a child that age, certainly not. They don't wipe themselves very well after they urinate. And it's something which usually is curable by having them take plain water baths or learning to wipe better. But if you have four-year-old kids, you know how hard that is. The amount of vaginitis which I saw on the child was totally consistent with little girls her age." <7>

Despite the conclusions drawn by Dr. Beuf, Dr. Ann S. Botash, Director of Child Abuse Referral and Evaluation Program and Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics, State University of New York Upstate Medical University suggests, "In the US: Vaginitis is common in adult women and uncommon in prepubertal girls." <8>

According to one study by the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information who prioritize injuries to diagnose sexual abuse: "Lower probability genital findings are as follows:
"vaginal erythema,
increased vascularity,
synechiae,
labial adhesions,
vulvovaginitis, and
chronic urinary tract infections.

Erythema or redness and swelling might be caused by genital manipulation or intrusion perpetrated by a significantly older person. However, it might also be the result of poor hygiene, diaper rash, or perhaps the child's masturbation. Increased vascularity, synechiae, and labial adhesions may be a consequence of sexual abuse, but they are common findings in children with other genital complaints.

Vulvovaginitis and chronic urinary tract infections can be sequelae of sexual abuse but also can be caused by other circumstances, such as poor hygiene, a bubble bath, or, in the case of urinary tract infections, taking antibiotics." <9>

However, when you add the number of times in a three-year-period (5 or 6 times for vaginal redness and 3 times for painful urination), what are the chances these injuries are a result of bubble bath and/or poor hygiene? In other words, it is statistically significant that out of 30 visits, nine of them (that's almost one third of the number of visits to a pediatrician) were due to illnesses that might have resulted from sexual abuse.

The blanket is definitely a "red flag" when one thinks in terms of sadism. However, John Douglas indicates that when the victim is redressed or covered "it could be that a close relationship existed between the killer and the victim. Let's say a parent kills a child and then buries the body. You may find that the child was carefully wrapped or the face covered to keep dirt from getting in the mouth. In essence, someone is caring for the child after death."<10> It points toward remorse.

Abused children - when a doctor examines them they often act different - - doctors look for that - - it wasn't there when Dr. Beuf examined JonBenét.

Dr, Beuf didn't have to do an internal - - a visual look at the opening would have shown any blatent abuse.

She was assaulted and bled the night of the murder - that is clear.

But there is NO evidence of prior abuse.

? wrote,
"However, when you add the number of times in a three-year-period (5 or 6 times for vaginal redness and 3 times for painful urination), what are the chances these injuries are a result of bubble bath
and/or poor hygiene? In other words, it is statistically significant that out of 30 visits, nine of them
(that's almost one third of the number of visits to a pediatrician) were due to illnesses that might have
resulted from sexual abuse."

THAT is not right. Here are the facts:

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."

My whole point in dredging up this thread was to state that there is a very logical explanation for vaginal irritation and instead it promts someone to look at this information as damaging.

Go figger.

Believe me when I tell you I spent YEARS as a pre-teen and teenager and into my early 20's with a problem with constant vaginal itching, burning and irritation. I just thought everyone had it. Then at some point someone told me, or I read it (I really don't remember how I found out) about the purfumes and dyes in toilet paper causing vaginal irritation. I stopped using or buying anything but WHITE TP and I haven't had a problem since.

Allergy
Since vulval skin is just skin, your problem ‘down there’ might be due to an allergic reaction to any one of a number of chemicals. It is very easy to bring vulval skin into contact with chemicals that could set up an allergy. Here are just some examples.

Toilet paper often contains perfume and colourings.
Almost all soaps, cleansers and bath additives contain perfumes and preservatives that might give you an allergy (even hypo-allergenic products).
Talcum powder can give you an allergy, as can some brands of personal lubricant.
Vaginal creams for fungal infections may actually give a woman a vulval skin allergy and make her itch worse, as can creams used for haemorrhoids (‘piles’).
Increasing numbers of women are becoming allergic to the latex in condoms.
Dermatitis is made worse by:

heat;
wetness; and
friction.
It is therefore not surprising that so many women suffer from chronic vulval discomfort.

http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2583

As you can see there are numerous reasons that JB might have had an occasional vaginal or urinary infection besides sexual abuse. Given there were no OTHER signs of sexual abuse in the autopsy or seen by the physician I think we can respectfully conclude that prior to that night JonBenet had NEVER been sexually abused.