CASCU Analysis of Crime

[JMO8778]

I don't think the Rs thought a sexual assault wouldn't be noticed because she was wearing size 12 panties...
I think they removed the original panties because they likely had significantly more blood on them. The coroner's flourencence test showed evidence of blood having been wiped from her thighs. That's why the panties were changed. She was wiped down and had her underwear replaced to hide a sexual assault. That was the only reason for it. Now, you might ask why put another pair of panties back on her at all? Well, again, the Rs knew they had a murdered child to explain away- that's one thing. But a sexually assaulted murdered child, especially if there was anything there that could point to them as being involved in that- that's quite a bit more. I really think they did not realize what an autopsy of a child would entail- if the body showed no evidence of a sexual assault- then no one would look for it. I just don't think they thought anyone would examine a 6-year old corpse in such a way as to see an eroded hymen/bruising/beeding in the vaginal area unless the body showed OBVIOUS signs of a sexual assault.

and possibly the head wound as well??I think they wanted it to appear the ligature was the only injury and hoped nothing more would be looked at,since her scalp wasn't visibly lacerated.

 

[JMO8778]

The 'sexual assault' thing is the reason I think JR is the one responsible for JBR's death, and that PR is his accomplice after the fact, which I know is the exact opposite of how everyone else looks at this.

I think that wound was inflicted, not to stage a pedophile intruder scene, but to cover up prior abuse. As I've said before, it was inflicted on a still-living child within, at most, an hour of the head blow, and before the strangulation. So who could have inflicted it, if not her killer? And why would her killer inflict it, if not to compromise evidence of prior abuse?

So, if PR is the killer, then PR inflicts the head blow, inflicts the vaginal wound, completes the murder by strangulation, cleans up evidence of the vaginal wound to hide it from JR, and then gets JR involved in the cover up.

Or, if JR is the killer, then JR inflicts the head blow, inflicts the vaginal wound, completes the murder by strangulation, cleans up evidence of the vaginal wound to hide it from PR, and then gets PR involved in the cover up.

The only reason to clean up the vaginal wound is NOT a change in staging; neither JR nor PR is stupid enough to believe that the wound won't be discovered during the autopsy. The only reason to clean up the vaginal wound is to hide that, and that alone, from the person who is going to help you cover up this crime.

Everyone thinks JR would automatically cover up for PR, so as not to lose her, his lifestyle, his status in the community, etc. But any or all of those reasons could be reasons for PR to cover up for JR as well, especially if JR managed to make her believe that BR might have committed the crime.

I know it could be either way, here. PR might have been molesting her daughter, and might have needed to cover the evidence, necessitating the vaginal wound. But to me, the key piece of evidence is the size-12 underwear, for two reasons: one, PR would have known right away how ridiculously large those were, so it's hard to imagine her using them (why put underwear on JBR at all, in fact? The long johns would suffice), and two, unless I'm wrong, the fibers from JR's shirt were found in the crotch of the size-12 panties, which is a pretty strong indication that either he handled them, or else PR deliberately placed the fibers there to implicate him.

I think we can reject that second option, btw. If PR knew that much about fiber evidence she'd have taken more care of her own fibers, particularly her sweater fibers which I believe were transferred as she helped in the staging. (The tape, for instance, and I think at some point she hugged JBR when the rope was just a rope, before it became a garrote, which was how her fibers ended up being twisted into the knot.)

But if we reject that second option, that means that JR did handle the size-12 underwear, and did help clean up the vaginal wound--which, by my way of looking at things, means that he was the one who inflicted it, since the clean-up ONLY makes sense if it's seen as an act designed to hide that wound from the accessory after the fact.

But if he was the one who inflicted it, between the head blow and the strangulation, then there's pretty good reason to believe that he is the killer...

good points.the only other option I see is Patsy killing her..for whatever reason,accidentally or no...but then...she gets JR(rem. her saying the murderer confided in someone?)..who decides they must get her out of the house...so he stages the sexual wound (to cover past abuse,as well as it will throw in a sexual reasoning to it),ligature strangles her,and together they write the RN.
Then they decide to leave her in the WC instead,thus the rest of the coverup begins..the large underwear,etc...JR may have asked for more WED. underwear,insisting on it,only to be told by PR the large ones are all she has...so better than nothing,he uses them.Or patsy may not have been present in the final staging,although she knows it's going on.But I'm not sure JR would have known that underwear was even there without Patsy telling him.
Would that work,too? Help me out here if not,as I may have missed something.

 

[JMO8778]

Another thing, they tie JB's hands. The only reason someone would stage that would be to look like a sexual assault had taken place. Everything about JB screams sexual assault. They know, they know it will look like this. IMO

I think he forgot to restage the ligatures ....why else would he lie and say they were tied tightly,when in fact they weren't?
He remembered at some point,prior to finding her,that he forgot to do that.

 

[JMO8778]

This scenario has been talked about ad nauseum...John is caught molesting JonBenet by Patsy and Patsy's reaction is to hit John with the flashlight that she carried into JonBenet's room. Instead, she misses John and strikes Jonbenet.

If this scenario is true....IF John was caught molesting JonBenet, than it could have started in the den. Johns bathrobe was found in the den and it bothers me. Reason being is that John is a neat freak and would not think to leave his bathrobe in the den.

Secondly, we know John showered so as to wash evidence away?

Personally, I don't believe John molested JonBenet....sometimes I backtrack and consider it a possibility but in my heart of hearts....John is innocent of molesting JonBenet.

I think Patsy may have seen JR molesting JB..and purposely hit her,with intent to kill.Patsy wasn't a normal person,and esp not a normal mother.
I think that family was outside the box and as such,you have to think that way to be able to understand what happened.

 

[JMO8778]

Precisely, and if not, why any acute injury, which will bring the searchlight of attention?

.

UK,it HAD to be an acute injury in order to cover up past abuse.If not then the way she was found would have been shown to be all from prior past abuse.An acute injury is an attempt to mask that.

 

[UKGuy]

UK,it HAD to be an acute injury in order to cover up past abuse.If not then the way she was found would have been shown to be all from prior past abuse.An acute injury is an attempt to mask that.

JMO8778,

Maybe, there are inconsistencies creeping into the various theories.

Lets start with the most obvious no intruder is going to wipe down the victim and redress her in clean underwear, along with urine-soaked longjohns.

So why does that matter, because if you revise a staged sexual assault, then changing her clothing tells you no intruder was involved. So two errors have been made, an acute sexual assault, followed by a redressing.

An acute injury cannot hide chronic molestation the signs and pathology are different.

Consider the killer's thought process, If I sexually assault JonBenet that will hide any previous assault.

That tells you two things, sexual molestation was ongoing, the killer had direct knowledge of it.

Consider the Coroner's thought process, We have erosion of her hymen, this indicates chronic sexual molestation, we have an enlarged hymen which also indicates chronic sexual molestation, and we have a vaginal wound that has bled, that is obviously acute, we also have vaginal inflammation, which indictates sexual contact

So knowing the above Coroner Meyer opines verbally that JonBenet appears to have been digitally penetrated.

So the acute injury does not mask anything it adds to the catalog of injuries and rather than pointing away from the Ramseys it puts them in the frame.


Although her chronic molestation is negative evidence its not conclusive without JonBenet as a witness to whomever was abusing her, her kidnapper or anyone else can be accussed of molesting her?

What the foregoing strongly suggests is that JonBenet was being sexually molested at the time of her death, her acute injury may or may not have been inflicted as staging, if so why hide it by redressing her, something no kidnapper would do?

imo it is more consistent to assume that her acute vaginal injury was associated with her then sexual molestation, which then led to her death?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Maybe, there are inconsistencies creeping into the various theories.

Lets start with the most obvious no intruder is going to wipe down the victim and redress her in clean underwear, along with urine-soaked longjohns.

So why does that matter, because if you revise a staged sexual assault, then changing her clothing tells you no intruder was involved. So two errors have been made, an acute sexual assault, followed by a redressing.

An acute injury cannot hide chronic molestation the signs and pathology are different.

Consider the killer's thought process, If I sexually assault JonBenet that will hide any previous assault.

That tells you two things, sexual molestation was ongoing, the killer had direct knowledge of it.

Consider the Coroner's thought process, We have erosion of her hymen, this indicates chronic sexual molestation, we have an enlarged hymen which also indicates chronic sexual molestation, and we have a vaginal wound that has bled, that is obviously acute, we also have vaginal inflammation, which indictates sexual contact

So knowing the above Coroner Meyer opines verbally that JonBenet appears to have been digitally penetrated.

So the acute injury does not mask anything it adds to the catalog of injuries and rather than pointing away from the Ramseys it puts them in the frame.


Although her chronic molestation is negative evidence its not conclusive without JonBenet as a witness to whomever was abusing her, her kidnapper or anyone else can be accussed of molesting her?

What the foregoing strongly suggests is that JonBenet was being sexually molested at the time of her death, her acute injury may or may not have been inflicted as staging, if so why hide it by redressing her, something no kidnapper would do?

imo it is more consistent to assume that her acute vaginal injury was associated with her then sexual molestation, which then led to her death?


.

I'll get back to the whole post later,I'm running short on time,but I think the cellulose fiber(s) found in her indicate it was done by the paintbrush,and that it was staged,along w the garrote.The whole WC presentation was nothing more than staging.Yes, I think it's possible she was molested that very same night,but didn't bleed.The acute injury was a feeble attempt to mask it and prior abuse,IMO.Nothing more than trying to confuse investigators,as was the whole staging.
UK,do you think she was killed as a result of a molestation gone too far,so far that it bled and someone was afraid she would talk,and or would need medical care for it,and that would have to be denied,even by Dr Beuf (the goof)?

 

[UKGuy]

I'll get back to the whole post later,I'm running short on time,but I think the cellulose fiber(s) found in her indicate it was done by the paintbrush,and that it was staged,along w the garrote.The whole WC presentation was nothing more than staging.Yes, I think it's possible she was molested that very same night,but didn't bleed.The acute injury was a feeble attempt to mask it and prior abuse,IMO.Nothing more than trying to confuse investigators,as was the whole staging.
UK,do you think she was killed as a result of a molestation gone too far,so far that it bled and someone was afraid she would talk,and or would need medical care for it,and that would have to be denied,even by Dr Beuf (the goof)?

JMO8778,

I think the cellulose fiber(s) found in her indicate it was done by the paintbrush,and that it was staged,along w the garrote.

Possibly then again possibly not, since the paintbrush cellulose may only indicate that it may have been transferred by the same person who crafted the garrote?

The acute injury was a feeble attempt to mask it and prior abuse,IMO.Nothing more than trying to confuse investigators,as was the whole staging.

If the acute injury caused the bleeding then patently it would never mask or hide any abuse, why not leave her uninjured, since in the absence of a staged acute injury, this is the same as wiping her down, e.g. removing the blood, that is the sexual staging appears not only redundant but contradictory?

UK,do you think she was killed as a result of a molestation gone too far,so far that it bled and someone was afraid she would talk,and or would need medical care for it,and that would have to be denied,even by Dr Beuf (the goof)

Absolutely, yes!

Staging aside, I reckon we have a sexual molestation, possibly some kind of unintended internal injury which bled, maybe explains the scream, followed by a manual strangulation and head injury, or vice versa. Then comes a cleanup and subsequent staging, with possibly the missing piece of the paintbrush inserted inside JonBenet to stage things further.

The incongruous aspect of other theories is the assumption that after physically assaulting JonBenet bringing her to near death, she was then sexually assaulted as a form of staging, and only then finally strangled to death? This thinking follows on from the accident scenarios, so those who discount initial sexual abuse, to explain away this aspect reder it as staging at a later point. But the inconsistency is JonBenet is wiped down and her sexual assault is hidden beneath clean underwear and blankets!

So alike Lou Smit's Intruder Theory the promoters of the Accident Theory have generated assumptions to explain away inconsistencies thrown up by the evidence.


So the Sexual Molestation Theory appears to be the theory that explains the current forensic evidence without turning up inconsistencies, it also has the merit of being in tune with occams razor, and the KISS principle.


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,


Possibly then again possibly not, since the paintbrush cellulose may only indicate that it may have been transferred by the same person who crafted the garrote?

but then if the garrote was made first...a sexual attack couldn't have happened first,unless it was just staging.does that make sense? at least not anything involving the paintbrush.

If the acute injury caused the bleeding then patently it would never mask or hide any abuse, why not leave her uninjured, since in the absence of a staged acute injury, this is the same as wiping her down, e.g. removing the blood, that is the sexual staging appears not only redundant but contradictory?

unless it's from a prior staging that had been revised,right?

Absolutely, yes!

Staging aside, I reckon we have a sexual molestation, possibly some kind of unintended internal injury which bled, maybe explains the scream, followed by a manual strangulation and head injury, or vice versa. Then comes a cleanup and subsequent staging, with possibly the missing piece of the paintbrush inserted inside JonBenet to stage things further.

The incongruous aspect of other theories is the assumption that after physically assaulting JonBenet bringing her to near death, she was then sexually assaulted as a form of staging, and only then finally strangled to death? This thinking follows on from the accident scenarios, so those who discount initial sexual abuse, to explain away this aspect reder it as staging at a later point. But the inconsistency is JonBenet is wiped down and her sexual assault is hidden beneath clean underwear and blankets!



.

ok,yes,but if it was from a prior staging,then that changes things,doesn't it?
I'm not disagreeing with you...it could be that JR killed her...the only thing that bothers me about that is Patsy saying she had flashbacks of JB screaming,her overall guilty behavior and comments...(some of them are nearly confessions),and what appears to be Patsy's ring marks on JB..the abrasions.On one photo you can clearly see an indentation from a ring,(although there is no abrasion from that one) above the 2 other dark marks w/ what appears to be matching imprints from a cluster diamond ring..similar to Patsy's.
If this had been any other family,I think that would have been shown in a trial to be a match to her jewelry.

 

[UKGuy]

but then if the garrote was made first...a sexual attack couldn't have happened first,unless it was just staging.does that make sense? at least not anything involving the paintbrush.



unless it's from a prior staging that had been revised,right?




ok,yes,but if it was from a prior staging,then that changes things,doesn't it?

but then if the garrote was made first...a sexual attack couldn't have happened first,unless it was just staging.does that make sense? at least not anything involving the paintbrush.

Not sure what you are asking here? A sexual attack may have taken place independent of anything to do with the paintbrush, that comes near to last in the sequence of events?

unless it's from a prior staging that had been revised,right?

So where does the paintbrush fit into this prior staging, where does a sexual assault fit into a prior staging? You are suggesting what may actually have been the initial crime is to explained as staging?

ok,yes,but if it was from a prior staging,then that changes things,doesn't it?

But what prior staging ? She was alive when she was sexually assaulted, I doubt very much if the staging commenced whilst she was still alive?

I'm not disagreeing with you...it could be that JR killed her...the only thing that bothers me about that is Patsy saying she had flashbacks of JB screaming,her overall guilty behavior and comments...(some of them are nearly confessions),and what appears to be Patsy's ring marks on JB..the abrasions.On one photo you can clearly see an indentation from a ring,(although there is no abrasion from that one) above the 2 other dark marks w/ what appears to be matching imprints from a cluster diamond ring..similar to Patsy's.
If this had been any other family,I think that would have been shown in a trial to be a match to her jewelry.

Patsy would be screaming because her little pageant princess is dead, we do not know what part she played if any in her death? The screams, the flashbacks, the abrasions, ring marks etc are all consistent with the sexual abuse theory.

I am not saying it is 100% correct but it is more consistent than other theories which have the holes I outlined.


.

 

[BBB167893]

Is it Caine, when faced with such wisdom, bows and says Yes Master ?

Something like that.

For me its when the crime-scene exhibits inconsistencies , or stuff that is just plane out of place?

Knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, Grasshopper. Not the end.

Dr Sam Sheppard's case has been revised recently using blood analysis strongly suggesting a staged crime-scene , now where is richard kimberly these days?

I am at a loss.

One, that it was inflicted not to point to some pedo intruder, but to point away from someone in the R household who knew there would be clear evidence of chronic abuse if he/she didn't corrupt that;

One would be as good as the other.

I mean, all respect to SuperDave, but no matter how amateur a person committing a crime is at crime-scene staging, I just can't buy that no more than one hour after a head blow which has not quite killed your child you would insert some object inside her, taking the risk of leaving far more physical evidence than you have to, solely because you think, "Hey, a sex-crime scenario will make the police look elsewhere!" and then completely fail to capitalize on that by actually staging a sex-crime, choosing to write a phony politically motivated, "we hate JR" RN instead.

That is easy to say in retrospect, Dru. But again, one must appreciate the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

I think Patsy may have seen JR molesting JB..and purposely hit her,with intent to kill.Patsy wasn't a normal person,and esp not a normal mother.

It's not uncommon for mothers to blame the victim; to see JB as a rival for affection is not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[DeeDee249]

I saw it mentioned in several books that a child of JBR's age was relatively sheltered from outside contact. Though her pageants could be viewed by the general public, pedophiles included, a CHRONIC molestation as revealed by the autopsy had to have been done by someone close enough to her to have repeated private access. Usually these things are done by family members. Even if it HAD been someone she knew outside the family (like a friend's relative) and even if the usual ploys to insure a child's silence (threats to family,pets, self) she still could have refused to be in that person's company. It'd be hard for a friend's parent, sibling, or houseguest to have repeated access to JBR alone without raising suspicion. But JBR's family members (and that includes extended family) could have had that access, and JBR would have been powerless to avoid them.

 

[UKGuy]

Something like that.



Knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, Grasshopper. Not the end.



I am at a loss.

SuperDave,

Knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, Grasshopper. Not the end.

I will meditate upon that master.

I am at a loss.

Yes I got it wrong, my memory is at a loss, I mixed up Dr. Richard Kimble from the Fugitive, with Richard Kimberly from the ER series?


.

 

[rashomon]

JMO8778,
An acute injury cannot hide chronic molestation the signs and pathology are different.

Keep in mind that the stager of the scene may not have had that much medical knowledge.

So knowing the above Coroner Meyer opines verbally that JonBenet appears to have been digitally penetrated.

What exactly did Dr. Meyer mean? The acute vaginal injury, or was he referring to JB's hymeneal orifice measuring 1x1 cm, which could point to digital penetration?

 

[UKGuy]

Keep in mind that the stager of the scene may not have had that much medical knowledge.


What exactly did Dr. Meyer mean? The acute vaginal injury, or was he referring to JB's hymeneal orifice measuring 1x1 cm, which could point to digital penetration?

rashomon,

Keep in mind that the stager of the scene may not have had that much medical knowledge.

The stager would have had the same knowledge as her abuser, he/she would know that they were not hiding any prior abuse since they must themselves have seen it?

What exactly did Dr. Meyer mean? The acute vaginal injury, or was he referring to JB's hymeneal orifice measuring 1x1 cm, which could point to digital penetration?

I doubt it was the acute injury, that was distinct from what he described as sexual contact, so the combination of the chronic erosion of her hymen, its enlargement and her vaginal congestion, more than likely prompted him to suggest digital penetration, which is distinct from other forms of penetration, which may have taken place?

There is also what is unknown to us but may have been redacted from the autopsy report e.g. the missing piece of the paintbrush handle, and the true significance of any birefringement material found inside her vagina?

The painbrush handle, her acute vaginal injury may be entirely separate events, the former introduced to mask the latter, or simply artifact and debri?


.

 

[JMO8778]

An acute injury cannot hide chronic molestation the signs and pathology are different.

I know,I had microbiology in college,correct me if I'm wrong, b/c it's been over 20 yrs ago...they would have taken a sample of tissue from inside her,and looked at it under a microscope for signs of chronic infiltrate in the cells..which apparently they did find.
But would JR have known this from the books he read,like Mindhunter? (I don't know,I haven't read it).My guess is that even if he did,an acute injury was his only option at that point,as an attempt to hide any prior abuse.It was all he had and it was better than nothing at all,esp given the fact her body will decompose to some degree.

 

[JMO8778]

Not sure what you are asking here? A sexual attack may have taken place independent of anything to do with the paintbrush, that comes near to last in the sequence of events?

yes,it could have.

So where does the paintbrush fit into this prior staging, where does a sexual assault fit into a prior staging? You are suggesting what may actually have been the initial crime is to explained as staging?


But what prior staging ? She was alive when she was sexually assaulted, I doubt very much if the staging commenced whilst she was still alive?

It's been said b/f,that she could have been unconcious and thought dead from the head wound..so the staging starts then...the vag. wound done w the paintbrush,and the garrote fashioned and applied...only she isn't dead,so she bleeds from the staged v. assault..which is ok with the perp,if this is the first staging and she is to be removed from the house,as if attacked by a pedo.

Patsy would be screaming because her little pageant princess is dead, we do not know what part she played if any in her death? The screams, the flashbacks, the abrasions, ring marks etc are all consistent with the sexual abuse theory.

how so? I think JR was the one sexually abusing her...Patsy may have corporally cleaned her,but I think JR was abusing her,if she was abused.

 

[JMO8778]

It's not uncommon for mothers to blame the victim; to see JB as a rival for affection is not outside the realm of possibility.

thx,that's what I thought.

 

[DeeDee249]

We've all read or known of cases where a child who is being abused by a family friend or family member and when they tell their mother, they are either accused of lying, ignored, or accused of causing their own abuse. Some mothers, a child's first line of defense against such things, can be surprisingly unwilling to recognize the sexual abuse of their child.
In my own famly, it recently was discovered that a cousin was abused as a child by the family pediatrician. She told her mother at the time. She was accused by her mother of making up stories because she didn't like the doctor. Her mother was so blind to what what going on that she didn't think it was odd that when her SON went in to the examination room, she went in with him but when her DAUGHTER went in she was told to stay in the waiting room. Like many naive, obediant women of her generation, she never questioned the doctor about the discrepency in his treatment of the two kids. Her daughter, now in her late 30s, has battled alcoholism, drug abuse and anexoria. She has finally verbalized her pain and mother's betrayal (albeit unwitting).
We'll never know if JBR confided anything to anyone about being abused, but I'll bet she was told it was "normal".

 

[UKGuy]

yes,it could have.




It's been said b/f,that she could have been unconcious and thought dead from the head wound..so the staging starts then...the vag. wound done w the paintbrush,and the garrote fashioned and applied...only she isn't dead,so she bleeds from the staged v. assault..which is ok with the perp,if this is the first staging and she is to be removed from the house,as if attacked by a pedo.






how so? I think JR was the one sexually abusing her...Patsy may have corporally cleaned her,but I think JR was abusing her,if she was abused.

JMO8778,

It's been said b/f,that she could have been unconcious and thought dead from the head wound..so the staging starts then...the vag. wound done w the paintbrush,and the garrote fashioned and applied...only she isn't dead,so she bleeds from the staged v. assault..which is ok with the perp,if this is the first staging and she is to be removed from the house,as if attacked by a pedo.

Thats possible but this theory must then offer a good explanation for the inconsistency that she was then wiped down, and her sexual assault hidden beneath her size-12's and white blankets?

how so? I think JR was the one sexually abusing her...Patsy may have corporally cleaned her,but I think JR was abusing her,if she was abused.

Because both parents were patently involved and there is no evidence to suggest that Patsy was not JonBenet's abuser?

.