Head blow vs strangulation

[UKGuy]

He does not say anything about assault. He does say "A 1 cm. red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymenal orifice. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position..... and on.

So we can assume that something did this. It could have been a person's finger, it could have been the end of a paint brush or it could have been douching on a daily basis.

What do you think it was?

Solace,

It may have been a digital or paintbrush assault, or some other as yet unidentified object, but I seriously doubt douching would cause an internal abrasion.


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

It may have been a digital or paintbrush assault, or some other as yet unidentified object, but I seriously doubt douching would cause an internal abrasion.


.

Au contraire, it would if it were done harshly and on a daily basis. This area is extremely tender and will bleed very easily. That is a fact.

 

[Toltec]

Au contraire, it would if it were done harshly and on a daily basis. This area is extremely tender and will bleed very easily. That is a fact.

Douching??? I don't believe so.

The bifringement material could have come from the molesters finger penetrating JonBenet AFTER he/she broke the paintbrush. My belief is if the paintbrush handle was used to penetrate JonBenet, more than one piece of bifringement material would be found.

Wasn't there also a piece of bifringement material found on the tip of JonBenet's tongue? Could it also have come from the finger of the molester?

 

[Solace]

Douching??? I don't believe so.

The bifringement material could have come from the molesters finger penetrating JonBenet AFTER he/she broke the paintbrush. My belief is if the paintbrush handle was used to penetrate JonBenet, more than one piece of bifringement material would be found.

Wasn't there also a piece of bifringement material found on the tip of JonBenet's tongue? Could it also have come from the finger of the molester?

Where did you hear that about the material being on her tongue.

Also, I know most do not go along with the douching theory. But, I believe it was an ongoing thing in that household and it is possible, especially if it were happening on a daily basis. She would be extremely dry and extremely susceptible to abrasion. Just a theory.

I just do not believe there was any sex play between the adults and the child going on or the siblings for that matter.

 

[Dru]

Dru,

May we have the pleasure of knowing YOUR theory re' what happened at the Ramsey's house on Christmas night? Thank you.

BlueCrab

Sure. I've posted it before.

I've never been IDI except when my whole familiarity with this case was what I heard on the news. Once I started looking into the case, and particularly when I read that bizarre ransome note, I became an RDI.

Initially, I thought that while either of the adult R's was a strong possibility, I leaned toward PR. I still believe she authored the RN. Handwriting, diction, punctuation, the use of an uncommon editing mark, etc. point to her. (I could say a lot about that inverted carat and what I think it means; but that's for another time.)

But when I tried to come up with an explanation for the crime as committed which made PR the perpetrator, I ran into a few stumbling blocks.

Stumbling block #1 was the fact that the sexual wound inflicted on JBR was inflicted before she died, as the wound bled. Most of the PR theories assume this wound was postmortem staging; but to accept that you must accept that PR was more concerned with inflicting this wound than she was with ascertaining whether or not her daughter was actually dead! Since I believe the strangulation actually completed the murder which was begun by the violent head blow, I believe that the wound was most likely inflicted between these two events. Is there any corroboration? Well, only in that it would be pretty hard to avoid inflicting incidental scratches, tears, bruises or abrasions on other parts of JBR's genital area if you were inflicting a painful wound of that nature on a child who was not only alive, but conscious. The fact that there don't appear to be such incidental wounds is what makes me think there's a strong possibility JBR was unconscious when that wound was inflicted (one of the reasons I reject the 'douching' theory, btw.)

Stumbling block #2 was the appearance that both JR and PR were involved in the cover-up. Now, this isn't a proven fact, but I think it did happen for three reasons. 1) The time element, as I said earlier. I don't think one person could have written the RN, staged the body (possibly more than once) and called police by 5:52 am. 2) The discordant staging. At some point during the staging process, the scenario changed from 'political kidnapping' to 'random pedophile' but some of the staging, particularly the RN, continued to reflect the first staging scenario. 3) The discordant statements given to the police in the early days of the investigation, i.e. did the R's arrive home at 8:30 or 10pm? was JBR wearing a red turtleneck or a white top? etc. All of these, taken together, suggest to me that both parents were involved in the cover-up.

But, here's the stumbling block part. Why? If only one parent is responsible for the death of JBR, why are both covering up?

Stumbling block #3 was that there didn't seem to be a strong enough motive for PR to kill JBR in the way that the crime actually happened. Had JBR been found outside below the balcony of her room, for instance, or at the bottom of the main staircase, I could believe in a sudden rage killing. A worn out, exhausted mother dealing with a recalcitrant child loses it, and the child dies. We've seen such things before. But this child was hit over the head with the proverbial blunt instrument, and strangled, and beaten, and sexually assulted. As a mere 'rage killing' this seems, if you'll forgive the word, like overkill.

I began to think that the sexual wound inflicted on JBR was the real key to understanding this crime. Who inflicted it, and why?

There are, IMO, only three major possibilities as to why. One, the killer was seeking perverse gratification. Two, the killer was covering up evidence that he had abused this child at some time prior to her death. Three, someone else knows for a fact that this child has been abused, and is willing to inflict this injury on a still-living child to cover up for the abuser.

I discard reason one (and therefore the BR theory, along with the IDI pedophile theory) because there's no evidence that gratification was taken on the night this crime was committed. Put as bluntly as possible, and I beg pardon for being so blunt here, there's no semen on, in, or near the body, or in any place or on any thing associated with the crime. So unless our mythical pedophile was a woman, there's no reason to accept reason one as the reason this wound was inflicted. (Interestingly, this doesn't rule out PR. While I don't think she was abusing her daughter, there's another reason for that, which I'll get to in a moment.)

Reason two seems like the most likely possibility. If someone has been abusing JBR, and has killed her to keep her from telling about the abuse, it would be quite logical for this person to inflict this wound, not to destroy the past evidence of abuse completely, which can't be done, but to compromise and confuse it so that it's not overwhelming evidence that someone who has abused JBR in the past is involved in this crime. Not only does the wound contaminate the evidence of abuse, it also conceals the motive of the crime. To me, this is the reason this wound was inflicted! What killer is going to pause in the midst of his crime to inflict such a wound, if not for some very important, critical reason? And if this is, indeed, the reason this wound was inflicted, to disguise both the prior abuse and the motive for the murder, then it worked!

Reason three has to be considered, however. Does someone in the house know about the abuse, for a fact, and is this person so concerned about the abuser that he/she will pause in the middle of killing JBR to inflict the wound, to cover up for the abuser? It seems terribly unlikely. Murder is a crime which carries far more punishment than abuse, and murderers aren't usually this altruistic. If the wound had been inflicted post mortem there might be a case made out for this reason, but the fact that it was inflicted on JBR while she was still alive makes this one a stretch, IMO.

(You've noticed that I haven't said anything about the possibility that the wound was inflicted to make JBR's death look like a sex crime. It wasn't. It would have to been a post mortem injury for that to be true, and the RN staging, which probably came first, wasn't going to be about a sex crime, anyway.)

So, if reason two is correct, and this wound was inflicted to cover up abuse, who is the abuser?

There are three possibilities: BR, PR, and JR. Now, you'll notice I rule BR out as having commited this crime 'accidentally' during a sex game, but I don't thereby rule him out as the abuser/killer on those grounds. However, I do rule him out on the basis of what I think is the motive of this crime: to silence JBR before she can inform other people that she's being sexually abused. He would have no reason to worry about that, since he probably wouldn't even be aware that it was a crime! As far as JBR is concerned, in another post, I'd like to point to what I think of as the evidence that she was showing signs of revealing abuse, but most people here are quite familiar with those things.

Was PR abusing her daughter? I couldn't rule her out under the whole 'reason one' thing, but I think she can be ruled out now, for the most part. There remains a slight possibility that she was the one, but it depends on a few other things which seem a bit contradictory. The primary thing to consider is that PR was the one taking JBR to the doctor, specifically discussing JBR's bedwetting issues, recurrent vaginitis, and other symptoms which taken together may suggest abuse. If PR was the abuser/killer, why would she take JBR to the doctor so many times? (SuperDave has mentioned the Munchausen by Proxy theory, and it's a possibility. But it seems a remote one.)

What about JR? In considering things, I've come to the conclusion that if the information we have is correct, he's the most likely person to have been abusing JBR, and is therefore the most likely person to have killed her. He certainly has the most to lose, if he's been abusing her and she tells. Statistically he's the most likely person to be abusing JBR if she was being abused. From the standpoint of physical strength he's the most likely to have struck that blow to the head and caused a complete fracture of the skull with a displacement of a section of it.

In the second part of this post, I'll describe what I think happened, how it happened, and why it worked.

 

[Dru]

So what happened? This is all just my opinion, and pure speculation of course.

I think that, in the days leading up to the murder of JBR, JBR herself was making someone very, very uneasy.

If someone, and for the moment I think JR is the most likely person so we'll go with that for now, if JR was abusing JBR, he had to be concerned.

The mysterious 911 call on the 23rd. A little girl, sitting on a staircase, crying, saying "I don't feel pretty." The same little girl's willingness to allow anyone to assist her on the toilet, coupled with the fact of an immanent vacation trip that would include two people who worked in the medical field (at least one in pediatrics, IIRC) who might recognize signs of child sexual abuse. The loss of a different daughter, one for whom he was still grieving. And juxtaposed against these things, everything he stood to lose if JBR 'told.' His business. His wife and son. The respect of his other children. His freedom.

To me, this all adds up to a huge motive for murder. It wasn't premeditated in the strictest sense of the word. But I think he'd thought about it.

I think that on the night of Dec. 25, things came to a boiling point. As I said in my original discussion of these events, I think that JR and JBR encountered each other at some point when no one else was around. One guess is that JR was locking up for the night, and found that JBR had gotten out of bed and returned downstairs without permission; she then refused to go to bed when told. Perhaps she said something that JR took as a threat, a remark along the lines of 'You can't make me.' I think he struck her then. The time, in my opinion, was between 11:00 pm and midnight.

JR then took JBR to the basement and staged the first crime scene, involving the size-12 panties (to hide the blood from the sexual wound) a golf club, BR's pocket knife, and a simple piece of rope. He wakes PR and tells her what he's found. I think he makes her throw on her clothes then; it's very cold in the basement, and he knows neither of them will be going back to bed. In any case, he takes her to the basement and tells her that BR has killed his sister. PR's fibers end up all over the body because she's cradling her daughter's lifeless form; they might get on the rope then, or PR might help with the 'second' staging later. I do thing she's the one who screamed, not JBR.

JR sets PR to writing the note, while he 'removes' the items connected with BR. In fact, he leaves the pocket knife rather close to the crime scene; he knows BR's not involved! And his anxious questions to Pam Paugh about the golf clubs have to do with that first staging.

As PR finishes writing the note, JR changes his mind. They won't be able to remove JBR from the house, so the kidnapping/ransom scenario won't work. Instead, he stages the body to look like the work of a pedophile. But instead of destroying the note, he has PR leave it as it is; they still need a reason to call 911 early in the am., and they need to do that in order to have a reason to cancel the seven a.m., Bolder to Charlevoix flight.

In reality, things take them too long. They should have called at about 5am at the latest; it's nearly six before they call. But the crime scene is staged, the evidence will soon be hopelessly confused. PR will believe that BR is being protected. JR will know better.

 

[rashomon]

WHY was she still fully dressed, makeup and all? Perhaps the answer is Patsy never went to bed that night. And, in fact, maybe she had just gotten back home after spending several hours with a male admirer. That's how neighborhood rumor has it.

BlueCrab, do you seriously believe that? You think that after arriving home at 9:30 and getting everyone ready for bed, with a flight scheduled in the early hours of Dec 26th, Patsy Ramsey left her home to spend several hours with a male admirer??

 

[Nehemiah]

Interesting theory, Dru. As I was reading it, and thinking about Steve Thomas and his book, interviews, etc..I began to wonder if ST may have really had your theory in mind. Maybe he thought by attacking Patsy and seemingly throwing the "evidence" her way, that JR would eventually confess to protect her, or that PR would say something to incriminate him? Just some thoughts that came to my mind...mostly about Steve Thomas for some weird reason.

 

[Dru]

Interesting theory, Dru. As I was reading it, and thinking about Steve Thomas and his book, interviews, etc..I began to wonder if ST may have really had your theory in mind. Maybe he thought by attacking Patsy and seemingly throwing the "evidence" her way, that JR would eventually confess to protect her, or that PR would say something to incriminate him? Just some thoughts that came to my mind...mostly about Steve Thomas for some weird reason.

Nehemiah, that's an interesting comment. Of course, ST could have thought that PR was guilty, but if he still thinks so I wonder what he might know that hasn't been released publicly.

OTOH, if I were in LE, and I thought one of these two did it and the other helped cover it up, I'd try to break PR down, too. JR has more control of himself, and even his 'angry' outbursts sometimes seem calculated to keep him from having to answer questions. I think the way I'd look at it is, PR is the more unstable person. So, I'll try to break her down, or get her to lower her guard. If she's the guilty party, she might give herself away, and if she's covering for someone else, she might give that away, instead.

 

[rashomon]

Interesting theory, Dru. As I was reading it, and thinking about Steve Thomas and his book, interviews, etc..I began to wonder if ST may have really had your theory in mind. Maybe he thought by attacking Patsy and seemingly throwing the "evidence" her way, that JR would eventually confess to protect her, or that PR would say something to incriminate him? Just some thoughts that came to my mind...mostly about Steve Thomas for some weird reason.

In his book, Steve Thomas gave the impression of being totally convinced that John Ramsey had nothing to do with the death of his daughter, but only helped Patsy to cover up the crime. I don't think it was a mere tactic on ST's part, but that he really believed it.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Why would Patsy break a paintbrush and jab it inside JonBenet, also who said JonBenet was assaulted with a paintbrush?

It may have been John or Burke or any other party who did this?

If we go by what was found in the paint tray (fibers from the jacket she had been wearing to the Whites' party), it is logical to assume that she handled the paintbrush.
And wasn't a sliver of wood found inside JB's vagina? Wood which may have come from the broken paintbrush?
It was Dr. McCann who said that the instrument was jabbed in. But the way in which this was done does not point to a sexual rage attack, for there were no injuries to JB's outer genitals. Per McCann, in order to inflict the injury found on JB, the labia would have had to be separated manually first.
A sexual rage attack would have produced far worse injuries that just this one small wound.
I believe this injury was done for staging purposes to make it look like a sex crime, but that Patsy could not bring herself to inflict injuries on JB which would look more 'convincing', therefore this part of the staging was not continued further.

 

[BlueCrab]

Dru,

Thank you. You spelled out your JDI theory thoroughly and it made interesting reading.

I have one concern, and that's in regard to the SOURCE of the purported vaginal injuries on which you base much of your theory.

You and many others seem to believe that the injuries to the vagina were caused by someone carelessly inserting a sharp object (presumably the wooden paint brush handle) into the vagina in an attempt to cover up prior evidence of sexual abuse. A piece of birefringent foreign material found in the vagina is one of the bases for this theory. The other basis is the abrasion in the vagina.

However, IMO the main injuries were not primarily from the wooden stick, but were from either repeated finger or repeated penis penetrations over a long period of time, beginning at least several days prior to the murder and perhaps beginning weeks or even months prior the the murder.

From the autopsy report:

"Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also seems to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 X 1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10 o'clock positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7 o'clock position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen."

Near rhe end of the report:

"Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflamation. The smallest piece of the tissue, from the 7 o'clock position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen."

IOW, the hymen is virtually gone, the hymenal orifice is twice the size it should be, and the entire vagina contains acute and chronic injuries, especially on the right side and at the 7 o'clock position. Since the acute (night of the murder) and the chronic (2 or 3 days prior to the murder) erosion injuries are both at the same 7 o'clock position, it's doubtful the wooden stick caused them. I think a male's penis caused almost all of the injuries to the vagina.

BlueCrab

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab, do you seriously believe that? You think that after arriving home at 9:30 and getting everyone ready for bed, with a flight scheduled in the early hours of Dec 26th, Patsy Ramsey left her home to spend several hours with a male admirer??

rashomon,

I was merely reporting on one of the rumors from the Ramsey neighborhood. No, I don't think it happened, but of course it could have. It would sure help explain why Patsy, when she answered the front door at 6 AM to let the cops in, she was still dressed in her dinner party clothes from the previous evening.

The information came out in February of 2000 during a long internet interview between Mame (who is Mary McCardle Suma), an independent internet reporter based in Boulder, and Judith Phillips, a Boulder photograher and former friend of the Ramseys in Atlanta and in Boulder.

The police had interviewed Judith Phillips on 3 separate occasions and Mame was asking what kinds of questions the cops had asked. Judith said one of the questions asked her was about relationships Patsy had developed in Boulder.

MAME: "Did she?"

JUDITH: "Not that I know of, but I have been told by a friend of a friend of mine, who is much more deeply involved in this story than I am, that she met with a woman in Denver that had a health club who had played raquet ball with a, ... I'm trying to think he was... Not an account ..."

MAME: "an investment person?"

JUDITH: "An investment person. Yeah, and according to her friend that she knows very well, this investment person, who is a man, had said that he had a relationship with Patsy that night."

MAME: "Night of the murder?"

JUDITH: "Yeah, that they had come home from the party at the White's and Patsy had left the home, and had attended a party where they had a fling going."

BlueCrab

 

[rashomon]

Dru,

Thank you. You spelled out your JDI theory thoroughly and it made interesting reading.

I have one concern, and that's in regard to the SOURCE of the purported vaginal injuries on which you base much of your theory.

You and many others seem to believe that the injuries to the vagina were caused by someone carelessly inserting a sharp object (presumably the wooden paint brush handle) into the vagina in an attempt to cover up prior evidence of sexual abuse. A piece of birefringent foreign material found in the vagina is one of the bases for this theory. The other basis is the abrasion in the vagina.

However, IMO the main injuries were not primarily from the wooden stick, but were from either repeated finger or repeated penis penetrations over a long period of time, beginning at least several days prior to the murder and perhaps beginning weeks or even months prior the the murder.

From the autopsy report:

"Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also seems to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 X 1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10 o'clock positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7 o'clock position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen."

Near rhe end of the report:

"Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflamation. The smallest piece of the tissue, from the 7 o'clock position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen."

IOW, the hymen is virtually gone, the hymenal orifice is twice the size it should be, and the entire vagina contains acute and chronic injuries, especially on the right side and at the 7 o'clock position. Since the acute (night of the murder) and the chronic (2 or 3 days prior to the murder) erosion injuries are both at the same 7 o'clock position, it's doubtful the wooden stick caused them. I think a male's penis caused almost all of the injuries to the vagina.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

in Dr. McCann's opinion, the acute injury was not caused by penile penetration (Dr.McCann is a renowned medical expert on child abuse and was on the panel of top-flight experts who almost unaninmously agreed that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
From his report (Source: Bonita Papers):

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. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

 

[UKGuy]

If we go by what was found in the paint tray (fibers from the jacket she had been wearing to the Whites' party), it is logical to assume that she handled the paintbrush.
And wasn't a sliver of wood found inside JB's vagina? Wood which may have come from the broken paintbrush?
It was Dr. McCann who said that the instrument was jabbed in. But the way in which this was done does not point to a sexual rage attack, for there were no injuries to JB's outer genitals. Per McCann, in order to inflict the injury found on JB, the labia would have had to be separated manually first.
A sexual rage attack would have produced far worse injuries that just this one small wound.
I believe this injury was done for staging purposes to make it look like a sex crime, but that Patsy could not bring herself to inflict injuries on JB which would look more 'convincing', therefore this part of the staging was not continued further.

rashomon,
The foreign material found inside JonBenet may have originated from the paintbrush, but it as an error in reasoning to assert that therefore her internal injury was caused by the paintbrush. You may be correct but it is not the only conclusion available, per Dr. McCann's use of the term instrument.

I believe this injury was done for staging purposes to make it look like a sex crime, but that Patsy could not bring herself to inflict injuries on JB which would look more 'convincing', therefore this part of the staging was not continued further.

Possibly but given the manner in which JonBenet's corpse was desecrated with a garrote and postmortem injuries. I rather think Patsy would have no problem assaulting JonBenet further.

therefore this part of the staging was not continued further.

If you analyze the forensic evidence and read over Dr. McCann's remarks, it may be possible to consider that it is not a sex crime staging we are talking about?

With respect to a sexual rage assault I think you misunderstand what I mean.




.

 

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab,

in Dr. McCann's opinion, the acute injury was not caused by penile penetration (Dr.McCann is a renowned medical expert on child abuse and was on the panel of top-flight experts who almost unaninmously agreed that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
From his report (Source: Bonita Papers):

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. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

rashomon,

I tend to agree with BlueCrab in general but possibly not in all particulars, bear in mind there was evidence of chronic and acute sexual assault, e.g. one does not rule out the other.


.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

in Dr. McCann's opinion, the acute injury was not caused by penile penetration (Dr.McCann is a renowned medical expert on child abuse and was on the panel of top-flight experts who almost unaninmously agreed that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
From his report (Source: Bonita Papers):

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. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in ? not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

rashomon,

Thank you for posting Dr. McCann's report in which he says, based on autopsy photos, that the object inserted into JonBenet was more rigid than a finger.

However, if we are to believe Dr. McCann's report (or your interpretation of the report) then we must agree that JonBenet was assaulted with the stick, instead of experiencing penile penetration, on two different days; one that caused the acute injury at the 7 o'clock position in the vagina on the night of the murder, and one that caused the chronic injury at the same 7 o'clock position in the vagina 2 or 3 days prior to the murder.

That also means the EA device, with the stick tied to it, had to have been made at least several days ahead of time. This, of course, would help explain why nylon fibers from the device were found in JonBenet's bed. However, I'm skeptical that JonBenet had been assaulted on two different days with the stick and had not complained to someone. IMO the vagina injuries on two different days were from penile insertions, but I don't completely discount Dr. McCann's findings either.

BlueCrab

 

[Toltec]

Sure. I've posted it before.

I've never been IDI except when my whole familiarity with this case was what I heard on the news. Once I started looking into the case, and particularly when I read that bizarre ransome note, I became an RDI.

Initially, I thought that while either of the adult R's was a strong possibility, I leaned toward PR. I still believe she authored the RN. Handwriting, diction, punctuation, the use of an uncommon editing mark, etc. point to her. (I could say a lot about that inverted carat and what I think it means; but that's for another time.)

But when I tried to come up with an explanation for the crime as committed which made PR the perpetrator, I ran into a few stumbling blocks.

Stumbling block #1 was the fact that the sexual wound inflicted on JBR was inflicted before she died, as the wound bled. Most of the PR theories assume this wound was postmortem staging; but to accept that you must accept that PR was more concerned with inflicting this wound than she was with ascertaining whether or not her daughter was actually dead! Since I believe the strangulation actually completed the murder which was begun by the violent head blow, I believe that the wound was most likely inflicted between these two events. Is there any corroboration? Well, only in that it would be pretty hard to avoid inflicting incidental scratches, tears, bruises or abrasions on other parts of JBR's genital area if you were inflicting a painful wound of that nature on a child who was not only alive, but conscious. The fact that there don't appear to be such incidental wounds is what makes me think there's a strong possibility JBR was unconscious when that wound was inflicted (one of the reasons I reject the 'douching' theory, btw.)

Dead bodies do not bleed. I am not certain if the molestation was staging or intentional. One thing is for certain...her underwear were changed from the size 6 "soiled" ones to the large size 12. As I've said before...Patsy wiped JonBenet's soiled bottom and prepared her for the ride on the airplane. I am absolutely certain it was Patsy who wiped JonBenet down because only a WOMAN would think to also wipe the folds of the labia.

Stumbling block #2 was the appearance that both JR and PR were involved in the cover-up. Now, this isn't a proven fact, but I think it did happen for three reasons. 1) The time element, as I said earlier. I don't think one person could have written the RN, staged the body (possibly more than once) and called police by 5:52 am. 2) The discordant staging. At some point during the staging process, the scenario changed from 'political kidnapping' to 'random pedophile' but some of the staging, particularly the RN, continued to reflect the first staging scenario. 3) The discordant statements given to the police in the early days of the investigation, i.e. did the R's arrive home at 8:30 or 10pm? was JBR wearing a red turtleneck or a white top? etc. All of these, taken together, suggest to me that both parents were involved in the cover-up.

JonBenet was getting on a plane with what she was wearing that night. Patsy said that on early flights the kids would get on the plane in their pajamas. I would think that long johns would be warmer than those pink pajamas...and the red turtleneck would be warmer than the white gap top.

But, here's the stumbling block part. Why? If only one parent is responsible for the death of JBR, why are both covering up?

Stumbling block #3 was that there didn't seem to be a strong enough motive for PR to kill JBR in the way that the crime actually happened. Had JBR been found outside below the balcony of her room, for instance, or at the bottom of the main staircase, I could believe in a sudden rage killing. A worn out, exhausted mother dealing with a recalcitrant child loses it, and the child dies. We've seen such things before. But this child was hit over the head with the proverbial blunt instrument, and strangled, and beaten, and sexually assulted. As a mere 'rage killing' this seems, if you'll forgive the word, like overkill.

I began to think that the sexual wound inflicted on JBR was the real key to understanding this crime. Who inflicted it, and why?

There are, IMO, only three major possibilities as to why. One, the killer was seeking perverse gratification. Two, the killer was covering up evidence that he had abused this child at some time prior to her death. Three, someone else knows for a fact that this child has been abused, and is willing to inflict this injury on a still-living child to cover up for the abuser.

I discard reason one (and therefore the BR theory, along with the IDI pedophile theory) because there's no evidence that gratification was taken on the night this crime was committed. Put as bluntly as possible, and I beg pardon for being so blunt here, there's no semen on, in, or near the body, or in any place or on any thing associated with the crime. So unless our mythical pedophile was a woman, there's no reason to accept reason one as the reason this wound was inflicted. (Interestingly, this doesn't rule out PR. While I don't think she was abusing her daughter, there's another reason for that, which I'll get to in a moment.)

Reason two seems like the most likely possibility. If someone has been abusing JBR, and has killed her to keep her from telling about the abuse, it would be quite logical for this person to inflict this wound, not to destroy the past evidence of abuse completely, which can't be done, but to compromise and confuse it so that it's not overwhelming evidence that someone who has abused JBR in the past is involved in this crime. Not only does the wound contaminate the evidence of abuse, it also conceals the motive of the crime. To me, this is the reason this wound was inflicted! What killer is going to pause in the midst of his crime to inflict such a wound, if not for some very important, critical reason? And if this is, indeed, the reason this wound was inflicted, to disguise both the prior abuse and the motive for the murder, then it worked!

Reason three has to be considered, however. Does someone in the house know about the abuse, for a fact, and is this person so concerned about the abuser that he/she will pause in the middle of killing JBR to inflict the wound, to cover up for the abuser? It seems terribly unlikely. Murder is a crime which carries far more punishment than abuse, and murderers aren't usually this altruistic. If the wound had been inflicted post mortem there might be a case made out for this reason, but the fact that it was inflicted on JBR while she was still alive makes this one a stretch, IMO.

(You've noticed that I haven't said anything about the possibility that the wound was inflicted to make JBR's death look like a sex crime. It wasn't. It would have to been a post mortem injury for that to be true, and the RN staging, which probably came first, wasn't going to be about a sex crime, anyway.)

So, if reason two is correct, and this wound was inflicted to cover up abuse, who is the abuser?

There are three possibilities: BR, PR, and JR. Now, you'll notice I rule BR out as having commited this crime 'accidentally' during a sex game, but I don't thereby rule him out as the abuser/killer on those grounds. However, I do rule him out on the basis of what I think is the motive of this crime: to silence JBR before she can inform other people that she's being sexually abused. He would have no reason to worry about that, since he probably wouldn't even be aware that it was a crime! As far as JBR is concerned, in another post, I'd like to point to what I think of as the evidence that she was showing signs of revealing abuse, but most people here are quite familiar with those things.

Was PR abusing her daughter? I couldn't rule her out under the whole 'reason one' thing, but I think she can be ruled out now, for the most part. There remains a slight possibility that she was the one, but it depends on a few other things which seem a bit contradictory. The primary thing to consider is that PR was the one taking JBR to the doctor, specifically discussing JBR's bedwetting issues, recurrent vaginitis, and other symptoms which taken together may suggest abuse. If PR was the abuser/killer, why would she take JBR to the doctor so many times? (SuperDave has mentioned the Munchausen by Proxy theory, and it's a possibility. But it seems a remote one.)

What about JR? In considering things, I've come to the conclusion that if the information we have is correct, he's the most likely person to have been abusing JBR, and is therefore the most likely person to have killed her. He certainly has the most to lose, if he's been abusing her and she tells. Statistically he's the most likely person to be abusing JBR if she was being abused. From the standpoint of physical strength he's the most likely to have struck that blow to the head and caused a complete fracture of the skull with a displacement of a section of it.

In the second part of this post, I'll describe what I think happened, how it happened, and why it worked.

The accidental death of JonBenet was just that...an accident. The instincts of self-preservation kicked in and the staging started. The question should be WHEN John cooperated in the cover-up/staging.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Thank you for posting Dr. McCann's report in which he says, based on autopsy photos, that the object inserted into JonBenet was more rigid than a finger.

However, if we are to believe Dr. McCann's report (or your interpretation of the report) then we must agree that JonBenet was assaulted with the stick, instead of experiencing penile penetration, on two different days; one that caused the acute injury at the 7 o'clock position in the vagina on the night of the murder, and one that caused the chronic injury at the same 7 o'clock position in the vagina 2 or 3 days prior to the murder.

That also means the EA device, with the stick tied to it, had to have been made at least several days ahead of time. This, of course, would help explain why nylon fibers from the device were found in JonBenet's bed. However, I'm skeptical that JonBenet had been assaulted on two different days with the stick and had not complained to someone. IMO the vagina injuries on two different days were from penile insertions, but I don't completely discount Dr. McCann's findings either.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,
I think the stick injury was inflicted on that fatal night for pure staging purposes, but the child may very well have been the victim of chronic prior abuse via penile penetration.
I think the garrote was a staged scene too, fashioned to direct attention away from both the head wound and from the chronic abuse by a family member. It was staged so bizarrely that no one should think that a family member could have done this.
BTW, BlueCrab, have you read Delmar England's analysis of the so-called garrote? He pointed out that it was very clumsily done, and that the multiple wraps around the handle would make effective pulling an impossibility.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

If you analyze the forensic evidence and read over Dr. McCann's remarks, it may be possible to consider that it is not a sex crime staging we are talking about?

But what kind of staging do you think it is when they put that garrote contraption around her neck?

With respect to a sexual rage assault I think you misunderstand what I mean.

What exactly do you mean by the term sexual rage?