(selectively and rsbm)
I agree there is no apparent evidence of antemortem compression, but this is not sufficient to rule it out.
I don't disagree. I'm simply asking why one would assume it in a theory unless it is only to consider possibilities.
ITA. For the record I'm suggesting the assault with the paintbrush came after a prior acute sexual assault, for which it was intended to mask or obfuscate. Otherwise all you have is a staged sexual assault.
Anytime you assume intent, you reach a conclusion based on your assumption. Do you really know what the intent of the paintbrush assault was?
Its an inference based on two facts:
1. The application of the paintbrush internally was intended as staging to mask a prior event.
Again, you're assuming the intent.
2. No staging was enacted for the antemortem blunt force trauma.
Unfortunately, we don't even know that the stager(s) were aware of the BFT. Even Dr. Meyer was not aware of it until he cut and peeled back her scalp during autopsy.
mmm, but why bother breaking the paintbrush, why not simply remove it alike other missing items?
MOO, it was used to change the appearance of how the strangulation occurred and obfuscate how the paintbrush had actually been used.
How did the parents know the paintbrush was used to assault JonBenet?
They saw (and attempted to clean up) the blood.
I'm assuming you consider the splinters found inside JonBenet to be artifact originating from the paintbrush? Particularly since you consider that the paintbrush was not broken prior to its use, hence no loose splinters available?
I don't think that would fit what is considered
artifact. It would be pertinent evidence of what happened. But no (to answer the question), I don't think the paintbrush was broken before it was used in the assault
Was JonBenet internally assaulted only once by the paintbrush, i.e. by the person who initially assaulted her resulting in the end of the paintbrush revealing evidence of a sexual assault?
Yup. That's what I think.
Since Patsy put the remaining piece of paintbrush back into the paint-tote, forensic discovery appears to be the last thing on her mind?
Who knows? Was it simply overlooked? Was the intent to remove it later when finished with the other staging tasks and then forgotten? Was it thought that investigators wouldn't notice it amongst all the other paintbrushes? I don't know. Knowing intent or what was on someone's mind when they did something requires more ability than I possess. Perhaps we can contact Derek Acorah and ask if Mary was involved?
She could have elected to run the paintbrush under the tap, to wash it clean of any evidential residue?
I think even the Ramseys (especially John) knew that wouldn't work. Wood is fibrous and absorbs fluids. Even if the varnish was intact, running under the tap wouldn't remove microscopic evidence.
Presumably, by elimination, you assume Burke Ramsey sexually assaulted JonBenet with the paintbrush?
:sigh:
Nobody knows just how much I wish I was wrong, but I don't see this happening any other way.