Abuse and JonBenet

[UKGuy]

Thanks UKGuy for quoting the source. So if the urine was even over the anterior legs, I would agree that 'soaked' is a fitting description.
The urine issue is very important in terms of what might have caused the rage and also in terms of the time line.

But what I find puzzling: how could JB's urine get over the anterior legs if the child was in horizontal position (already dead or nearing death)?
Getting one's legs urine-stained would be more consistent with the body in an upright position imo. Could she still have been alive in a standing position when this occurred?
But what about the 'Wednesday' panties she was already wearing then? This wouldn't fit together with the perp wanting to put on these panties on an already dead body for staging purposes.
I agree with you that had the cause been toilet-rage, the Ramseys would have made sure in their staging that the child would be wearing dry underwear.

rashomon,

I assume Coroner Meyer's description of the crotch area and anterior legs being urine-stained means that the urine had soaked or seeped down to the legs. That as a first assumption it helps to consider JonBenet lying on her stomach when this release of urine occurred, so it would wet her crotch area first then seep down to her legs, which also suggests it was not an insignificant amount of urine?

As I mentioned before the person who wiped her down must have noticed both her underwear were wet with urine?

Now lets assume they were both dry when placed on her, would this have been done upstairs?

The important question is just when did this release of urine occur?

If it occured when she was killed, then she was already wearing the size-6 and long-underwear. But that immediately contradicts any toilet-rage theory since she is left in the underwear. But does not invalidate the possibility she was wearing the underwear when killed.

If it occured when she was being moved down to the wine-cellar, this would suggest she was being carried with her front-torso facing downwards, to facilitate the flow of urine to the front.

Else similar argument applies if the urine release occurred when the garrote was being added as staging?

imo we can safely reject any Intruder Theory, and confidently disregard the Toilet-Rage Theory due to JonBenet being discovered in urine-stained underwear.

The other theory on the table is the Sexual Rage Theory and this one does seem to fit the bill, it has motive, is consistent with the forensic evidence, and may shed light on the possibility that both Ramsey's were involved in JonBenet's death.


.

 

[BBB167893]

Also when you say sheets did you mean blankets?

No, I said what I meant.

 

[UKGuy]

I'll buy that, for now. But I think Kane said that she sheets were tested for urine and did come back positive.

No, I said what I meant.

SuperDave,

ok does this suggest that JonBenet either wet those sheets or was lying on those sheets while wearing the long-underwear and size-12's?


.

 

[rashomon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave
I'll buy that, for now. But I think Kane said that she sheets were tested for urine and did come back positive.

[UKGuy]
SuperDave,
ok does this suggest that JonBenet either wet those sheets or was lying on those sheets while wearing the long-underwear and size-12's?

The crucial question is whether the urine on the sheets was wet or dry. For it would not be surprising if sheets belonging to a chronic bedwetter had dried urine on them. But if the urine was actually fresh, this means that JB had been in bed on that night.
Did Kane say that the sheets were wet with fresh urine?

 

[BBB167893]

If he did, I know nothing of it.

 

[Eagle1]

I'm extremely vague about this, maybe even wrong, but I seem to remember that the bed sheets were dry. Naturally I don't remember a source.

Maybe it was in a section of one of the books that had just been discussing the housekeeper, LHP. Or maybe not. Sorry about that. For whatever this is worth. I'm thinking it might jog someone else's memory.

 

[calicocat]

Two thoughts:

1) Could JonBenet's head injury have happened at an earlier date? I may have no idea what I'm talking about, but could it have been a slow crack that eventually led to a full break and subsequent hemorrage after being aggravated by slaps to the head?

2) Wouldn't constant rough wiping stretch the skin surrounding JB's genitals, causing the hymen to tear, creating weak muscles that could no longer control bladder release as well as anal? It has been said that JB both wet and soiled herself day and night. This appearance could be mistaken for sexual abuse. And, didn't Patsy apply creme from time to time because of redness to the area?

Upon reading additional information, I no longer suspect that JR sexually abused JB. If it is true that LHP heard JB scream and cry when taken to the bathroom by Patsy, then Patsy was surely the abuser.

 

[UKGuy]

Two thoughts:

1) Could JonBenet's head injury have happened at an earlier date? I may have no idea what I'm talking about, but could it have been a slow crack that eventually led to a full break and subsequent hemorrage after being aggravated by slaps to the head?

2) Wouldn't constant rough wiping stretch the skin surrounding JB's genitals, causing the hymen to tear, creating weak muscles that could no longer control bladder release as well as anal? It has been said that JB both wet and soiled herself day and night. This appearance could be mistaken for sexual abuse. And, didn't Patsy apply creme from time to time because of redness to the area?

Upon reading additional information, I no longer suspect that JR sexually abused JB. If it is true that LHP heard JB scream and cry when taken to the bathroom by Patsy, then Patsy was surely the abuser.

calicocat,

1) Could JonBenet's head injury have happened at an earlier date? I may have no idea what I'm talking about, but could it have been a slow crack that eventually led to a full break and subsequent hemorrage after being aggravated by slaps to the head?

Highly unlikely, her skull was fractured, and indented by the force of the blow!

2) Wouldn't constant rough wiping stretch the skin surrounding JB's genitals, causing the hymen to tear, creating weak muscles that could no longer control bladder release as well as anal? It has been said that JB both wet and soiled herself day and night. This appearance could be mistaken for sexual abuse. And, didn't Patsy apply creme from time to time because of redness to the area?

Rough wiping may do many things, but not enlarge her hymen to such an extent that an exerienced MD and Pathologist Coroner Meyer suggests verbally, prior to putting pen to paper, that it appeared like a digital penetration.

Have you considered there may be more than one abuser? There may have been collusion to abuse, which may have taken different forms?


.

 

[rashomon]

Upon reading additional information, I no longer suspect that JR sexually abused JB. If it is true that LHP heard JB scream and cry when taken to the bathroom by Patsy, then Patsy was surely the abuser.

A panel of highly acclaimed pediatric experts consulted on the case, who examined slides ot JB's damaged vaginal tissue, almost unanimously agreed that JB's body showed signs of chronic sexual abuse.
Bubble bath or bladder infections can't erode a hymen. Nor can vigorous wiping enlarge the vaginal opening to double the size for a child of JB's age.

The more I read about the case, the more I'm convinced that John was JB's abuser, who was also involved in the staging of the scene together with Patsy. Fibers from his shirt were found in the crotch area of the JB's oversized underwear, which he probably put on her later for staging purposes.

 

[Veronica10]

"Bubble bath or bladder infections can't erode a hymen. Nor can vigorous wiping enlarge the vaginal opening to double the size for a child of JB's age."

No...bubblebath or bladder infections would not cause this, but a douche would. A douce being inserted high up into the vagina would cause the hymen to tear. I think this is what appeared to be the prior trauma to the area. I don't think she was sexually abused in the traditional sense.

I think Patsy would use a douche on JonBenet due to her own bout with ovarian cancer. She was probably obsessed with that part of the female body due to her illness. I think she wanted to keep JB's girl parts clean.

Using a douche on a young girl is still abuse though.

 

[julianne]

"Bubble bath or bladder infections can't erode a hymen. Nor can vigorous wiping enlarge the vaginal opening to double the size for a child of JB's age."

No...bubblebath or bladder infections would not cause this, but a douche would. A douce being inserted high up into the vagina would cause the hymen to tear. I think this is what appeared to be the prior trauma to the area. I don't think she was sexually abused in the traditional sense.

I think Patsy would use a douche on JonBenet due to her own bout with ovarian cancer. She was probably obsessed with that part of the female body due to her illness. I think she wanted to keep JB's girl parts clean.

Using a douche on a young girl is still abuse though.

Using a douche does more harm than good. I never read anything to suggest Patsy using a douche on JonBenet, but I think that most adult women know that it's not a safe practice. There is naturally-occurring bacteria in the vagina, and douching forces that bacteria further up into you, in places where it is NOT naturally occurring. That is why gynecologists frown upon the practice of douching.

 

[coloradokares]

Did any of you see the report by Julie Hayden? She interviewd the sexual abuse team investigator who was mysteriously pulled off the case early on. There was definite indication of sexual abuse prior to the night of the murder. Also I knew this report was coming in advance of it. I got to have a little discussion with Julie knowing this was coming. Holly Smith I believe was her name. Great special report. As I say things are not quiet in and around Boulder. As you can smell the fresh scent of rain in the air. We are waiting for the sound of the thunder. Questions are being raised all over the place. This could mean this case is about to break open. Also this could just be because of the 10 year anniversary coming up.

 

[coloradokares]

Did any of you see the report by Julie Hayden? She interviewd the sexual abuse team investigator who was mysteriously pulled off the case early on. There was definite indication of sexual abuse prior to the night of the murder. Also I knew this report was coming in advance of it. I got to have a little discussion with Julie knowing this was coming. Holly Smith I believe was her name. Great special report. As I say things are not quiet in and around Boulder. As you can smell the fresh scent of rain in the air. We are waiting for the sound of the thunder. Questions are being raised all over the place. This could mean this case is about to break open. Also this could just be because of the 10 year anniversary coming up.

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1475842&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Forgot to post this link. Its the story coverage. By Julie Hayden with Holly Smith.

 

[UKGuy]

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1475842&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Forgot to post this link. Its the story coverage. By Julie Hayden with Holly Smith.

coloradokares,

Thanks for the info and link. Not a lot new in the preview text, except she more or less confirms what many others suspect, and her being removed from the investigation is as interesting as Lou Smit's arrival with his intruder led focus.

This is new to me:

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

Now this is something Steve Thomas omitted from his accidental bedwetting theory. This is more than a red flag for those that consider JonBenet was being sexually abused, its probably a confirming detail?

One question is: had been soiled with fecal material, does this mean her panties were replaced back into her dresser soiled, or had they been washed, spun dry etc, but still retained signs of having previously been soiled with fecal matter?

Either way this is distinct chronic evidence relating to JonBenet's toilet behaviour.


.

 

[coloradokares]

coloradokares,

Thanks for the info and link. Not a lot new in the preview text, except she more or less confirms what many others suspect, and her being removed from the investigation is as interesting as Lou Smit's arrival with his intruder led focus.

This is new to me:

Now this is something Steve Thomas omitted from his accidental bedwetting theory. This is more than a red flag for those that consider JonBenet was being sexually abused, its probably a confirming detail?

One question is: had been soiled with fecal material, does this mean her panties were replaced back into her dresser soiled, or had they been washed, spun dry etc, but still retained signs of having previously been soiled with fecal matter?

Either way this is distinct chronic evidence relating to JonBenet's toilet behaviour.


.

It appears from watching this interview that is what she meant when I saw the interview. It was stated in a way by Holly Smith that is what she found and meant. I never thought she meant she found freshly laundered panties with signs of past soiling but soiled panties. If so does that mean JB had taken to hiding them in her drawers or something? This all points to the sexual abuse theories. I think if you'd of seen the interview you'd of known that was what this Holly Smith was saying in finally deciding to speak.

 

[UKGuy]

It appears from watching this interview that is what she meant when I saw the interview. It was stated in a way by Holly Smith that is what she found and meant. I never thought she meant she found freshly laundered panties with signs of past soiling but soiled panties. If so does that mean JB had taken to hiding them in her drawers or something? This all points to the sexual abuse theories. I think if you'd of seen the interview you'd of known that was what this Holly Smith was saying in finally deciding to speak.

coloradokares,

I never saw the interview. So am not certain precisely what Holly Smith found in JonBenet's dresser?

But if these are soiled unwashed panties, then it would appear JonBenet was probably hiding them away in her dresser drawers? Although its not conclusive regarding the sexual abuse theories, it confirms that JonBenet had more than a little problem with her toilet.

I'll assume the panties were all tested for semen residue, I wonder what else might pop up as the date of her death draws closer?


.

 

[Solace]

coloradokares,

I never saw the interview. So am not certain precisely what Holly Smith found in JonBenet's dresser?

But if these are soiled unwashed panties, then it would appear JonBenet was probably hiding them away in her dresser drawers? Although its not conclusive regarding the sexual abuse theories, it confirms that JonBenet had more than a little problem with her toilet.

I'll assume the panties were all tested for semen residue, I wonder what else might pop up as the date of her death draws closer?


.

I don't know that she was hiding anything. They were probably stained underwear that had been washed but stained nonetheless. I cannot see her hiding things in plain sight.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know that she was hiding anything. They were probably stained underwear that had been washed but stained nonetheless. I cannot see her hiding things in plain sight.

Solace,

Well there we go, since I never saw the interview I dont know, washed and stained seems likely to me, otherwise LHP would surely have mentioned this by now?


Holly Smith may tell us more at some point, but the information certainly expands what we know about JonBenet's toilet, and its chronic nature.



.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

Well there we go, since I never saw the interview I dont know, washed and stained seems likely to me, otherwise LHP would surely have mentioned this by now?


Holly Smith may tell us more at some point, but the information certainly expands what we know about JonBenet's toilet, and its chronic nature.



.

Yes, it does tell us more. But she was only six years old and still a very young child. I am not trying to defend anything chronic, but it seems to me that a six year old would have a problem with this type of thing. They just are not very good at it at this age, unless they are Felix Unger, and I am really not joking. Do you think I am wrong? I really can't tell unless I see the underwear. It is hard to judge by what someone else is visualing.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, it does tell us more. But she was only six years old and still a very young child. I am not trying to defend anything chronic, but it seems to me that a six year old would have a problem with this type of thing. They just are not very good at it at this age, unless they are Felix Unger, and I am really not joking. Do you think I am wrong? I really can't tell unless I see the underwear. It is hard to judge by what someone else is visualing.

Solace,

No I do not think you are wrong? Its possible JonBenet's toilet problem was independent from her death, but with other abuse indicators and remarks by Coroner Meyer regarding her enlarged hymen then her toilet problems may be linked to something else? Knowing whether the underwear was washed and soiled or just plain soiled would help.



.