UKGuy- the eroded hymen wasn't the only evidence. Yes, not all girls and women have identical sexual organs, just as there are differences in men and boys. But there was blood found in the vestibule and forchette (which is NOT normal in ANY pre-mentrual woman and indicates an injury or irritation of some kind). There was exposure of the vaginal rugae, bruising (NOT normal) and vascular congestion and hyperemia. While the hymen by itself would not necessarily lead to suspicion of sexual assault, taken as a whole, the findings certainly do. And inserting anything into the vagina of a 6-year old girl is sexual abuse, even if it was douching by a parent. A washcloth and vigorous scrubbing would NOT cause those injuries. You don't need to "scrub" through a child's hymen because she soils herself.
DeeDee249,
Yes but does the foregoing description suggest acute and chronic sexual abuse?
Acute molestation is more important a feature than the chronic, since some people wish to characterise her genital injuries as staging?
There are three aspects to this case that for some reason are glossed over with wishful thinking and maternal homilies:
1. JonBenet's neck injuries.
2. JonBenet's patently, imo non-accidental, head injuries.
3. JonBenet's
hidden sexual assault.
So the PDI goes: Patsy had a bad hair day, was toileting JonBenet, she lost it and inflicted the above on her beloved daughter?
JonBenet's injuries are so serious and sustained that they cannot be accidental, the crime scene was staged, the rationale more likely being to mask the removal of evidence than propose a kidnapper failed to carry off JonBenet.
So what evidence appears to have been masked, well her neck injuries by the garrote and her sexual assault by wiping her down and hiding it beneath layers of clothing, also the location of her death and possible redressing?
If John was not involved, how would he react to a naked, sexually assaulted JonBenet after being informed by Patsy
hey I just killed JonBenet, but it was an accident, and I've got it sorted, I made it look like she was attacked by a sexual predator, aint that clever?
Why are JonBenet's size-6 underwear and third piece of the paintbrush missing? The missing piece of the paintbrush appears to offer no forensic links other than those offered by the residents, this also applies to the piece used to make the garrote and the part replaced in the paint-tote, so my money is on the missing piece having been left inside JonBenet, this also conforms with the garrote and its implied ritualistic theme. Her size-6 underwear must have dna and/or blood for them to be removed, soiled or wet is no big deal since these facets of JonBenet's behaviour were well known, also she was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, so it appears the size-6's were taken to remove forensic evidence?
When JonBenet's sexual assault was hidden beneath layers of clothing and blankets, her killer(s) knew it would eventually be discovered, so what made the removal of her size-6's so imperative? Nobody could see them, who was going to look just after she was discovered, and what would it tell anyone immediately, imo it cannot have been simply staging since this could be achieved with or without bloodied size-6 underwear, as we know the size-12's had spots of blood on them, so where is the percentage?
So if it is staging why bother to hide a sexual assault that you know will be discovered eventually, why not just pin it on the failed kidnap attempt, just leave JonBenet semi-naked, visibly assaulted lying in the wine-cellar?
The reason imo is that it was not staging, JonBenet had been the victim of a sexual assault, and this was one of the major factors lying behind the removal of evidence, and its concealment beneath layers of clothing and blankets.
.
