Do you think a Stungun was used?

[Solace]

If you were to use a stun-gun on a corpse then the type of injuries would be distinctly different postmortem, as to if they were recieved when the person was alive.

So why would one of Burke, John or Patsy be applying a stun-gun to JonBenet shortly after a pineapple snacking session?



.

I don't know UK, do you think they wanted to molest her?

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know UK, do you think they wanted to molest her?

Solace,

I dont know, and if you factor in her sexual assault, it certainly does not appear accidental?


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

I dont know, and if you factor in her sexual assault, it certainly does not appear accidental?


.

It is not accidental. It is intentional. Steve Thomas says pieces of the paint brush were found inside of JonBenet. It is intentional.

 

[UKGuy]

It is not accidental. It is intentional. Steve Thomas says pieces of the paint brush were found inside of JonBenet. It is intentional.

Solace,
So you reckon her sexual assault was premeditated ?

 

[JMO8778]

I see it one of 2 ways,IF it wasn't from toilet rage,ie-JB was killed by PR, but not due to toilet rage,like SD mentioned,a snow white syndrome of sorts.And I think that could happen even if PR already knew she was being molested.I think the over the top pageant outfits and makeup making her look like a 21 yo were quite possibly a part of that.
IF it was toilet rage then I think it possible that JR had already gone to bed *but...JB was molested sometime that evening prior that.SO when PR goes to get him and confronts him with not being able to rouse JB after the head injury,he,not wanting to take her for medical help b/c of what could be found, proceeds to help with the staging,and covering up the recent and past abuse is esp. imprt to him.
IF it was JR that killed her,then it could have been to silence her and yes,she could have been molested shortly prior to that,(although I think the paintbrush injury was still done in an attempt cover it).That is actually the simplest explanation,but I'm not sure it's the right one.

 

[UKGuy]

I see it one of 2 ways,IF it wasn't from toilet rage,ie-JB was killed by PR, but not due to toilet rage,like SD mentioned,a snow white syndrome of sorts.And I think that could happen even if PR already knew she was being molested.I think the over the top pageant outfits and makeup making her look like a 21 yo were quite possibly a part of that.
IF it was toilet rage then I think it possible that JR had already gone to bed *but...JB was molested sometime that evening prior that.SO when PR goes to get him and confronts him with not being able to rouse JB after the head injury,he,not wanting to take her for medical help b/c of what could be found, proceeds to help with the staging,and covering up the recent and past abuse is esp. imprt to him.
IF it was JR that killed her,then it could have been to silence her and yes,she could have been molested shortly prior to that,(although I think the paintbrush injury was still done in an attempt cover it).That is actually the simplest explanation,but I'm not sure it's the right one.

JMO8778,

Yes its possible, but since JonBenet is dead, why does John need to hide anything, they can still pin it on an imaginary intruder?

If they take JonBenet to the hospital and prior abuse is discovered, then whats changed if they hide the abuse by redressing JonBenet, only for it to be discovered by Coroner Meyer during the autopsy?

So whilst possible, it does not seem to add up, particularly the argument from an accident e.g. they do things that are redundant, such as hiding her sexual assault.

The accident theory followed by a staging does not seem credible, since they do unneccessary things to JonBenet, hide the most obvious motive that an intruder offers, plus with her still wearing urine-soaked longjohns and soiled pants lying on the bathroom floor upstairs, there is no attempt to hide this evidence, as distinct from her sexual injuries.


.

 

[Ames]

JMO8778,

Yes its possible, but since JonBenet is dead, why does John need to hide anything, they can still pin it on an imaginary intruder?

If they take JonBenet to the hospital and prior abuse is discovered, then whats changed if they hide the abuse by redressing JonBenet, only for it to be discovered by Coroner Meyer during the autopsy?

So whilst possible, it does not seem to add up, particularly the argument from an accident e.g. they do things that are redundant, such as hiding her sexual assault.

The accident theory followed by a staging does not seem credible, since they do unneccessary things to JonBenet, hide the most obvious motive that an intruder offers, plus with her still wearing urine-soaked longjohns and soiled pants lying on the bathroom floor upstairs, there is no attempt to hide this evidence, as distinct from her sexual injuries.


.

IMO..in their frantic minds, the Ramsey's thought that the paintbrush insertion would hide the evidence of previous abuse, because surely they knew that it would have been found out, during the autopsy. Maybe she had been molested, but I don't think that she was that night. The fact that one of the interviewers brought it up, lets me know that JB had been previously molested, by SOMEONE. And also the fact that Patsy didn't act not one bit shocked about it, lets me know that she knew what was going on. I do not believe this was the reason for her death, though. I believe that with the paintbrush insertion, they were "killing two birds with one stone"....so to speak.

 

[Solace]

IMO..in their frantic minds, the Ramsey's thought that the paintbrush insertion would hide the evidence of previous abuse, because surely they knew that it would have been found out, during the autopsy. Maybe she had been molested, but I don't think that she was that night. The fact that one of the interviewers brought it up, lets me know that JB had been previously molested, by SOMEONE. And also the fact that Patsy didn't act not one bit shocked about it, lets me know that she knew what was going on. I do not believe this was the reason for her death, though. I believe that with the paintbrush insertion, they were "killing two birds with one stone"....so to speak.

She tried to act shocked with Haney and then asked her investigator if he knew anything about this and her investigator said well I have heard some talk, yes.

Great investigator! He tells Patsy only what she wants to hear or he tells Patsy everything and they are both pretending.

 

[UKGuy]

IMO..in their frantic minds, the Ramsey's thought that the paintbrush insertion would hide the evidence of previous abuse, because surely they knew that it would have been found out, during the autopsy. Maybe she had been molested, but I don't think that she was that night. The fact that one of the interviewers brought it up, lets me know that JB had been previously molested, by SOMEONE. And also the fact that Patsy didn't act not one bit shocked about it, lets me know that she knew what was going on. I do not believe this was the reason for her death, though. I believe that with the paintbrush insertion, they were "killing two birds with one stone"....so to speak.

Ames,

How can the insertion of an object inside JonBenet hide anything, it must surely act to focus attention onto her genitals.

They do not need to hide anything, they can just attribute any sexual injuries to an attacker unknown, why implicate themselves at all?

Why was JonBenet's sexual injuries cleaned up and concealed?


.

 

[Solace]

Ames,

How can the insertion of an object inside JonBenet hide anything, it must surely act to focus attention onto her genitals. If there is sexual abuse and John knows it along with Patsy, of course he is going to know that LE will see it, so inserting an object could actually cause tearing and in his sick mind it would be hard to differentiate between old abuse and new abuse. That would be the reason for inserting the paintbrush.

They do not need to hide anything, they can just attribute any sexual injuries to an attacker unknown, why implicate themselves at all? They don't think they are implicating themselves. An attacker did it.

Why was JonBenet's sexual injuries cleaned up and concealed? It could have been done in a sorrowful way, a sad way, after this horrific crime. I mean she was wrapped very lovingly and her favorite nightgown was there. She could have been cleaned up.


.

I am playing Devil's advocate above because I am not agreeing that she was is an ongoing victim of sexual abuse. Not yet anyway. But see above.

 

[UKGuy]

I am playing Devil's advocate above because I am not agreeing that she was is an ongoing victim of sexual abuse. Not yet anyway. But see above.

Solace,

Coroner Meyer and the majority of the investigating officers assumed she had been the victim of prior sexual abuse , or vaginal trauma as they phrased it, they have acccess to the coroners notes, including other professional opinions.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

These are interesting points. I was thinking whether the killer would know that the autopsy would show erosion of the hymen, vaginal hyperemia, etc. Would the killer be thinking about that right after the crime. The adrenaline is surging, thinking is clouded and rushed, a million thoughts racing, what to do with the body, how to stage it, all those many details that took place in a short period of time. Would they really be ticking off in their minds the things that may or may not show up on an autopsy. I think the paintbrush stab was part of the assault, not part of a coverup. There was evidence of blood wiped off her thighs at the autopsy. She had to be alive to bleed. I just don't think it was done after she was dead to hide an assault. The paintbrush part to make the garrotte and the part used to assault her were meant to "go together" in the mind of the perp. The key to the whole crime could come down to the missing part of the paintbrush. We still don't know if the entire 3rd piece was left inside her vagina, do we? There is mention of "birefringent" material- I have read various explanations for that- talc (from latex gloves) or paint flakes from the brush handle, or cellulose (wood). Are some brushes made with beaver fur? I know some use sable. That might be one explanation for the beaver fur that I believe was found in JBR's hands. She may have tried to grab the brush. And the part with the fur is the missing part, right? What a piece of evidence that would be if that fur matched the fur on her hands!
PR's beaver boots - were they ever tested? Or was that one of the items that walked out the door with the Rs that night or with Auntie on her police "supervised" (yeah, right) trips to collect clothes for the funeral.
That reminds me, didn't PR say that a local department store had sent some things so the family could choose clothes for the funeral? I believe PR was discussing her decision to wear that Jacquie Kennedy-like veil and she mentioned that. I think she even mentioned choosing a black suit. If so, why did little sis have to go back to the house (creepy at best) to get funeral clothes?

 

[Ames]

I am playing Devil's advocate above because I am not agreeing that she was is an ongoing victim of sexual abuse. Not yet anyway. But see above.

Thank you for answering UK's post to me....I agree with everything you said, and couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[UKGuy]

These are interesting points. I was thinking whether the killer would know that the autopsy would show erosion of the hymen, vaginal hyperemia, etc. Would the killer be thinking about that right after the crime. The adrenaline is surging, thinking is clouded and rushed, a million thoughts racing, what to do with the body, how to stage it, all those many details that took place in a short period of time. Would they really be ticking off in their minds the things that may or may not show up on an autopsy. I think the paintbrush stab was part of the assault, not part of a coverup. There was evidence of blood wiped off her thighs at the autopsy. She had to be alive to bleed. I just don't think it was done after she was dead to hide an assault. The paintbrush part to make the garrotte and the part used to assault her were meant to "go together" in the mind of the perp. The key to the whole crime could come down to the missing part of the paintbrush. We still don't know if the entire 3rd piece was left inside her vagina, do we? There is mention of "birefringent" material- I have read various explanations for that- talc (from latex gloves) or paint flakes from the brush handle, or cellulose (wood). Are some brushes made with beaver fur? I know some use sable. That might be one explanation for the beaver fur that I believe was found in JBR's hands. She may have tried to grab the brush. And the part with the fur is the missing part, right? What a piece of evidence that would be if that fur matched the fur on her hands!
PR's beaver boots - were they ever tested? Or was that one of the items that walked out the door with the Rs that night or with Auntie on her police "supervised" (yeah, right) trips to collect clothes for the funeral.
That reminds me, didn't PR say that a local department store had sent some things so the family could choose clothes for the funeral? I believe PR was discussing her decision to wear that Jacquie Kennedy-like veil and she mentioned that. I think she even mentioned choosing a black suit. If so, why did little sis have to go back to the house (creepy at best) to get funeral clothes?

DeeDee249,

The definition of "birefringent" material is explicitly known, e.g. it is a measure of a materials ability to bend light according to direction, as it passes through the material, think of stain-glass windows, or place a spoon, fork or knife in a tall glass of water, stand to one side and note how the utensil appears to be distorted in the glass, this is due to the refractive properties of the glass bending the light, if it varies according to direction then its termed as birefringent.

Since each materials refractive index is known, the investigators will know explicitly whether the "birefringent" material refers to it as originating from the paintbrush handle or not. Since this aspect has never been expanded upon, I suspect it has significant forensic importance, to the point of speculating whether the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was left inside her?


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

Coroner Meyer and the majority of the investigating officers assumed she had been the victim of prior sexual abuse , or vaginal trauma as they phrased it, they have acccess to the coroners notes, including other professional opinions.

.

So what? I am aware of that - I have read exactly what you have read and I leave open the option that it may not be true. There was daily douching going on with this child and that means that the natural fluids in her body were REMOVED and thereby leaving her extremely dry and much more likely to bleed than a normal child without all this douching. She was constantly DAMP and another reason for "vaginitis" or infections. She was probably scratching constantly. My sister had a zinger of a case of vaginitis and scratched herself so hard that the doctor said "Paris, what the hell have you done, you really scratched yourself - it is deep".

I just don't think she was. I think this is staged and the wiping down of her and the carefully wrapping her in the blanket is sorrow on the killer's part.

 

[Solace]

Thank you for answering UK's post to me....I agree with everything you said, and couldn't have said it better myself.

- Solace

 

[Ames]

So what? I am aware of that - I have read exactly what you have read and I leave open the option that it may not be true. There was daily douching going on with this child and that means that the natural fluids in her body were REMOVED and thereby leaving her extremely dry and much more likely to bleed than a normal child without all this douching. She was constantly DAMP and another reason for "vaginitis" or infections. She was probably scratching constantly. My sister had a zinger of a case of vaginitis and scratched herself so hard that the doctor said "Paris, what the hell have you done, you really scratched yourself - it is deep".

I just don't think she was. I think this is staged and the wiping down of her and the carefully wrapping her in the blanket is sorrow on the killer's part.

The douching could have caused that damage too....to make it look like she had been molested prior to that night. I am sure the coroner would have never expected a six year old to be douched on a regular basis.

I agree with your last paragraph, the wiping was done, because the PARENT in them came out....afterall, it was still their child. I am sure that they regretted what they had done, but they felt that they HAD TO to stay out of jail, and for the sake of Burke...they had HIM to think about too. They felt that he needed his parents at this time...and they wanted to make sure that they were there for him. IMO

 

[UKGuy]

So what? I am aware of that - I have read exactly what you have read and I leave open the option that it may not be true. There was daily douching going on with this child and that means that the natural fluids in her body were REMOVED and thereby leaving her extremely dry and much more likely to bleed than a normal child without all this douching. She was constantly DAMP and another reason for "vaginitis" or infections. She was probably scratching constantly. My sister had a zinger of a case of vaginitis and scratched herself so hard that the doctor said "Paris, what the hell have you done, you really scratched yourself - it is deep".

I just don't think she was. I think this is staged and the wiping down of her and the carefully wrapping her in the blanket is sorrow on the killer's part.

Solace,

So why can the douching and sexual abuse not run together in parallel, how does douching account for her internal injuries or her enlarged hymen.

Without the forensic evidence of prior sexual molestation, I agree it may not be true, but the physical evidence suggests sexual abuse was occurring regularly, and if the intention of the wipe down and sexual injury was to enact staging , why bother hiding it, what homicidal intruder does that?


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

So why can the douching and sexual abuse not run together in parallel, how does douching account for her internal injuries or her enlarged hymen.

Without the forensic evidence of prior sexual molestation, I agree it may not be true, but the physical evidence suggests sexual abuse was occurring regularly, and if the intention of the wipe down and sexual injury was to enact staging , why bother hiding it, what homicidal intruder does that?


.

No intruder does that. I agree with you there. HOWEVER, since I believe John and Patsy did this staging 100%, I believe the wiping down of her was done out of sadness - to clean her up and they also wrapped her up - it was painful to see her this way. They know she is going to be checked every inch so it will be obvious that she has been violated. The ropes around the hands prove that they did not like tieing her up - they were too loose. Even though John said they were very tight, the coroner and the pictures prove that not to be the case. Why wrap her in a blanket - an intruder would not do that either, would he? But they did, because they are sorry that they had to do this. Patsy at one point in an interview I believe with Kane in answering how she feels about this death and how she is dealing with it. She said and I am paraphrasing here, she says she deals with it much better knowing that she will one day see Jon Benet (and now I am not paraphrasing) "Since JonBenet had to go", I am not worried, I know I will see her.

Why did JonBenet have to go. She did not have to go anywhere, she was forced to go. She is involved and she wishes it did not happen.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

So why can the douching and sexual abuse not run together in parallel, how does douching account for her internal injuries or her enlarged hymen. Are you saying you think Patsy was sexually abusing her?

Without the forensic evidence of prior sexual molestation, I agree it may not be true, but the physical evidence suggests sexual abuse was occurring regularly, and if the intention of the wipe down and sexual injury was to enact staging , why bother hiding it, what homicidal intruder does that? I don't know that it says that. If she did not have the infections, I would agree with you. But she does have them and the itching can drive you crazy and as Ames points out it looked like she was scratching herself during a show and it did not take long for posters to say she was masturbating on stage - which she was not. She could have easily scratched herself internally and left a scar. My sister did. The doctor was shocked. But she said it was driving her crazy. He gave her antibiotics that looked like horse pills - swear to God!


.

PLEASE SEE MY REPLY. THANKS.