Happenings of December 26

[Anti-K]

I don‘t know, but there is a theory out there that a stun gun was used. It is being discussed on the “Was A Stun Used...: thread. So, I’m just saying that if we go with that theory, then we have a possible, logical sequence.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

otg,
More or less. I am allowing for a digital sexual assault with the outside possibility that the paintbrush was not used to assault JonBenet internally.

But I do think that the paintbrush was used to stage an internal injury with the intent on masking the prior acute injury and possibly any chronic abuse.

Coroner Meyer only ever suggested that there was one sexual assault, since by definition Digital Penetration is such an assault from which Sexual Contact must be inferred.

The problem lies with the splinter about which Coroner was deliberately evasive describing it as birefringent material suggesting he has an opinion on this subject.

That opinion might coincide with the use of the paintbrush or he might opine that the digit was the more likely source.

Response:
This "staging within staging " is a big part of the reason I believe P & J used the paintbrush as a means to cover up previous abuse, Burke would not know enough about anatomy and physiology to figure how important that issue was.

celticthyme,
ITA. I've always assumed that the forensic evidence suggested multiple staging, the unanswered question is was the same person responsible for it all or was there selective amendments?

To gain another perspective I found it helpful to itemise JonBenet's clothing from the R's party onwards, then attempt to sequence them in a meaningful way, doing this I concluded only staging expalins all the anomalies, excepting JonBenet playing dressup on Christmas Day?


.

 

[UKGuy]

I though Mayer told LE he felt there had been prior sexual contact- Some of her vaginal bruising was in the healing stage- they had been inflicted prior to that night.
As for the "birefringent" material- are we so sure that Mayer meant the wood splinters? It has been suggested that the birefringent material could have been talc (such as might be found on a latex glove) or even paint chips from breaking the paintbrush (which could have been inserted with the finger that broke the brush, not necessarily the paintbrush itself). I know that cellulose was noted in her vagina- and that certainly seems like it would be splinters. However, once again they could have been carried in on a finger and not the brush. There has been so much speculation about that broken brush- with some feeling that the missing piece of the brush itself was found in her vagina. I know that LE claims to have not released all the evidence, but this would be a BIG piece of the evidence and I can't believe it could have been kept under wraps all this time. Kolar has not mentioned the paintbrush as being found there, nor as far as I know, that there is certainty that the brush itself caused the injuries. And he has also said that there is nothing unknown that would change the opinions (his or ours I suppose) on what he believes occurred. I can see how staging might include something to hide the sexual assault, but I think her internal vaginal injuries would show more lacerations, cuts, etc if the sharp splintery edges of the brush had been used to penetrate her.

DeeDee249,
ITA on BBM. In his book Steve Thomas referred to a splinter, which technically is "birefringent" material. A minimal interpretation along with Coroner Myer's verbatim remarks about Digital Penetration would suggest the splinter might simply be accidental artifact.

The difficulty lies in separating the acute sexual assault from any later staged injuries.

I agree with you on the laceration aspect, but without viewing the autopsy pictures and evidence I cannot reach any final conclusion, since I am uncertain as to the nature of her prior internal injuries and what relationship they might hold to her acute injury?

One question might be, why remove the missing piece of the paintbrush yet be content to leave the other piece attached to the ligature?

So if there was no staging involving the use of the missing piece of the paintbrush why does Kolar et al not simply say so?

 

[UKGuy]

OK, yes, which means there could have also been a sexual encounter with a clean up prior to one involving digital penetration after she was near death.

The wipe down and clean up of her vaginal and thigh area would have happened prior to the redressing. It stands to reason the redressing would have occurred prior to her releasing the urine found on the front of her longjohns which would have accounted for her being face down next to the paint tray when the ligature was applied.

But there was a recovered blood sample in her panties, and it's been discussed before that releasing urine with the size 12's on under the longjohns should have affected the report on the condition of the size 12's in the AR as well as affecting the blood spot sample.

It's as if the lj's were put on after the cleanup WITHOUT the size 12's on, then the ligature applied, the release of urine as she expired, the lj's taken down or off again, the digital assault, the size 12's put on, and the wet lj's put on over them....maybe enough time later that they had time to dry out?
Could JB's body have been moved around with her just in the white shirt and size 12's, then the lj's added when the body was getting wrapped in the blanket?

midwest mama,
So is your preferred sequence that the Digital Penetration represents some form of staging to obsfucate a prior sexual assault ?

Given the cleanup and the assymetry of the bloodstain, as noted by Coroner Meyer, then why do you require a Digital Penetration to mask that which is no longer visible?

.

 

[bettybaby00]

the quote function seems to be wonky ATM, there were 2 issues that were raised, but i can't seem to track back to the initial post(s).

1) whether or not Meyer concluded there was prior sexual contact, and
2) the wood/splinter and/or birefringent found in her vagina:

Dr. Meyer conducted an external examination of JonBenét’s genitalia. He had observed spots of blood in the crotch of the underwear she had been wearing when her clothing had been removed, and this alerted him to the possibility that there was a cause for this evidence to be present. He observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7: 00 o’clock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr. Meyer that a foreign object had been inserted into JonBenét’s genitalia at or near the time of her death.

Later examination would reveal the presence of ‘cellulose material’ in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote. He noted that he didn’t consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination, and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child.

Dr. Meyer also observed signs of chronic inflammation around the vaginal orifice and believed that these injuries had been inflicted in the days or weeks before the acute injury that was responsible for causing the bleeding at the time of her death. This irritation appeared consistent with prior sexual contact.


The bulk of the autopsy had been completed by mid- afternoon, but Dr. Meyer wanted another opinion about the injuries that had been inflicted upon the genitalia. Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét. He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7: 00 o’clock position. Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death. Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.

Dr. Meyer was concerned about JonBenét’s vaginal injuries, and he, along with Boulder investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians in the days following her autopsy. Dr. Sirontak, a pediatrician with Denver Children’s Hospital, had recognized signs of prior sexual trauma but neither he nor Dr. Meyer were able to say with any degree of certainty what period of time may have been involved in the abuse. Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St. Louis, Missouri; Dade County , Florida ; Wayne County, Michigan , and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that JonBenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertion of the foreign object that had created the injury at the time of her death. It was their opinion that the type of injury present with the hymen suggested that several different contacts had been made in the past and that digital penetration was consistent with this type of injury. The physicians were unable to date the previous injury or specifically quantify the number of times JonBenét had been assaulted, but were confident in their opinions that she had been subjected to sexual contact prior to the day of her murder.

Kolar, A. James (2012-06-14). Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 825-890)

Kolar makes no reference to "birefringent" that i can find


also, from Vanity Fair...I also believe Wecht had this published elsewhere.

Dr. Cyril Wecht, a well known forensic pathologist, has no doubt that the 45-pound child was molested. "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, the father would have been arrested," he has said. The vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. "The genital injuries indicate penetration," he says, "but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation."

 

[UKGuy]

the quote function seems to be wonky ATM, there were 2 issues that were raised, but i can't seem to track back to the initial post(s).

1) whether or not Meyer concluded there was prior sexual contact, and
2) the wood/splinter and/or birefringent found in her vagina:



Kolar, A. James (2012-06-14). Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 825-890)

Kolar makes no reference to "birefringent" that i can find


also, from Vanity Fair...I also believe Wecht had this published elsewhere.

bettybaby00,
It could be that Kolar accepts the splinter was present but simply regards it as artifact introduced accidentally so he does not expand on this topic?

IMO JonBenet was being molested on a regular basis. Her internal injuries also suggest someone was using a foreign object resulting in injuries that took time to heal?

On the night of the 25th someone sexually assaulted JonBenet in a similar manner, likely resulting in JonBenet attempting to escape the situation.

It appears there may have been escalating behaviour on the part of JonBenet's assailant, in other words, we are not simply describing a play at doctors here, but something pathologically more clinically descriptive.

I suspect this is what lies behind many of James Kolar's references to cryptic clues and book titles, i.e. that one or more of the R's was engaged in bizarre sexual behaviour.

I am certain that there will be a named paraphilia for this kind of behaviour, other than the obvious pedophile characterization?

Someone with the appropriate medical knowledge could expand on this. The statistics suggest males outnumber females almost by 9 to 1 in their acquisition, and that for boys they appear to become focussed at some point between the age of four and ten, allowing for the usual exceptions to the general rule.

.

 

[Mama2JML]

RSBM

I though Mayer told LE he felt there had been prior sexual contact- Some of her vaginal bruising was in the healing stage- they had been inflicted prior to that night.

This would definitely alter my opinion on the likelihood of prior abuse. Do you recall where you might have read this?

 

[bettybaby00]

bettybaby00,
It could be that Kolar accepts the splinter was present but simply regards it as artifact introduced accidentally so he does not expand on this topic?

IMO JonBenet was being molested on a regular basis. Her internal injuries also suggest someone was using a foreign object resulting in injuries that took time to heal?

On the night of the 25th someone sexually assaulted JonBenet in a similar manner, likely resulting in JonBenet attempting to escape the situation.

It appears there may have been escalating behaviour on the part of JonBenet's assailant, in other words, we are not simply describing a play at doctors here, but something pathologically more clinically descriptive.

I suspect this is what lies behind many of James Kolar's references to cryptic clues and book titles, i.e. that one or more of the R's was engaged in bizarre sexual behaviour.

I am certain that there will be a named paraphilia for this kind of behaviour, other than the obvious pedophile characterization?

Someone with the appropriate medical knowledge could expand on this. The statistics suggest males outnumber females almost by 9 to 1 in their acquisition, and that for boys they appear to become focussed at some point between the age of four and ten, allowing for the usual exceptions to the general rule.

.

Well if you believe Kolar's conclusions there is a name for it: "Sexual Behavior Problems" --SBP

whether or not one believes this is relative to this case, the statistics he cites are both staggering and frightening. And whether or not this is what befell JRB, or if it was another form of incest, or a sadistic intruder, most of these behaviors do escalate over time.

As I reread my post--I was too busy c&p earlier--2 things jumped out at me that I had forgotten since I first read this book:

*there is no question that Meyer noticed evidence of possible prior assault due to what he saw during autopsy. I've gotten the feeling from some posts that some believe he was led there by others after the fact. The sequence of events clearly shows that wasn't the case. He didn't have to be nudged, nor did he, or anyone else, hold any sort of preconceived suspicions of ongoing abuse. Sexual assault he was expecting given the manner of JRBs death; the surprise was the evidence of previous sexual abuse.

*Meyer notes that although it appeared something had been inserted into JRB, de didn't feel it was a "particularly vicious assault." Earlier there was a brief discussion regarding the possibility that the paint brush handle had been left inside her. I'm starting to wonder if that was the case now that I've reread the above??? Might not it seem plausible that if the assault with the paintbrush handle was done in order to "cover up" prior abuse, it would have been used more aggressively? Or was it used and then left inside, the perpetrator believing the ME would automatically report sexual assault with a foreign object and leave it at that?

IDK, possible???

 

[DeeDee249]

Yet despite all this, we STILL get people who say there was never any proof of prior sexual assault. They are either ignorant, or simply SAY it just to be adversarial.
To be clear to ALL- there WAS evidence of PRIOR sexual assault. Something that could NOT have been done by a SFF, intruder or anyone who did not have direct, private and repeated access to JB.
That is the reason why IDI try to pretend there was no prior sexual contact. Because they KNOW an intruder or SFF wouldn't have been able to do that.

 

[UKGuy]

Well if you believe Kolar's conclusions there is a name for it: "Sexual Behavior Problems" --SBP

whether or not one believes this is relative to this case, the statistics he cites are both staggering and frightening. And whether or not this is what befell JRB, or if it was another form of incest, or a sadistic intruder, most of these behaviors do escalate over time.

As I reread my post--I was too busy c&p earlier--2 things jumped out at me that I had forgotten since I first read this book:

*there is no question that Meyer noticed evidence of possible prior assault due to what he saw during autopsy. I've gotten the feeling from some posts that some believe he was led there by others after the fact. The sequence of events clearly shows that wasn't the case. He didn't have to be nudged, nor did he, or anyone else, hold any sort of preconceived suspicions of ongoing abuse. Sexual assault he was expecting given the manner of JRBs death; the surprise was the evidence of previous sexual abuse.

*Meyer notes that although it appeared something had been inserted into JRB, de didn't feel it was a "particularly vicious assault." Earlier there was a brief discussion regarding the possibility that the paint brush handle had been left inside her. I'm starting to wonder if that was the case now that I've reread the above??? Might not it seem plausible that if the assault with the paintbrush handle was done in order to "cover up" prior abuse, it would have been used more aggressively? Or was it used and then left inside, the perpetrator believing the ME would automatically report sexual assault with a foreign object and leave it at that?

IDK, possible???

bettybaby00,
Of course its possible, well rather than SBP, it looks like something more specific to me, also something that with the passage of time does not recede or dilute in the desire to be repeated.

Some assume that Coroner Meyer's verbatim remarks: Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration to represent a de facto sexual assault and one event, others interpret these to possibly be two events one a sexual assault and the other some form of staging?

The use of the paintbrush handle is an open question, much debated, it simply underlines staging as a feature of the wine-cellar crime-scene.

I think it is safe to assume that JonBenet was being regularly sexually assaulted, that she had internal injuries in various stages of healing demonstrates this.

Also that JonBenet was being penetrated with some foreign object including a human finger, its those chronic internal injuries that swing it for me from playing doctor to something far more serious.

So you have this timeline of sexual assault leading up to Christmas night where it has escalated to JonBenet suffering internal bleeding, as per the wipe down as cited by Coroner Meyer.

The use of the paintbrush in an attempt to mask any prior acute sexual assault would be consistent with other staging features, i.e. paintbrush/ligature to mask any prior neck injury, size-12's and longjohns to hide any injuries from public view.

Yet similar to determining precisely where JonBenet was ligature asphyxiated, i.e. upstairs or downstairs, the use of the missing piece of the paintbrush handle might simply be a staging detail that adds little to our understanding of what initially took place.

So without further information its probably less confusing to assume that on Christmas night someone forcibly sexually assaulted JonBenet, resulting in internal bleeding, her resisting leading to a fight and becoming unconcious.

The curious thing about the missing piece of painbrush handle is if it was not used to assault JonBenet and/or left inside her why has nobody just ruled it out. Kolar, Thomas et al have nothing to say on this matter, so why not tell us the missing piece is just incidental artifact?


.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

Yet despite all this, we STILL get people who say there was never any proof of prior sexual assault. They are either ignorant, or simply SAY it just to be adversarial.
To be clear to ALL- there WAS evidence of PRIOR sexual assault. Something that could NOT have been done by a SFF, intruder or anyone who did not have direct, private and repeated access to JB.
That is the reason why IDI try to pretend there was no prior sexual contact. Because they KNOW an intruder or SFF wouldn't have been able to do that.

DD, I agree with all you said (with only one exception). There is no doubt in my mind at this point that JonBenet was molested in the days/weeks/(maybe) months prior to her death. The only exception I would add to your reasons is one more reason for some to resist the idea. I do believe some people have a hard time accepting the reality of what that prior molestation means. It means that someone -- most likely a family member -- was responsible for it, regardless of who is responsible for her death. And that's a hard pill to swallow. We all know it happens, but that doesn't make it any easier to accept it as fact when it means thinking the worst of someone we've seen on TV acting like a caring, "nice" person. It means that someone in a position of trust betrayed that trust. I understand that resistance, and I think there are still some posters who can't get past that hurdle. But then, I know that the reality is also that some DO simply try to be adversarial.

 

[bettybaby00]

bettybaby00,
Of course its possible, well rather than SBP, it looks like something more specific to me, also something that with the passage of time does not recede or dilute in the desire to be repeated.

Some assume that Coroner Meyer's verbatim remarks: Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration to represent a de facto sexual assault and one event, others interpret these to possibly be two events one a sexual assault and the other some form of staging?

The use of the paintbrush handle is an open question, much debated, it simply underlines staging as a feature of the wine-cellar crime-scene.

I think it is safe to assume that JonBenet was being regularly sexually assaulted, that she had internal injuries in various stages of healing demonstrates this.

Also that JonBenet was being penetrated with some foreign object including a human finger, its those chronic internal injuries that swing it for me from playing doctor to something far more serious.

So you have this timeline of sexual assault leading up to Christmas night where it has escalated to JonBenet suffering internal bleeding, as per the wipe down as cited by Coroner Meyer.

The use of the paintbrush in an attempt to mask any prior acute sexual assault would be consistent with other staging features, i.e. paintbrush/ligature to mask any prior neck injury, size-12's and longjohns to hide any injuries from public view.

Yet similar to determining precisely where JonBenet was ligature asphyxiated, i.e. upstairs or downstairs, the use of the missing piece of the paintbrush handle might simply be a staging detail that adds little to our understanding of what initially took place.

So without further information its probably less confusing to assume that on Christmas night someone forcibly sexually assaulted JonBenet, resulting in internal bleeding, her resisting leading to a fight and becoming unconcious.

The curious thing about the missing piece of painbrush handle is if it was not used to assault JonBenet and/or left inside her why has nobody just ruled it out. Kolar, Thomas et al have nothing to say on this matter, so why not tell us the missing piece is just incidental artifact?


.

Yes, yes, my thoughts exactly. In fact see post
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10300269&postcount=403"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY![/ame]

:lol:

 

[Anti-K]

From the Separating Fact from Fiction sticky thread: http://tinyurl.com/lkrtvws
She was sexually abused before her death
Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.
...

I don’t mind discussing prior abuse AS IF it is a fact, but clearly there is some disagreement on this. And, even amongst those who agree on prior abuse there is no agreement on what that abuse entailed: corporeal punishment? Innocent kid play? Dad’s perversion? Or, some other family member, friend. Associate of... etc?

Although I am skeptical (unconvinced either way) about prior abuse and I know that it is not a fact I still prefer to converse AS IF it is a fact.

In my experience, and I’ve been at this for 15+ years, most of those who argue against prior abuse do so with sincerity. Because, you know, as the sticky thread states: Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

From the Separating Fact from Fiction sticky thread: http://tinyurl.com/lkrtvws
She was sexually abused before her death
Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.
...

I don’t mind discussing prior abuse AS IF it is a fact, but clearly there is some disagreement on this. And, even amongst those who agree on prior abuse there is no agreement on what that abuse entailed: corporeal punishment? Innocent kid play? Dad’s perversion? Or, some other family member, friend. Associate of... etc?

Although I am skeptical (unconvinced either way) about prior abuse and I know that it is not a fact I still prefer to converse AS IF it is a fact.

In my experience, and I’ve been at this for 15+ years, most of those who argue against prior abuse do so with sincerity. Because, you know, as the sticky thread states: Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.
...

AK

BOOM.

:winner:

 

[Anyhoo]

As usual IDI and RDI are never going to agree on this. IDI believes what is convenient for them to believe to support an intruder did it and RDI believes what is convenient for them to believe to support that the family did it. The two will never meet. It is like he said, she said, back and forth endlessly. :banghead:

 

[bettybaby00]

From the Separating Fact from Fiction sticky thread: http://tinyurl.com/lkrtvws
She was sexually abused before her death
Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.
...

I don’t mind discussing prior abuse AS IF it is a fact, but clearly there is some disagreement on this. And, even amongst those who agree on prior abuse there is no agreement on what that abuse entailed: corporeal punishment? Innocent kid play? Dad’s perversion? Or, some other family member, friend. Associate of... etc?

Although I am skeptical (unconvinced either way) about prior abuse and I know that it is not a fact I still prefer to converse AS IF it is a fact.

In my experience, and I’ve been at this for 15+ years, most of those who argue against prior abuse do so with sincerity. Because, you know, as the sticky thread states: Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.
...

AK

I in no way wish to to discredit that thread, but it hasn't been updated in awhile and I'm not sure when the last time it was. All one needs to do is look at the last two to understand how dated the info is.

And really, what have we all been talking about lately "hard fact(s)" versus "theory"

Well the truth is most criminal investigations have aspects of the case where "experts disagree," however regarding the prior sexual abuse, I can't think of one single expert who disputed the evidence that Meyer and others complied. I know LS disputed it...the only one I know of, and I'm not even sure he can be considered an expert in that field. Meyer, saw evidence of "prior sexual contact," and consulted with a multitude of experts to confirm his findings.

In Kolar's book, he details the autopsy report, and then the next chapter is entitled "Interpreting the Findings." Do you get why the chapter has that name? B/c during a murder investigation, facts are compiled and then they are interpreted. It is part of the process, and it's how prosecutions are built and brought before a court of law. I've made this comment before. Without a confession, detailing every single aspect of the crime, there could likely be aspects that don't make sense, or don't seem to fit, and there are most definitely things that experts can disagree on.

FWIW, in that chapter, Kolar goes to great lengths to layout Meyer's process--all according to protocol I might add--which included the consultation of a multitude of experts who concluded, "they were confident in their opinions that she had been subjected to sexual contact prior to the day of her murder." (850)

 

[Anti-K]

I’m not impressed with Kolar, and I’m shocked that anyone is. Regardless, as I said, I prefer to converse AS IF prior abuse IS a fact. SO, no need to argue the point with me – I accept it.
...

AK

 

[midwest mama]

midwest mama,
So is your preferred sequence that the Digital Penetration represents some form of staging to obsfucate a prior sexual assault ?

Given the cleanup and the assymetry of the bloodstain, as noted by Coroner Meyer, then why do you require a Digital Penetration to mask that which is no longer visible?

.

I absolutely have no "preferred sequence" when it comes to the sexual assault of JB the night she was killed. Just simply trying to make sense of how the size 12's could have been relatively free of as much urine stain residue as the l longjohns which were bearing the frontal urine stains. At least I have been under the impression that because the blood spots on the panties were relatively small and fully processed for DNA, the bloodspots were not diluted or rendered unusable for testing because of urine being released upon them. And, unless I'm wrong, it was not made clear that the panties were also urine stained, along with the longjohns.

If JB was sexually assaulted and her body wiped down, what I wonder is if the penetration that was assumed to be digital, could have been a penetration by the paintbrush with the intentional gesture of leaving the impression that she suffered a vicious perverted attack by the same instrument that a wacko also used as a ligature handle when he strangled her. The penetration believed to be sufficient to hide any former actual sexual molestation which led to her receiving the head blow.

In other words, maybe the molester not only thought a ligature strangulation would cover for the head blow as the cause of death, but that an attack with the paintbrush would be considered the cause of any discovered sexual activity. Maybe after thinking about it for while, the killer worried that cleaning up well from the real molestation might not be sufficient enough to hide it, so it would be best to stage an attack which could be considered part of the crime?

 

[Anti-K]

The panties were also urine stained, as stated in the AR.

I think the most reasonable explanation for the blood spots not being meaningfully diluted or rendered “useless” by the urine is that the blood came AFTER the urine.
…

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

(bbm)
DD, I agree with all you said (with only one exception). There is no doubt in my mind at this point that JonBenet was molested in the days/weeks/(maybe) months prior to her death. The only exception I would add to your reasons is one more reason for some to resist the idea. I do believe some people have a hard time accepting the reality of what that prior molestation means. It means that someone -- most likely a family member -- was responsible for it, regardless of who is responsible for her death. And that's a hard pill to swallow. We all know it happens, but that doesn't make it any easier to accept it as fact when it means thinking the worst of someone we've seen on TV acting like a caring, "nice" person. It means that someone in a position of trust betrayed that trust. I understand that resistance, and I think there are still some posters who can't get past that hurdle. But then, I know that the reality is also that some DO simply try to be adversarial.

otg, you always impress me with the eloquence displayed in your words. (Ex. Those BBM above.) Your empathy is real. Your compassion, sincere. Will you be my 'ghost writer'?

Regarding the topic you've addressed above. I agree with your post entirely. Although, I don't exactly relate to either stance. The possibility of prior sexual abuse exists, & it exists at varying levels (I.e. on-going v. 1+ occasion; perp?; commencement?, etc.) There are too many unknowns, no lack of variables, and no perceivable consensus even among those experts whose opinions support prior intrusion.

We've explored this topic together. We both know our debate isn't driven by a desire to be adversarial. We want answers. I am simply unable to commit myself to a theory regarding prior sexual abuse, but I would love to get there.

Impossible? Maybe, probably... If the unknowns remain, and fundamental facts are inaccessible, then I'm stuck, and I don't think I'm alone.