Molested with the handle?

[Toltec]

something was blacked out in the description of when her body was found...it appears that was taken care of,although,yes,there could have been more...I just don't see it as the paintbrush handle being left inside her...

well...no...why the need to speculate where the splinter came from IF the handle was left inside her???? Also,using the handle was staging,and would have been too obvious as such to take the risk of that being known and leaving it inside her.I believe it was hidden,just as other evidence likely was.(and was for sure...like the package of size 12 underwear that later turned up...they got it out somehow....).and the handle would have been even smaller.it's not unfathomable to think it was easily hidden and removed..

The FBI's CASKU Unit believes the sexual assault was staging.

The paintbrush used to fashion a garrote was broken into THREE pieces.

Why three?

The middle section was used to fashion a garrote.

The section with the brushes was placed back into the tote.

The smallest tip was used to penetrate JonBenet. It is the one piece that is missing....or is it?

My belief is that Patsy placed the garrote on JonBenet. JonBenet was lying face down when Patsy put it together. It makes sense that JonBenet would be lying on her stomach because then Patsy would not have to look at JB when she placed it.

 

[UKGuy]

The FBI's CASKU Unit believes the sexual assault was staging.

The paintbrush used to fashion a garrote was broken into THREE pieces.

Why three?

The middle section was used to fashion a garrote.

The section with the brushes was placed back into the tote.

The smallest tip was used to penetrate JonBenet. It is the one piece that is missing....or is it?

My belief is that Patsy placed the garrote on JonBenet. JonBenet was lying face down when Patsy put it together. It makes sense that JonBenet would be lying on her stomach because then Patsy would not have to look at JB when she placed it.

Toltec,

The FBI's CASKU Unit believes the sexual assault was staging.

What sexual assault?

The smallest tip was used to penetrate JonBenet. It is the one piece that is missing....or is it?

If its not missing as in accounted for, then the idea of staging an assault weakens.


.

 

[JMO8778]

My belief is that Patsy placed the garrote on JonBenet. JonBenet was lying face down when Patsy put it together. It makes sense that JonBenet would be lying on her stomach because then Patsy would not have to look at JB when she placed it.

I agree,and then Patsy screamed when all was said and done...and *that's what the neighbor heard...not JB.

 

[DeeDee249]

Toltec,

What sexual assault?


If its not missing as in accounted for, then the idea of staging an assault weakens.


.

I'm, confused by your question, UKGuy- I know you must be aware of the fact that the coroner found brusing, blood, erosion and hyperemia in her vagina. His opinion, as spoken in the presence of LA, was that here was digital penetration. The very fact that there WAS a splinter in there too indicated something placed in her vagina, either the paintbrush or a finger that broke the paintbrush. That "cellulose" alone would indicate a sexual assault. There was more than just staging involved.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm, confused by your question, UKGuy- I know you must be aware of the fact that the coroner found brusing, blood, erosion and hyperemia in her vagina. His opinion, as spoken in the presence of LA, was that here was digital penetration. The very fact that there WAS a splinter in there too indicated something placed in her vagina, either the paintbrush or a finger that broke the paintbrush. That "cellulose" alone would indicate a sexual assault. There was more than just staging involved.

DeeDee249,

Sure that's why I posed the question. Coroner Meyer not only suggested that JonBenet had been digitally penetrated , he also suggested JonBenet had been subjected to sexual contact?

What we do not know is, was JonBenet molested initially by the paintbrush, which was then moved and broken into pieces down by the wine-cellar? Simply because it was broken there, as per the shards of wood cited in the search warrant suggest, does not mean it was always located there, similarly JonBenet's body?

How many people think Coroner Meyer was fooled by the staged evidence? This is an important question to answer since for Coroner Meyer to state JonBenet had been subject to sexual contact and digitally penetrated is very much stronger than Steve Thomas' Vaginal Trauma?

I presume in coroner speak, sexual contact is not the same as a sexual injury, which might result from any staging? So it appears Coroner Meyer thought JonBenet had been molested prior to being physically assaulted and killed?

That "cellulose" alone would indicate a sexual assault. There was more than just staging involved.

Maybe, the splinter could have an innocent explanation, which I will not expand upon, but it need not be the result of a sexual assault.

Now the important point, discounting any sexual staging, is that Coroner Meyer thought JonBenet had been the victim of sexual contact.

Add to this that JonBenet was wiped down , cleaned up, and redressed in the size-12's, and longjohns, then wrapped in blankets suggests to me that any sexual contact was being hidden from view.

If it had been a staged sexual assault, why bother wiping her down, and redressing her, since the stager knew the kidnap scenario would never materialise, but her dead body would?


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

If the missing piece of paintbrush was inserted inside JonBenet, and since she was wrapped in those blankets and redressed in the longjohns etc, then nobody but the person who inserted the piece of paintbrush would know it was there, this is privileged information, and is commonly withheld from public disclosure since in the case of false confessions and public phone calls, it can help to determine the fake from the genuine.

Therefore to generalise from Coroner Meyer's tiny details to larger unconnected ones, is clearly fallacious.

UkGuy,

What is fallacious is your assumption that Dr. Meyer had any motive to hide evidence. You also fail to take into account that Dr Meyer performed the autopsy in the presence of witnesses.

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy,

What is fallacious is your assumption that Dr. Meyer had any motive to hide evidence. You also fail to take into account that Dr Meyer performed the autopsy in the presence of witnesses.

jmo

rashomon,

The presence of witnesses does not preclude the redacting of evidence, without Coroner Meyer's verbal remarks we would not know he considered that JonBenet had been subjected to sexual contact or that the penetration was digital, rather than instrumental. Its guaranteed there will be other evidence that has been redacted, it is a common practise.


Reasoning from the particular to the general is not good practise.


.

 

[Toltec]

DeeDee249,

Sure that's why I posed the question. Coroner Meyer not only suggested that JonBenet had been digitally penetrated , he also suggested JonBenet had been subjected to sexual contact?

What we do not know is, was JonBenet molested initially by the paintbrush, which was then moved and broken into pieces down by the wine-cellar? Simply because it was broken there, as per the shards of wood cited in the search warrant suggest, does not mean it was always located there, similarly JonBenet's body?

How many people think Coroner Meyer was fooled by the staged evidence? This is an important question to answer since for Coroner Meyer to state JonBenet had been subject to sexual contact and digitally penetrated is very much stronger than Steve Thomas' Vaginal Trauma?

I presume in coroner speak, sexual contact is not the same as a sexual injury, which might result from any staging? So it appears Coroner Meyer thought JonBenet had been molested prior to being physically assaulted and killed?



Maybe, the splinter could have an innocent explanation, which I will not expand upon, but it need not be the result of a sexual assault.

Now the important point, discounting any sexual staging, is that Coroner Meyer thought JonBenet had been the victim of sexual contact.

Add to this that JonBenet was wiped down , cleaned up, and redressed in the size-12's, and longjohns, then wrapped in blankets suggests to me that any sexual contact was being hidden from view.

If it had been a staged sexual assault, why bother wiping her down, and redressing her, since the stager knew the kidnap scenario would never materialise, but her dead body would?


.

An innocent explanation for a splinter to be in JonBenet's vaginal wall??? Do you have an innocent explanation UK?

Oh wait...you do not want to talk about it...

 

[UKGuy]

An innocent explanation for a splinter to be in JonBenet's vaginal wall??? Do you have an innocent explanation UK?

Oh wait...you do not want to talk about it...

Toltec,

Absolutely. I doubt it would be productive, but there may be an innocent explanation, I'm only trying exhaust the alternatives.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Toltec,

Absolutely. I doubt it would be productive, but there may be an innocent explanation, I'm only trying exhaust the alternatives.


.

Please share your "innocent explanation" with us. ALL theories are productive, as is all dialogue.

 

[JMO8778]

What we do not know is, was JonBenet molested initially by the paintbrush, which was then moved and broken into pieces down by the wine-cellar? Simply because it was broken there, as per the shards of wood cited in the search warrant suggest, does not mean it was always located there, similarly JonBenet's body?

but why would someone go get a paintbrush,take it to another part of the house,and use it on JB,for whatever reason?
I don't see JR as being a sadistic person,if he was molesting her.
I would see it more as Patsy,out of her mind w. rage,inflicting punishment.But I don't think either is the case...the simplest explanation is usually the right one,right? the stager used the items b/c they were right there and handy.

How many people think Coroner Meyer was fooled by the staged evidence? This is an important question to answer since for Coroner Meyer to state JonBenet had been subject to sexual contact and digitally penetrated is very much stronger than Steve Thomas' Vaginal Trauma?

yes and no...he had access to more of the evidence,and was more able to form an overall opinion.

I presume in coroner speak, sexual contact is not the same as a sexual injury, which might result from any staging? So it appears Coroner Meyer thought JonBenet had been molested prior to being physically assaulted and killed?

Now the important point, discounting any sexual staging, is that Coroner Meyer thought JonBenet had been the victim of sexual contact.

prior,as in that same evening,or as in sometime b/f that?
could it be just her hymen being mostly gone,etc,was the reason he said that,or was he implying she had sexual contact *the same night as her death,with or without vag. trauma involved?

 

[UKGuy]

but why would someone go get a paintbrush,take it to another part of the house,and use it on JB,for whatever reason?
I don't see JR as being a sadistic person,if he was molesting her.
I would see it more as Patsy,out of her mind w. rage,inflicting punishment.But I don't think either is the case...the simplest explanation is usually the right one,right? the stager used the items b/c they were right there and handy.

yes and no...he had access to more of the evidence,and was more able to form an overall opinion.



prior,as in that same evening,or as in sometime b/f that?
could it be just her hymen being mostly gone,etc,was the reason he said that,or was he implying she had sexual contact *the same night as her death,with or without vag. trauma involved?

JMO8778,

but why would someone go get a paintbrush,take it to another part of the house,and use it on JB,for whatever reason?
I don't see JR as being a sadistic person,if he was molesting her.

The paintbrush may have originally been located elsewhere in the house, then picked up and used to assault JonBenet?

Cleaning up the original crime-scene means moving the paintbrush elsewhere e.g. think flashlight?

JonBenet bled genitally, but there was no forensic evidence found to confirm this at the staged crime-scene?

JonBenet may have been wiped down and redressed before being taken down to the basement, this would make sense in terms of a prior sexual assault.

In this context the splinter suggests staging e.g. as an afterthought? Hence my speculation as to where the missing piece of the paintbrush may have finally been left?

prior,as in that same evening,or as in sometime b/f that?
could it be just her hymen being mostly gone,etc,was the reason he said that,or was he implying she had sexual contact *the same night as her death,with or without vag. trauma involved?

Possibly both, but certainly the time leading upto, prior to JonBenet's death. I think his opinion of sexual contact would have been based upon the state of JonBenet's genitals, that is, chemically they displayed signs of recent sexual contact, and I can only assume the radius of her vaginal entrance suggested digital penetration as distinct from penetration by the paintbrush whose radius may be very much smaller?

The phrases sexual contact and digital penetration go beyond that of a staged assault or vaginal trauma, and they were spoken by an experienced pathologist, and one of few people with direct access to the evidence, so I can only assume that JonBenet had been molested on the night of her death, and possibly many occassions prior to that?


.

 

[BOESP]

... The phrases sexual contact and digital penetration go beyond that of a staged assault or vaginal trauma, and they were spoken by an experienced pathologist, and one of few people with direct access to the evidence, so I can only assume that JonBenet had been molested on the night of her death, and possibly many occassions prior to that?


.

If the above underlined passage is a fact it suggests that only a few people could have had contact during JonBenet's last hours and earlier as well. If true, add that to the other evidence and it sure seems to me that someone with free, regular access to the Ramsey home from Christmas Day through midnight Christmas night was involved. I suppose, alternatively, she could have more than one molestor but the autopsy doesn't make it sound so.

 

[UKGuy]

If the above underlined passage is a fact it suggests that only a few people could have had contact during JonBenet's last hours and earlier as well. If true, add that to the other evidence and it sure seems to me that someone with free, regular access to the Ramsey home from Christmas Day through midnight Christmas night was involved. I suppose, alternatively, she could have more than one molestor but the autopsy doesn't make it sound so.

BOESP,

Yes, that JonBenet was molested by more than one person is a distinct possibility, but this would not detract from Coroner Meyer's remarks.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,

Yes, that JonBenet was molested by more than one person is a distinct possibility, but this would not detract from Coroner Meyer's remarks.

UKGuy, if she was being molested regularly by two people, the genital damage would have been worse than what is described in the autopsy.

I didn't mean to imply that more than one person WAS molesting her, only that it was a possibility. I believe the evidence supports Steve Thomas's theory. I haven't seen anything yet that causes me to sway from that.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, if she was being molested regularly by two people, the genital damage would have been worse than what is described in the autopsy.

I didn't mean to imply that more than one person WAS molesting her, only that it was a possibility. I believe the evidence supports Steve Thomas's theory. I haven't seen anything yet that causes me to sway from that.

UKGuy,

Sure, maybe only one person was involved , but the possibility of intra-familial abuse cannot be discounted.

Your interpretation of the evidence is interesting, since I not only consider that Steve Thomas' theory is inconsistent with some of the crime-scene evidence, but that Coroner Meyer's autopsy remarks directly contradict his theory.

Also Steve Thomas does not address Coroner Meyer's remarks, nor does he offer any forensic evidence in support of his own theory.

.

 

[BOESP]

UKGuy,

Sure, maybe only one person was involved , but the possibility of intra-familial abuse cannot be discounted.

Your interpretation of the evidence is interesting, since I not only consider that Steve Thomas' theory is inconsistent with some of the crime-scene evidence, but that Coroner Meyer's autopsy remarks directly contradict his theory.

Also Steve Thomas does not address Coroner Meyer's remarks, nor does he offer any forensic evidence in support of his own theory.

.

I think corporal cleansing could be a reference to digital penetration, particularly with a cloth-wrapped finger, or douching, or both. I also think an adult could have been molesting JonBenet for sexual gratification, but I don't see that as likely as rough cleansing at the hands of the mother, particularly since a red-tinged watery semi-liquid was found inside JonBenet.

What about Thomas's theory doesn't fit the evidence? TIA

 

[DeeDee249]

There has been much discussion of the coroner's opinion that there was BOTH chronic (previous) and acute (at the time of death) vaginal abuse.
People do sometimes get confused by the word "chronic". We think of chronic as meaning over a long period of time (like a chronic disease). But in coroner-speak it simply means occuring previous to the event that caused the death. In coroner-speak, "acute" means occuring at the time of death.
I feel the paint tote WAS put in the basement in the days before the R Christmas party on Dec 23. Just as PR (and LHP) said it was. After the events of Christmas night that resulted in the imminent death of JBR, a strategy was formed to provide an immediately visible cause of death. So that anyone looking at her body, whether LE or lay person, would see and think "Oh, she was garotted, THAT's what killed her!" Because the head bash was not meant to kill her, but did (or it was THOUGHT that it did)- they needed something that would deflect suspicion from THAT. So they used materials at hand- all found right there in the basement in PR's paint tote. It likely contained not only the paintbrush, but the cord and tape as well. The garotte was made right on her, according to LE, and the resulting ligature furrows and petachiae indicate she was still alive when it was applied. They did this to what they THOUGHT was an already dead JBR.
I don't think the Rs KNEW she was still alive. THEY were not knowledgeable about forensics. They did not know that in order for there to be petachiae and the reddish neck furrow that she would have to be alive when it was done. They did not know that this was something that a coroner would be able to tell. They didn't even think about it. All they wanted was to make it look like an intruder strangled her. Because they figured no one would ever think THEY could garotte their own daughter. (they were right- many people, including the DA and Grand Jury, could not believe this). But people COULD believe that a parent, in a fit of rage or accidentally, could hit their child's head hard enough to fracture it/kill her. They hoped no one would ever find out about the head bash. IMO, they did not suspect there was a huge fracture like that. There was no bleeding from it, no open gash or wound on the skull, and and the small amount of blood oozing from her nose or mouth may not have been noticed or may have occured after she was left in the wineceller.
IMHO, there are TWO separate 2-part crimes on JBR that night. The FIRST was the very REAL sexual abuse, which happened that night and previous times as well, and the head bash, done in a rage with a flashlight or other heavy object OR done by shoving/pushing her into something with enough force to cause such a fracture.
The SECOND is the STAGING to provide an explanation of the real crimes- namely the acute vaginal injury meant to hide the sexual molestation, and the garotte strangulation meant to hide the fact that she had been bludgeoned to death.

 

[BOESP]

DeeDee, I agree with your scenario above. The evidence fits and it is the simplest explanation.

I do wonder if, as another poster suggested a long time ago (earlier poster=Solace), Patsy could have grabbed JonBenet by the shirt collar, twisting it, with Patsy holding her own thumb tightly against JonBenet's neck while holding the twisted shirt collar.

Also, there are what seems to be two additional whitish rings around JonBenet's lower, front, neck but the autopsy indicates the ligature that dealt the final blow was only horizontal, with no suggestion of upward pull or downward drag. No mention is made of the other two marks. Something caused those marks, but what?

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee, I agree with your scenario above. The evidence fits and it is the simplest explanation.

I do wonder if, as another poster suggested a long time ago (earlier poster=Solace), Patsy could have grabbed JonBenet by the shirt collar, twisting it, with Patsy holding her own thumb tightly against JonBenet's neck while holding the twisted shirt collar.

Also, there are what seems to be two additional whitish rings around JonBenet's lower, front, neck but the autopsy indicates the ligature that dealt the final blow was only horizontal, with no suggestion of upward pull or downward drag. No mention is made of the other two marks. Something caused those marks, but what?

Livor mortis can cause white marks to appear in places where something has pressed against the body after the heart ceases pumping and blood has stopped circulating. If you look at the photos of her back, you can see whiteish stripes where folds of the shirt fabric pressed against her and also the white mark at her waist where the waistband of her panties/longjohns came into contact with her skin. The white neck rings could have been caused by the cord or her necklace. I'll have to go back and look, unless you can post a link. (I don't know how to do it!)