Molested with the handle?

[BOESP]

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!)

I think http://www.realsundancekid.com has photos of the neck ligature. To me, the two additional white marks below the ligature on the lower, front neck might be too wide for the necklace but would be about right for a neckline seam from a garment or they could be from the folds of a wadded-up or scrunched-up garment around her neck.

 

[JMO8778]

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.

that's what Dr Spitz thought.(although there is no mention of what looks like a thumb print on her).
I wonder if she was dragged by her shirt collar?
But I don't think it was the one she was found in...I think it was the red one.The turtleneck would have a higher collar.Plus PR cried when she saw a photo of it...she may have said 'Oh God,a crown',but I think that was just a cover for crying at the sight of the red shirt.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

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

but it doesn't appear to have been,according to LHP,and by Patsy's own admission,I believe she told her to put the whole tote in the basement,as she wanted it out of the way for the party.

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

..but I don't think the FL was located downstairs,as the paint tote was.I think it was in the drawer there,just as they said it was where it was always kept.
Of course that doesn't mean someone didn't get it out.I do think it was used to see around the kitchen,at the least.

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?

or she could have been wiped down and redressed down there,which is what I think happened.I think the LJ's and blanket came from the dryer down there,and the too large underwear from a package down there.

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?

well of course the staging was an afterthought...I still don't think the handle was left inside of her,though.

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?

what do you mean by chemically?I'm confused...what could have been left there to mean sexual contact did occur? (that hasn't been made public?)
dig could also mean abuse by Patsy,too though.

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?


.

I'm not sure the night of her death is proven...Thomas didn't seem to think so.I do agree she was likely molested previously,though.
I think it was Wecht's book that said there was an injury about 72 hrs old...possibly from the night of the party?

 

[UKGuy]

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.

DeeDee249,

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.

I disagree, since the head injury was invisible, it was not this that attention needed to be deflected from, it was the lower abrasions on her neck which suggested a manual strangulation, this was what the garrote was intended to confuse? As is the possibility that JonBenet was redressed in the turtleneck explicitly to hide those lower neck abrasions?

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.

Her sexual injury may be real and not fake, any alleged staged assault was cleaned up and hidden from view, which is strange considering the rationale for applying the garrote is to have it on plain view to deflect attention, not from any bludgeoning, but from a manual asphyxiation.

imo her manual asphyxiation was probably a result of JonBenet's abuser attempting to silence her after she cried out in pain?


.

 

[UKGuy]

but it doesn't appear to have been,according to LHP,and by Patsy's own admission,I believe she told her to put the whole tote in the basement,as she wanted it out of the way for the party.

..but I don't think the FL was located downstairs,as the paint tote was.I think it was in the drawer there,just as they said it was where it was always kept.
Of course that doesn't mean someone didn't get it out.I do think it was used to see around the kitchen,at the least.



or she could have been wiped down and redressed down there,which is what I think happened.I think the LJ's and blanket came from the dryer down there,and the too large underwear from a package down there.

well of course the staging was an afterthought...I still don't think the handle was left inside of her,though.


what do you mean by chemically?I'm confused...what could have been left there to mean sexual contact did occur? (that hasn't been made public?)
dig could also mean abuse by Patsy,too though.


I'm not sure the night of her death is proven...Thomas didn't seem to think so.I do agree she was likely molested previously,though.
I think it was Wecht's book that said there was an injury about 72 hrs old...possibly from the night of the party?

JMO8778,

but it doesn't appear to have been,according to LHP,and by Patsy's own admission,I believe she told her to put the whole tote in the basement,as she wanted it out of the way for the party.

Sure that applies to the paint-tote and Patsy will agree to any evidence in her favor, note her memory loss has vanished here. It's still possible for an individual paintbrush to be left lying un-noticed etc?

..but I don't think the FL was located downstairs,as the paint tote was.I think it was in the drawer there,just as they said it was where it was always kept.
Of course that doesn't mean someone didn't get it out.I do think it was used to see around the kitchen,at the least.

mmm, so it played no part in JonBenet's death? Why would it be wiped down, what might be on it, that could link to her killer: strands of hair, blood, body fluids, nasal emissions etc?

or she could have been wiped down and redressed down there,which is what I think happened.I think the LJ's and blanket came from the dryer down there,and the too large underwear from a package down there.

Maybe, but there is no evidence to support this, the garrote may have been fashioned in the basement, along with the restraints, but the rest could have taken place anywhere else? The large underwear being sourced in the basement is speculation and has not been confirmed by the BPD, Patsy herself said the size-12 underwear had been placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

well of course the staging was an afterthought...I still don't think the handle was left inside of her,though.

Where is it then, why have the investigators never said there was no missing third piece? Would Patsy not have remarked Oh, that was a brush I broke a few weeks back?

what do you mean by chemically?I'm confused...what could have been left there to mean sexual contact did occur? (that hasn't been made public?)
dig could also mean abuse by Patsy,too though.

There are changes in the tissues and blood cells that correlate directly with sexual activity rather than with the trauma of physical injury. This is likely a topic that would have been explored further had Coroner Meyer ever been called to give testimony.

I'm not sure the night of her death is proven...Thomas didn't seem to think so.I do agree she was likely molested previously,though.
I think it was Wecht's book that said there was an injury about 72 hrs old...possibly from the night of the party?

No not a lot has been proven, but the pathologist conducting the autopsy was of the opinion that JonBenet had been subjected to sexual contact and digital penetration.

That is he never stated that JonBenet had suffered physical genital trauma and penetration by an unknown object.

His opinion is unambiguous, he is suggesting JonBenet was molested by someone's finger around the time of her death. The chronic speculation arises from the irregular size of her vaginal opening and eroded hymen, which in other circumstances may have an innocent explanation, but in the context of JonBenet's death and the coroner alluding directly to acute sexual molestation, what other interpretation follows?


.

 

[BOESP]

DeeDee249,

I disagree, since the head injury was invisible, it was not this that attention needed to be deflected from, it was the lower abrasions on her neck which suggested a manual strangulation, this was what the garrote was intended to confuse? As is the possibility that JonBenet was redressed in the turtleneck explicitly to hide those lower neck abrasions?

Her sexual injury may be real and not fake, any alleged staged assault was cleaned up and hidden from view, which is strange considering the rationale for applying the garrote is to have it on plain view to deflect attention, not from any bludgeoning, but from a manual asphyxiation.

imo her manual asphyxiation was probably a result of JonBenet's abuser attempting to silence her after she cried out in pain?

UKGuy, I see things pretty much as you've stated above. I think where we disagree is on who and what probably caused the pain and sexual injury. I haven't quite sorted it out why a manual strangulation would need to be covered by ligature staging but I suppose it was because manual strangulation left red marks on JonBenet's neck. After that strangulation, once JonBenet's head hit whatever it hit, whoever was with her had to know her head was badly injured. It must have made a terrible noise and JonBenet had to either be unconscious, in a coma, or in convulsions at that point. I suppose it would have been easier to stage the ligature strangulation than try to disguise unseen head trauma.

I read somewhere that the side of JonBenet's head that had the fracture showed displacement externally at the orbital region. In the autopsy photos I've seen, I could not see that. What I am getting at is if, indeed, it was visible from the front, the ligature staging still would not explain the head trauma but it might explain the autopsy witnesses who said she was badly beaten (or words to that effect).

Something also must account for the symptoms of shaken-baby syndrome reported in the autopsy. That fits with a rage attack and if it occurred first could possibly account for JonBenet being, perhaps, uncooperative after being shaken, which might further induce more man-handling by someone who was trying to get JonBenet to cooperate (in vain, if this scenario is true). Others have stated the shaken-baby syndrome could have come after the massive head trauma in an effort to arouse JonBenet.

Just thinking out loud here. All these events have to fit some way or another.

 

[DeeDee249]

UKGuy- it wasn't the head bash they needed to hide. You are right, it wasn't visible. It was the DEAD CHILD they were worried about. How else to explain why she was dead? To have NOT staged a strangulation- all the body would BE was dead. No visible trauma. Of course at autopsy the damage would be seen. But to me, this would make the parents look even more guilty, to have it JUST be the fractures skull. I think they were desparate to come up with a plausible explanation that pointed away from them. So...RN, kidnappers, strangulation. The Rs believed no one would think they could garotte JBR. But people could imagine a parent losing it and striking a child in anger with enough force to cause death. This had to look like something so awful they just COULDN'T be involved.

 

[BOESP]

UKGuy- it wasn't the head bash they needed to hide. You are right, it wasn't visible. It was the DEAD CHILD they were worried about. How else to explain why she was dead? To have NOT staged a strangulation- all the body would BE was dead. No visible trauma. Of course at autopsy the damage would be seen. But to me, this would make the parents look even more guilty, to have it JUST be the fractures skull. I think they were desparate to come up with a plausible explanation that pointed away from them. So...RN, kidnappers, strangulation. The Rs believed no one would think they could garotte JBR. But people could imagine a parent losing it and striking a child in anger with enough force to cause death. This had to look like something so awful they just COULDN'T be involved.

DEAD CHILD they were worried about. How else to explain why she was dead?

That sounds like a very likely explanation.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy- it wasn't the head bash they needed to hide. You are right, it wasn't visible. It was the DEAD CHILD they were worried about. How else to explain why she was dead? To have NOT staged a strangulation- all the body would BE was dead. No visible trauma. Of course at autopsy the damage would be seen. But to me, this would make the parents look even more guilty, to have it JUST be the fractures skull. I think they were desparate to come up with a plausible explanation that pointed away from them. So...RN, kidnappers, strangulation. The Rs believed no one would think they could garotte JBR. But people could imagine a parent losing it and striking a child in anger with enough force to cause death. This had to look like something so awful they just COULDN'T be involved.

DeeDee249,

It was the DEAD CHILD they were worried about. How else to explain why she was dead?

Quite, just how do you go about explaining a dead body?

The Rs believed no one would think they could garotte JBR. But people could imagine a parent losing it and striking a child in anger with enough force to cause death. This had to look like something so awful they just COULDN'T be involved.

Possibly, and the highlighted part of the quote is may be incorrect, since what we can imagine and believe is not always kosher?

So if they thought the general public's imagination would not stretch to them garroting their own daughter, why was the alleged sexual assault cleaned up and hidden from view, how less imaginable is them sexually assaulting their own daughter?

The staging was not constructed to hide a dead body it was to hide the sexual assault. The fact JonBenet was dead was never open to interpretation, that she had been sexually molested was?


.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, I see things pretty much as you've stated above. I think where we disagree is on who and what probably caused the pain and sexual injury. I haven't quite sorted it out why a manual strangulation would need to be covered by ligature staging but I suppose it was because manual strangulation left red marks on JonBenet's neck. After that strangulation, once JonBenet's head hit whatever it hit, whoever was with her had to know her head was badly injured. It must have made a terrible noise and JonBenet had to either be unconscious, in a coma, or in convulsions at that point. I suppose it would have been easier to stage the ligature strangulation than try to disguise unseen head trauma.

I read somewhere that the side of JonBenet's head that had the fracture showed displacement externally at the orbital region. In the autopsy photos I've seen, I could not see that. What I am getting at is if, indeed, it was visible from the front, the ligature staging still would not explain the head trauma but it might explain the autopsy witnesses who said she was badly beaten (or words to that effect).

Something also must account for the symptoms of shaken-baby syndrome reported in the autopsy. That fits with a rage attack and if it occurred first could possibly account for JonBenet being, perhaps, uncooperative after being shaken, which might further induce more man-handling by someone who was trying to get JonBenet to cooperate (in vain, if this scenario is true). Others have stated the shaken-baby syndrome could have come after the massive head trauma in an effort to arouse JonBenet.

Just thinking out loud here. All these events have to fit some way or another.

BOESP,

I haven't quite sorted it out why a manual strangulation would need to be covered by ligature staging

To obsfucate the initial or secondary cause of death. Nobody mentions a manual assault precisely because they think the garrote was the only factor in JonBenet's asphyxiation.

shaken-baby syndrome

JonBenet's skull injuries are of the most severe type, and exceed those of shaken-baby syndrome.

Someone deliberately whacked JonBenet on the head, asphyxiated her and sexually assaulted her, then she died. Its that simple.

.

 

[JMO8778]

BOESP,

To obsfucate the initial or secondary cause of death. Nobody mentions a manual assault precisely because they think the garrote was the only factor in JonBenet's asphyxiation.


JonBenet's skull injuries are of the most severe type, and exceed those of shaken-baby syndrome.

Someone deliberately whacked JonBenet on the head, asphyxiated her and sexually assaulted her, then she died. Its that simple.

.

the vag. trauma bled,so whatever you believe caused it,it had to have been done b/f her oxygen was cut off.So I see it as head wound,vag. trauma,and then ligature strangulation.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes, I think that the need to stage, then HIDE (apparently), a sexual assault is because there was a REAL sexual assault, one which may or may nor have caused bleeding. So the staged assault had to be done in such as way so as to cause bleeding. The wrapping doesn't really bother me, as far as staging goes, because I feel the wrapping was done because it was an act likely done by a parent. I don't feel they were necessarily covering up a sexual assault that they had just staged to cover up sexual abuse. I am not so sure the intent was actually to hide what they had just staged. What may appear to be hiding may just be simply wrapping the body because they couldn't bear to think of her lying dead in the cold, dirty wineceller, with her face up;what a horrible sight that must have been.

 

[UKGuy]

the vag. trauma bled,so whatever you believe caused it,it had to have been done b/f her oxygen was cut off.So I see it as head wound,vag. trauma,and then ligature strangulation.

JMO8778
Sure , or alternatively: a sexual assault, manual strangulation, head injury, vaginal trauma, ligature strangulation?

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, I think that the need to stage, then HIDE (apparently), a sexual assault is because there was a REAL sexual assault, one which may or may nor have caused bleeding. So the staged assault had to be done in such as way so as to cause bleeding. The wrapping doesn't really bother me, as far as staging goes, because I feel the wrapping was done because it was an act likely done by a parent. I don't feel they were necessarily covering up a sexual assault that they had just staged to cover up sexual abuse. I am not so sure the intent was actually to hide what they had just staged. What may appear to be hiding may just be simply wrapping the body because they couldn't bear to think of her lying dead in the cold, dirty wineceller, with her face up;what a horrible sight that must have been.

DeeDee249,
JonBenet was also redressed not simply wrapped. There was no need for clean size-12's or urine-soaked longjohns, the latter could have been removed to break any link with a toileting incident.

The presentation was that of an unmolested asphyxiated victim, who someone had wrapped in blankets then carried to the wine-cellar.

So we have a kidnapper who decides at the last minute to asphyxiate his intended source of revenue, and dump the body in the wine-cellar, whilst advertising his own existence by continuing to leave the ransom note behind?

Although you may be correct about the wrapping I continue to think it served a staging purpose and not some sort of comfort to her killer?


.

 

[BOESP]

... So if they thought the general public's imagination would not stretch to them garroting their own daughter, why was the alleged sexual assault cleaned up and hidden from view, how less imaginable is them sexually assaulting their own daughter?

The staging was not constructed to hide a dead body it was to hide the sexual assault. The fact JonBenet was dead was never open to interpretation, that she had been sexually molested was?

UKGuy, I don't think they/she/he were trying to clean up and hide a sexual assault, if you mean molestation by a male for gratification. I think they were trying to hide evidence of the event that precipitated JonBenet's head wound (corporal cleaning issues that caused Patsy to jerk JonBenet around, causing the grievous injury to her head the markings on her neck).

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, I don't think they/she/he were trying to clean up and hide a sexual assault, if you mean molestation by a male for gratification. I think they were trying to hide evidence of the event that precipitated JonBenet's head wound (corporal cleaning issues that caused Patsy to jerk JonBenet around, causing the grievous injury to her head the markings on her neck).

BOESP,

I think they were trying to hide evidence of the event that precipitated JonBenet's head wound (corporal cleaning issues that caused Patsy to jerk JonBenet around, causing the grievous injury to her head the markings on her neck).

I doubt that very much. Why go to the bother of hiding it and leave JonBenet dressed in urine-soaked longjohns, why leave her pants lying upstairs in her bathroom, why not remove all links to any suggestion of a toileting incident?


.

 

[coloradokares]

BOESP,

I doubt that very much. Why go to the bother of hiding it and leave JonBenet dressed in urine-soaked longjohns, why leave her pants lying upstairs in her bathroom, why not remove all links to any suggestion of a toileting incident?


.

The Ramseys were not crazy they left just enough to create reasonable doubts, I also feel strongly that they had contact with their lawyers or someone before they dialed 911 I could be wrong on that but my gut tells me they had advice via cell phones Id love those cell phone records. That is only a suspicious opinion I have.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778
Sure , or alternatively: a sexual assault, manual strangulation, head injury, vaginal trauma, ligature strangulation?

could be,I definitely think she was manually strangled.but whether or not her death arose from a sexual assault is up in the air to me.

 

[JMO8778]

DeeDee249,
JonBenet was also redressed not simply wrapped. There was no need for clean size-12's

I agree with you on that,and the fact it was brand new appears to me to be a case of 'LE must not find any R DNA on her there'.And the question on that of course is WHY would anyone be worried about that?

 

[JMO8778]

The Ramseys were not crazy they left just enough to create reasonable doubts, I also feel strongly that they had contact with their lawyers or someone before they dialed 911 I could be wrong on that but my gut tells me they had advice via cell phones Id love those cell phone records. That is only a suspicious opinion I have.

me too.It has also crossed my mind that perhaps they were told a true KN would then require the FBI to become involved...IOW-leave her in the house.