Molested with the handle?

[UKGuy]

could be,I just didn't get that impression.

JMO8778,

So what informs you regarding your impression?


.

 

[UKGuy]

right,so why would they leave it inside her? it doesn't make any sense.
the fact she was wiped down is a big indication to me that it wasn't...if so,then why bother to wipe her down and change her underwear?
there would be no need to...someone was simply simulating a sexual assault,IMO,to hide past abuse,as the sexual element of the crime seems out of place and unnecessary,since it was to be a KN.

JMO8778,

right,so why would they leave it inside her? it doesn't make any sense.

To fake a ritualistic homicide, it goes with the garrote?

the fact she was wiped down is a big indication to me that it wasn't...if so,then why bother to wipe her down and change her underwear?

You may be correct, its existence would confirm matters either way.

If JonBenet's sexual injuries were faked, and not part of an initial assault, then you might expect to find the missing piece of the paintbrush inside her, to complement the external staging. Although not conclusive its absence might indicate an initial sexual assault was being covered up?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

I can see rationale for either way. If the missing piece was used in an assault, and it was left inside- that could have been done in order to hide the fact that there was digital penetration previously. With the broken paintbrush found inside her at autopsy (if it was) it was done so that here would be a visible, obvious cause for the vaginal trauma and blood.
By the same token, if it is was NOT left inside- it could have been removed along with the original panties, tape, cord, etc. The missing piece, as well as the panties, likely were bloody. Her thighs and pubic area were also wiped down because they were bloody.
The paintbrush being left inside to provide a VISIBLE, OBVIOUS reason why there was trauma and blood in the vaginal area (when the REAL reason was previous sexual penetration) is the same as the neck ligature providing a VISIBLE, OBVIOUS reason why she was dead (when the REAL cause of death was a terrible bash to the skull).
But the fact that she her thighs and pubic area were wiped down and the panties changes is in conflict with this. Why hide what you wanted to portray as fact?
To me, it seems like there were 2 people doing the coverup and they disagreed on exactly what to do. "OK, we'll do the paintbrush thing and the ligatature because we HAVE to make them (LE) think this is what injured/killed her. They'll NEVER think WE would do such things to our daughter." BUT the sight of the blood was too much, and they decided on removing the visible blood and bloody objects.

 

[UKGuy]

I can see rationale for either way. If the missing piece was used in an assault, and it was left inside- that could have been done in order to hide the fact that there was digital penetration previously. With the broken paintbrush found inside her at autopsy (if it was) it was done so that here would be a visible, obvious cause for the vaginal trauma and blood.
By the same token, if it is was NOT left inside- it could have been removed along with the original panties, tape, cord, etc. The missing piece, as well as the panties, likely were bloody. Her thighs and pubic area were also wiped down because they were bloody.
The paintbrush being left inside to provide a VISIBLE, OBVIOUS reason why there was trauma and blood in the vaginal area (when the REAL reason was previous sexual penetration) is the same as the neck ligature providing a VISIBLE, OBVIOUS reason why she was dead (when the REAL cause of death was a terrible bash to the skull).
But the fact that she her thighs and pubic area were wiped down and the panties changes is in conflict with this. Why hide what you wanted to portray as fact?
To me, it seems like there were 2 people doing the coverup and they disagreed on exactly what to do. "OK, we'll do the paintbrush thing and the ligatature because we HAVE to make them (LE) think this is what injured/killed her. They'll NEVER think WE would do such things to our daughter." BUT the sight of the blood was too much, and they decided on removing the visible blood and bloody objects.

DeeDee249,

But the fact that she her thighs and pubic area were wiped down and the panties changes is in conflict with this. Why hide what you wanted to portray as fact?

Precisely, regardless whether it was staged or not!

So it appears the decision to hide her sexual assault has little to do with staging? Discovering that the missing piece of paintbrush was found inside JonBenet may contradict this?

That is hiding the sexual injury takes precedence over the staging since JonBenet could have been left posed which would not have been inconsistent with the other staging.

The ransom note conflicts totally with JonBenet being discovered dead in the basement, so why does hiding the sexual assault moderate this conclusion?

It appears JonBenet's sexual injury was acute, inflicted prior to her death, and the reason for its concealment was to initially confuse any investigators and buy time?

.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Yes but the intention is to give the impression of applied restraints via the staging. In a non-staged sexual homicide the garrote and wrist restraints would act to restrain the victim by the neck e.g. make the victim motionless and compliant, once acheived the wrist restraints immobilise the arms. That we know JonBenet's restraints were ineffective is a reflection of out knowledge that they are staged?

of course

Both may have occured a sexual assault followed by a staged sexual assault, or more likely an acute sexual assault that was then cleaned up and hidden from view?


.

why would that be more likely?
I see it as a cover up for past abuse,recent and/or not so recent.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

So what informs you regarding your impression?


.

the preponderance of WHERE the splinter came from...if the paintbrush handle was left inside her,then there would be no need to ponder where the splinter came from.
And if the handle was left there,why would one ponder where the handle came from (if the bifringement material ref. to the handle itself)? it came from one of Patsy's paintbrushes.

that,along with the other actions,wiping her down and changing her underwear (and not even caring if it's way too big),lead me to believe it was done to simulate a sexual assault,and leaving it inside her would ruin that impression(or,at least the impression I believe they were trying to leave).

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

To fake a ritualistic homicide, it goes with the garrote?


You may be correct, its existence would confirm matters either way.

If JonBenet's sexual injuries were faked, and not part of an initial assault, then you might expect to find the missing piece of the paintbrush inside her, to complement the external staging. Although not conclusive its absence might indicate an initial sexual assault was being covered up?


.

could be,but again,the preponderance of where the splinter came from leads me to believe that's not the case.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

To fake a ritualistic homicide, it goes with the garrote?

I'm not sure what a ritualistic homicide is...
but nonetheless,why would it have to go w the garrotte? I think that was put in place to be noticed as the obv. cause of death,and to cover the manual stranglulation,as well as perhaps add a shock value to the scene...as in when JR brought her up from the basement...everyone would think 'OMG...no way could a parent do that to their child !'

 

[JMO8778]

So it appears the decision to hide her sexual assault has little to do with staging?

That is hiding the sexual injury takes precedence over the staging since JonBenet could have been left posed which would not have been inconsistent with the other staging.

But I don't think she was, b/c a *parent did it...same way she was wrapped in a blanket.

The ransom note conflicts totally with JonBenet being discovered dead in the basement, so why does hiding the sexual assault moderate this conclusion?

I think the RN ref. to their prior plans,that were done in panic mode...getting JB out of the house ('denying her remains')..but plans changed,and once she is to be found inside the house,hiding the sexual assault is now in JR's best interest.

It appears JonBenet's sexual injury was acute, inflicted prior to her death, and the reason for its concealment was to initially confuse any investigators and buy time?

.

yes to both,I believe.Esp. buying time..remember JR tried to get out of town very shortly after JB was found.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not sure what a ritualistic homicide is...
but nonetheless,why would it have to go w the garrotte? I think that was put in place to be noticed as the obv. cause of death,and to cover the manual stranglulation,as well as perhaps add a shock value to the scene...as in when JR brought her up from the basement...everyone would think 'OMG...no way could a parent do that to their child !'

JMO8778 ,

I'm not sure what a ritualistic homicide is...

One where behaviour enacted on the victim reflects some inner fantasy of the perpetrator, and exceeds that required to carry out the crime successfully e.g. inserting the paintbrush, using a garrote, relocating the corpse, posing the corpse, cleaning the corpse, violating the corpse etc etc.

nonetheless,why would it have to go w the garrotte? I think that was put in place to be noticed as the obv. cause of death,and to cover the manual stranglulation

The excess cord wrapped liberally around JonBenet's neck and tied tight would have served the same purpose just as well?

...everyone would think 'OMG...no way could a parent do that to their child !'

I doubt that, homicide investigators never think mummy would never kill her baby, would she?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

As we are now seeing in the Madeline McCann case, mothers can and do kill their children, both deliberately (like when Mommy pushes them into a lake strapped in their car seats or when she drowns them in a bathtub) OR accidentaly (like when Mommy bashes a hole in a skull in a rage or accidentaly overdoses them on sedatives). Most LE, including police and prosecutors, who normally work together except in THIS case, would be the first ones to suspect a parent when the child is found dead in the home. I feel they would still think this, regardless of whether there was a ransom note or regardless of the (apparent) cause of death. The FBI was suspicious of the Rs before the body was even found...
Friends and family are usually horrified by these suspicions, and let's face it, no one wants to believe someone you know and love could ever do anything like that. There is always great resistance on their part to see it the way impartial LE do. But in some cases, the evidence is too great or the evidence simply can point no other way. It is a very tough thing to let the truth in.

 

[JMO8778]

I doubt that, homicide investigators never think mummy would never kill her baby, would she?


.

Of course they would..I'm saying their intention in using the garrotte was to cast suspicion away from themselves,of course.

 

[rashomon]

[UKGuy]:
I doubt that, homicide investigators never think mummy would never kill her baby, would she?

Oh, Lou Smit was one of those homicide investigators.
Everything worked for the Ramseys in this case, simply everything. With Smit, they got exactly the homicide investigator they needed. :banghead:

 

[rashomon]

It's speculation to assume there were three parts to that brush. Artists keep old, ratty paintbrushes to use for old, ratty techniques that ruin good paintbrushes. Since it is the top, rounded end of the brush that is missing (correct me if I'm wrong about which section), I'd speculate it was already broken to begin with and who ever attached the brush to the ligature broke the ferrule/brush end off while working with the cord.

I too think it is speculation. The other end of the paintbrush could have broken off long before.
Birefringent material is not wood, and the autopsy report says nothing about a wooden splinter found in the vagina.
For example, Patsy was questioned in one of her the interviews about possible sources of birefringent material (glitter, etc.).
If the birefringent material was metallic varnish from the paintbrush, it could easily have been transferred manually if the stager of the scene handled the wooden stick before to fashion the garrote. The small vaginal wound which was a mere abrasion could also have been caused digitally imo.

I have trouble believing Patsy or John could have used the rounded end of a paintbrush to stage a molestation but if so, to me, it indicates another piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting the molestation scene was staged by a parent.

Just my opinion too.

 

[JMO8778]

I too think it is speculation. The other end of the paintbrush could have broken off long before.
Birefringent material is not wood, and the autopsy report says nothing about a wooden splinter found in the vagina.
For example, Patsy was questioned in one of her the interviews about possible sources of birefringent material (glitter, etc.).
If the birefringent material was metallic varnish from the paintbrush, it could easily have been transferred manually if the stager of the scene handled the wooden stick before to fashion the garrote. The small vaginal wound which was a mere abrasion could also have been caused digitally imo.

that makes sense

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think the birifringent material was a splinter, though I agree it could have been varnish or paint chips from the brush or the fingers that snapped it in pieces. I have read the autopsy report several times, and don't recall seeing the word "cellulose" there, but I believe ST. If he says the coroner found cellulose, I am sure he did. And "cellulose" can have broad meaning- from a tiny splinter to the actual paintbrush section.

 

[JMO8778]

I found this is ST's 'JonBenet',hardback,p.228 (open to your own opinions,of course):

Then we had the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenet's vagina.
The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrotte.Although the source of the splinter was never definitively proved,I considered it highly unlikely that it originated anywhere else.And that brush belonged to Patsy Ramsey.

 

[UKGuy]

I found this is ST's 'JonBenet',hardback,p.228 (open to your own opinions,of course):

Then we had the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenet's vagina.
The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrotte.Although the source of the splinter was never definitively proved,I considered it highly unlikely that it originated anywhere else.And that brush belonged to Patsy Ramsey.

JMO8778,

Well cellulose is a birefringement material, or bi-refractive, e.g. it splits light into directions with different velocities.

What is curious, is its likely that Coroner Meyer had access to, or used, a polarized light microscope, otherwise he could not have stated the sample was birefringement material. So you would expect some comparison to be done on the other pieces of paintbrush to confirm if this was the source?

Also that Steve Thomas does not tell us that there is no missing piece, or that the paintbrush used had signs of been broken before, suggests to me that this is relevant, in fact Steve Thomas in his book offers minimal information, and glides past this subject quickly.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I too think it is speculation. The other end of the paintbrush could have broken off long before.
Birefringent material is not wood, and the autopsy report says nothing about a wooden splinter found in the vagina.
For example, Patsy was questioned in one of her the interviews about possible sources of birefringent material (glitter, etc.).
If the birefringent material was metallic varnish from the paintbrush, it could easily have been transferred manually if the stager of the scene handled the wooden stick before to fashion the garrote. The small vaginal wound which was a mere abrasion could also have been caused digitally imo.

Just my opinion too.

rashomon,

I too think it is speculation. The other end of the paintbrush could have broken off long before.

Your evidence that it was broken prior to the death of JonBenet is?

The small vaginal wound which was a mere abrasion could also have been caused digitally imo.

This I reckon was Coroner Meyer's verbal opinion e.g. digital penetration.

Birefringent material is not wood,

Tell us your source for this please?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Well cellulose is a birefringement material, or bi-refractive, e.g. it splits light into directions with different velocities.

What is curious, is its likely that Coroner Meyer had access to, or used, a polarized light microscope, otherwise he could not have stated the sample was birefringement material. So you would expect some comparison to be done on the other pieces of paintbrush to confirm if this was the source?

sure,and I have to agree w. Thomas,it's doubtful to have come from anywhere else.
But if it WAS the handle,or part of it...that would have been easy to assess,wouldn't it? part of it could be matched to the rest of the brush,like a puzzle piece.
Also note the word TINY...a paintbrush handle isn't tiny.
And since the cellulose splinter was very *tiny....that's all the more reason it couldn't be definitively matched to the rest of the brush...it must have been very,very small.

Also that Steve Thomas does not tell us that there is no missing piece, or that the paintbrush used had signs of been broken before, suggests to me that this is relevant, in fact Steve Thomas in his book offers minimal information, and glides past this subject quickly.

.

well,see above.IMO,there is enough info to presume that wasn't the case,whether it had been broken b/f or not.
I'm not sure he glided past it quickly on purpose though..if there was no other info on it,why dwell? get on to other matters,which he did.