This is what I am having problems with.I didn't see any reports so I don't know whether the bruises and all point exclusively to prior sexual assault or are they just the result of physical abuse,which doesn't necessarily imply a man.
I don't know whether ST dismissed this only because it pointed to a man (JR?) and he wanted PR to be the guilty one.
Meyer says digital penetration.We don't even know whether the paintbrush was used or not,all we have is splinters,could also mean JB was touched down there by the one who broke the paintbrush.
I doubt that a panel of doctors can't tell for sure whether it was sexual abuse or another form of abuse.
And here comes JB's behaviour into play IMO. "I don't feel pretty?" Sounds more like a sexual abuse sign to me than a reaction to being beaten up or punished by mommy.Same re the wetting the bed (IF it's not just another exaggerated issue).
And sorry to repeat myself,but I really don't think someone would postmortem sexually assault their child just for covering up a head bash (accident).The sexual assault(that night at least) was real,IDI or RDI.
Btw,does anyone have a link re the incest/dictionary subject.Or is it just a rumour?
madeleine,
This is what I am having problems with.I didn't see any reports so I don't know whether the bruises and all point exclusively to prior sexual assault or are they just the result of physical abuse,which doesn't necessarily imply a man.
JonBenet's internal injuries following her death are
acute, and follow on from what I describe as a staged assault attempting to to hide prior molestation. But the enlargement of JonBenet internally was not simply a consequence of her
acute injury, but that of chronic extended molestation.
It is this that paediatricians recognized and opined upon. Steve Thomas was explicit in his remarks regarding the difference between JonBenet and a normal healthy six-year old. If you take this into account along with Coroner Meyer's remarks regarding
digital penetration and
sexual contact e.g.
digital penetration is not the same as penetration using the paintbrush handle, and
sexual contact is not the same as staged vaginal assault. Then the conclusion that prior molestation took place seems reasonable. Although its not the only one available, some think corporal punishment fits the evidence as well? So as you suggest a man may not be implied, but then why would Coroner Meyer go on record citing
sexual contact ?
I don't know whether ST dismissed this only because it pointed to a man (JR?) and he wanted PR to be the guilty one.
Or they identified PR as the weak point in the R's defence, so went for her hoping she would collapse and point the finger at JR.
I doubt that a panel of doctors can't tell for sure whether it was sexual abuse or another form of abuse.
What other form of abuse might be the motive underlying JonBenet's chronic injuries?
And sorry to repeat myself,but I really don't think someone would postmortem sexually assault their child just for covering up a head bash (accident). The sexual assault(that night at least) was real,IDI or RDI.
You are 100% correct on the latter even Coroner Myer agrees with you. He cites
Sexual Contact. JonBenet may not have been postmortem sexually assaulted, it may have occurred prior to her death and been a main contributing factor.
In addition to this latter sexual assault she may have been injured internally by either a finger or paintbrush handle or both, in an attempt to obscure the prior sexual assault.
IDI or RDI there was a sexual assault!
.
