Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

who molested/abused JB?

  • JR

    Votes: 180 27.1%
  • BR

    Votes: 203 30.6%
  • JAR

    Votes: 28 4.2%
  • a close family friend

    Votes: 41 6.2%
  • a stranger/stalker a la JMK

    Votes: 20 3.0%
  • PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

    Votes: 89 13.4%
  • she wasn't previously abused/molested

    Votes: 103 15.5%

  • Total voters
    664
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I think about regarding the paintbrush/staged molestation is that something caused her to bleed that night. Dead people don't bleed. They can leak blood, though. A sample of the blood can tell whether it came from a living or dead person, but that was not possible in this case.
If the bleeding happened when she was alive- it was molestation. If it happened after she was dead it was staging.

DeeDee249,
It may not be an either/or option. Both events may have occurred e.g. staged sexual assault, internal bleeding.

Consider the evidence: Coroner Meyer in his public remarks at the autopsy stated that JonBenet had undergone sexual contact and digital penetration.

So as far as Coroner Meyer is concerned, JonBenet was both sexually assaulted and had a finger inserted internally.

Patently the sexual assault is prior to the staging. The latter which may take the form of digital penetration, but if I assume this same person fashioned the ligature then possibly the finger had traces of wood splinters from the painbrush handle, which was then deposited inside JonBenet?

The other possibility is that sexual contact and digital penetration occur in the same prior time frame and that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was employed to stage a grotesque sexual assault.

This latter assumption is in keeping with the victim profile as projected by the stager. IMO aspects of JonBenet's internal injuries and whether the missing piece of paintbrush was found inside her have been redacted from the Autopsy Report. To corroborate this view consider how Steve Thomas in his book does not tell us the status of the missing piece of the paintbrush nor has anyone present at the autopsy stated no object was found inside JonBenet. Evidence that would not detract from any prosecution.

Given that the blood on the size-12 underwear arrived on JonBenet after the staging was undertaken, else there would be more forensic evidence, then its likely that the blood deposited has arrived after death as the result of gravity?

A further consideration is that the blood deposit is the result of the missing piece of the paintbrush being used to stage a sexual assault, and that the touch-dna included in the blood sample originated from the paintbrush handle?

If there has indeed been an autopsy redaction then the latter scenario seems plausible, and should go some way to explaining the Intruder DNA!

Remember John and Lou Smit praying together? Well I reckon the relationship between John and Lou Smit deliberately fostered the idea of a sexually deviant intruder. This matches JonBenet's victim profile, and Smit's subsequent spin to the media. With the passage of time it all looks suspiciously convenient.
 
DeeDee249,
It may not be an either/or option. Both events may have occurred e.g. staged sexual assault, internal bleeding.

Consider the evidence: Coroner Meyer in his public remarks at the autopsy stated that JonBenet had undergone sexual contact and digital penetration.

So as far as Coroner Meyer is concerned, JonBenet was both sexually assaulted and had a finger inserted internally.

Patently the sexual assault is prior to the staging. The latter which may take the form of digital penetration, but if I assume this same person fashioned the ligature then possibly the finger had traces of wood splinters from the painbrush handle, which was then deposited inside JonBenet?

The other possibility is that sexual contact and digital penetration occur in the same prior time frame and that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was employed to stage a grotesque sexual assault.

This latter assumption is in keeping with the victim profile as projected by the stager. IMO aspects of JonBenet's internal injuries and whether the missing piece of paintbrush was found inside her have been redacted from the Autopsy Report. To corroborate this view consider how Steve Thomas in his book does not tell us the status of the missing piece of the paintbrush nor has anyone present at the autopsy stated no object was found inside JonBenet. Evidence that would not detract from any prosecution.

Given that the blood on the size-12 underwear arrived on JonBenet after the staging was undertaken, else there would be more forensic evidence, then its likely that the blood deposited has arrived after death as the result of gravity?

A further consideration is that the blood deposit is the result of the missing piece of the paintbrush being used to stage a sexual assault, and that the touch-dna included in the blood sample originated from the paintbrush handle?

If there has indeed been an autopsy redaction then the latter scenario seems plausible, and should go some way to explaining the Intruder DNA!

Remember John and Lou Smit praying together? Well I reckon the relationship between John and Lou Smit deliberately fostered the idea of a sexually deviant intruder. This matches JonBenet's victim profile, and Smit's subsequent spin to the media. With the passage of time it all looks suspiciously convenient.
BEM:
That's not exactly what was said - the digital penetration WAS the sexual contact:

" injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact"
 
BEM:
That's not exactly what was said - the digital penetration WAS the sexual contact:

" injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact"

vlpate,
That's not exactly what was said - the digital penetration WAS the sexual contact:
Of course what you are telling me is that your interpretation is more correct than mine.

Coroner Meyer is likely citing two distinct events one is the digital penetration which need not be sexual contact then there is the sexual contact which may have occured prior to JonBenet's death?

Then again your interpretation may be correct, if so, where do you stand on a staged sexual assault?




.
 
I'm sorry, but Linda Arndt proved she wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer when she allowed so many people to run amok over the crime scene.

did she let them run amok or could she not stop them from running amok?
 
I see corporal punishment and staging but I'm not clear on what you are calling rape.

I've said it at least twice. You really don't know what rape is?

I think in this country, there is a profound lack of understanding about what rape is. I don't know if it's stupidity or deliberate.
 
vlpate,

Of course what you are telling me is that your interpretation is more correct than mine.

Coroner Meyer is likely citing two distinct events one is the digital penetration which need not be sexual contact then there is the sexual contact which may have occured prior to JonBenet's death?

Then again your interpretation may be correct, if so, where do you stand on a staged sexual assault?




.

vlpate is right. Not to be mean, but I don't think you understood the coroner.
 
vlpate,

Of course what you are telling me is that your interpretation is more correct than mine.

Coroner Meyer is likely citing two distinct events one is the digital penetration which need not be sexual contact then there is the sexual contact which may have occured prior to JonBenet's death?

Then again your interpretation may be correct, if so, where do you stand on a staged sexual assault?




.
Anytime there is digital penetration of a six year old, save for examination by a Doctor, it is sexual contact. I think the molestation was staged that night. As I have said so many times, the molestation did not fit the violence of the head bashing and strangulation. I don't get the paint brush...why? I guess if there were more damage to her vagina, I could see the point...sadism...but the physical harm to her vagina was minimal and there were no bruises on her in places that would indicate she struggled - pulling her legs together and having them forced back down. Only if she were already dying, would she not struggle. JonBenet showed no signs whatsoever of a struggle.
 
I've said it at least twice. You really don't know what rape is?

I think in this country, there is a profound lack of understanding about what rape is. I don't know if it's stupidity or deliberate.

I never asked for a definition of rape. I asked what parts of your statement were you referring to when you say Jonbenét was raped.

My knowledge of rape, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with my question to you.
 
Anytime there is digital penetration of a six year old, save for examination by a Doctor, it is sexual contact. I think the molestation was staged that night. As I have said so many times, the molestation did not fit the violence of the head bashing and strangulation. I don't get the paint brush...why? I guess if there were more damage to her vagina, I could see the point...sadism...but the physical harm to her vagina was minimal and there were no bruises on her in places that would indicate she struggled - pulling her legs together and having them forced back down. Only if she were already dying, would she not struggle. JonBenet showed no signs whatsoever of a struggle.

vlpate,
If by definition Coroner Meyer was only making evident that digital penetration is sexual contact then presumably any staged molestation is also sexual contact?

I think the molestation was staged that night.
Do you? At what point do you think it occurred and did it include digital penetration?



.
 
vlpate is right. Not to be mean, but I don't think you understood the coroner.

Alix,
Quite possibly so. Then you and vplate can correct me and explain the forensic evidence for other members?


.
 
vlpate,
If by definition Coroner Meyer was only making evident that digital penetration is sexual contact then presumably any staged molestation is also sexual contact?


Do you? At what point do you think it occurred and did it include digital penetration?



.

No, not presumably - sexual contact on a live or dead six year old is sexual molestation. The sexual contact, in this case, and sexual molestation, are the same thing.

At what point do I think what occurred? The staging? I covered that. As for whether or not the staging included digital penetration, I don't know, but Meyers said her injuries were "consistent" with digital penetration - using a variety of items would be "consistent" with digital penetration. If this penetration did not cause bleeding then it could have occurred after death.

Whether she was dying and unresponsive, giving the perp the impression she was dead... or actually dead, it is my opinion the sexual molestation was staged the night she died.

Did I answer your question because I feel like I'm repeating what I've already written. Maybe I wasn't clear :(
 
Anytime there is digital penetration of a six year old, save for examination by a Doctor, it is sexual contact. I think the molestation was staged that night. As I have said so many times, the molestation did not fit the violence of the head bashing and strangulation. I don't get the paint brush...why? I guess if there were more damage to her vagina, I could see the point...sadism...but the physical harm to her vagina was minimal and there were no bruises on her in places that would indicate she struggled - pulling her legs together and having them forced back down. Only if she were already dying, would she not struggle. JonBenet showed no signs whatsoever of a struggle.

Ah, I see now UK Guy - I was in a hurry to get back to the office when I wrote this...it should have been "sexual molestation". Sorry.
 
I am not sure sexual acts on or with a dead body are considered legally to be sexual molestation. This would probably be desecration of a body.
 
did she let them run amok or could she not stop them from running amok?

She let them wander around freely. Not that they were "running amok" literally. She wasn't happy about it, but didn't seem to realize that she had the authority and the power (she had a gun, after all) to force them to leave the house altogether and if she didn't want to do that, she could have made them gather in one room and remain there with her (gun drawn if need be) until more LE arrived. LA did a lot of complaining (justified) about not receiving backup and being left on her own to deal with an active crime scene she obviously did not have control over. But she really didn't TAKE control as she could have and should have.
As a rape victim advocate, she had a leaning towards viewing women as victims, and certainly felt that way about Patsy from the beginning. Her suspicion was always on JR. And we also have the directive that came down from the DA (via the governor's office?) was to "treat these people (the Rs) like victims, not like suspects".
Whatever she observed while at the house that day, and whatever suspicions about the family's guilt or involvement, she kept them to herself, until JR "found" his daughter. As she said herself, a lot of things became clear to her at that point, and she then "understood" that JR had killed his daughter. She even said she mentally counted the bullets in her gun, preparing to use it if she had to. She did not elaborate on this, but my impression is that if JR discerned that she suspected him of killing his daughter, he may have turned on her or others in the home and she was prepared to shoot if needed.
But all this was preventable in the first place, including the contamination of the body and the crime scene- all she had to do was keep everyone in one room and not let anyone leave. Simple, right? But she did not do it.
 
I am not sure sexual acts on or with a dead body are considered legally to be sexual molestation. This would probably be desecration of a body.

I'm not sure she was dead when the staging of the garrotte OR the sexual contact/molestation took place.
 
Alix,
Quite possibly so. Then you and vplate can correct me and explain the forensic evidence for other members?


.

Not sure how I got thrown into this one. I'm pretty sure I know what rape is and the insult to Americans seems uncalled for. What happened to JonBenet was rape, staged or not....unless she was dead, that would be, as DeeDee pointed out, desecration.

Seems a matter of symatics at this point. Whether she was dead or alive when the (staged IMO), rape/molestation/sexual contact took place is my question.
 
Not sure how I got thrown into this one. I'm pretty sure I know what rape is and the insult to Americans seems uncalled for. What happened to JonBenet was rape, staged or not....unless she was dead, that would be, as DeeDee pointed out, desecration.

Seems a matter of symatics at this point. Whether she was dead or alive when the (staged IMO), rape/molestation/sexual contact took place is my question.

No insult was meant by me. I think we really don't understand what rapes means in this country, preferring to either blame the victim or play word games. I really didn't mean to be rude.
 
No, not presumably - sexual contact on a live or dead six year old is sexual molestation. The sexual contact, in this case, and sexual molestation, are the same thing.

At what point do I think what occurred? The staging? I covered that. As for whether or not the staging included digital penetration, I don't know, but Meyers said her injuries were "consistent" with digital penetration - using a variety of items would be "consistent" with digital penetration. If this penetration did not cause bleeding then it could have occurred after death.

Whether she was dying and unresponsive, giving the perp the impression she was dead... or actually dead, it is my opinion the sexual molestation was staged the night she died.

Did I answer your question because I feel like I'm repeating what I've already written. Maybe I wasn't clear :(


vlpate,
Did I answer your question because I feel like I'm repeating what I've already written. Maybe I wasn't clear :(
The distinction between a staged and actual molestation was not clarified.

Meyers said her injuries were "consistent" with digital penetration - using a variety of items would be "consistent" with digital penetration.
Not quite. Here semantics does play a role, but when a Coroner uses the term digital it is not a throw away line intended for wide interpretation, it has precise meaning e.g. a finger.

Whether she was dying and unresponsive, giving the perp the impression she was dead... or actually dead, it is my opinion the sexual molestation was staged the night she died.
So you reckon at the time of her death the only episode of sexual contact occurred only as the result of staging?

Some members think that JonBenet was sexually assaulted upstairs prior to her head injury occurring. Then to cover all this up she was staged as the victim of an intruder pedophile. Later this was abandoned and re-staged as an abduction scenario with JonBenet by necessity being redressed and her sexual assault being hidden from immediate view?

If as you suggest the sexual molestation was staged the night she died. why bother if it is an abduction that you are staging, not an assault by a pedophile, and if you are staging the latter why bother hiding it, beneath all the clothing?

.
 
She let them wander around freely. Not that they were "running amok" literally. She wasn't happy about it, but didn't seem to realize that she had the authority and the power (she had a gun, after all) to force them to leave the house altogether and if she didn't want to do that, she could have made them gather in one room and remain there with her (gun drawn if need be) until more LE arrived. LA did a lot of complaining (justified) about not receiving backup and being left on her own to deal with an active crime scene she obviously did not have control over. But she really didn't TAKE control as she could have and should have.
As a rape victim advocate, she had a leaning towards viewing women as victims, and certainly felt that way about Patsy from the beginning. Her suspicion was always on JR. And we also have the directive that came down from the DA (via the governor's office?) was to "treat these people (the Rs) like victims, not like suspects".
Whatever she observed while at the house that day, and whatever suspicions about the family's guilt or involvement, she kept them to herself, until JR "found" his daughter. As she said herself, a lot of things became clear to her at that point, and she then "understood" that JR had killed his daughter. She even said she mentally counted the bullets in her gun, preparing to use it if she had to. She did not elaborate on this, but my impression is that if JR discerned that she suspected him of killing his daughter, he may have turned on her or others in the home and she was prepared to shoot if needed.
But all this was preventable in the first place, including the contamination of the body and the crime scene- all she had to do was keep everyone in one room and not let anyone leave. Simple, right? But she did not do it.

i saw LA on GMA years ago, and i read her depo. she was apparently silenced afterwards. and it seems that keeping them corralled was not so simple given all of the circumstances that morning.
 
i think the professionals documented give unspecific and conflicting reports on the exact nature of JBR's history and last moments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
1,361
Total visitors
1,574

Forum statistics

Threads
589,168
Messages
17,914,885
Members
227,742
Latest member
Snugglebear
Back
Top