BlueCrab said:
Seeker,
It's not known for sure whether JonBenet was raped or not. The evidence suggests she was raped.
From page 56 in PMPT pb:
"During the autopsy, Meyer had told Arndt and Trujillo that JonBenet had suffered an injury consistent with vaginal penetration -- digital or otherwise. In his opinion, she'd sustained some kind of genital trauma that could be consistent with sexual contact."
IOW, it could have been from a finger, or from the stick, or from a prepubescent penis, or any combination of these.
JonBenet's hymen was gone except for a rim of tissue between the 10 and 2 o'clock positions, and she had sustained acute and chronic injuries to the vagina. IOW, JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night she died.
There were acute and chronic injuries at the same 7 o'clock position of the hymenal orifice, which itself, at 1 cm, was approximately twice the size it should have been. Both injuries at the same location 7 o'clock position suggest the same person caused the acute injury (night of the murder) and the chronic injury (1 to 3 days prior to the murder). A person's sexual routines do not change all that much from one day to the other.
BlueCrab
Whoa, BC, the evidence doesn't suggest that JonBenet was raped in the ordinary sense. It suggests that she was poked in the vagina with a stick. If you want to call that rape, that's your prerogative; depends on how you define the word. Unless Burke is a beaver, his prepubescent penis wouldn't scratch the hymen.
Whoa, BC, JonBenet's hymen wasn't gone except for a rim of tissue between the 10 and 2 o'clock positions. You got that from Schiller. He got that wrong in his book. In the autopsy report it says the hymen was a rim of tissue from the 2 o'clock to the 10 o'clock position (clockwise), not from 10 to 2. What you are describing is 4/12ths (33.33 %) of a complete circle; what Meyer (he performed the autopsy, not Schiller) described was 8/12ths (66.66 %) of a complete circle; a normal hymen configuration, as I and others have already pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Schiller incorrectly described the hymen when he said, in PMPT, "What remained of the hymen was a rim of tissue between the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock positions." It was in this incorrect characterization and description that folks got the impression that part of the hymen was missing; it wasn't.
Whoa, BC, your conclusion about the acute and chronic injuries is incorrect. Both the injury to the hymen (the abrasion) and the injury to the vaginal wall directly behind it (the abrasion) were acute (neither was chronic). It is true that both these acute injuries suggest that the same person made them at the same time; probably with the paintbrush handle. Make of that what you will.
An added comment about something that BC didn't mention this time. Many have gotten the impression that a piece of hymen was missing and had gone missing either that night or sometime prior to that night. Many folks have gotten the impression that the hymen was torn that night. The coroner said it was abraded; he didn't say it was torn. If you want to replace the term, "abrasion", with the term, "tear", feel free to do so, even though that would be incorrect. Then you'd have that the hymen had been torn by the paintbrush handle (or whatever was used to inflict the injury--not a penis). Still not rape in the ordinary sense; more on the order of a sadistic gesture.
Thomas, himself, didn't suspect rape nor did he suspect chronic sexual abuse in the molestation sense. He suspected physical abuse; probably of the nature of corporal punishment for bed wetting.
Let's get our facts straight. Old myths die hard.
