Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[UKGuy]

^ First, I admitted she was wiped down; I never disagreed with that point.

Second: there still could have been blood drops that occurred after being wiped down. That autopsy quote you keep using doesn't prove otherwise in the slightest. It simply proves that the drops hadn't come from an exterior wound. Remember, the Bloomies were many sizes too large, so the fact that the sections "next to the drops" were not also stained proves nothing definitively. Those "sections" were the sections that were looked at after the body was a) moved by JR b) carried upstairs by JR c) moved by LA d) moved and bagged by the paramedics and e) moved to the autopsy table. So in other words, the sections that were next to her body at the time they were studied by the doctor were not the same sections that were next to her when the bleeding occurred.

But even if you don't buy that: even if the drops came from inside, that doesn't necessarily mean that there would be staining on both the bloomies and the matching exterior of the skin regardless. The autopsy report's main point in documenting this is to prove that the bleeding started internally and that the drops were not from an exterior wound; that's it.

Userid,

^ First, I admitted she was wiped down; I never disagreed with that point.

So presumably you accept Coroner Meyer's reasoning why he thinks JonBenet was wiped down?

For the case you make to be valid you have to know that there is blood on another exterior area of JonBenet's genitals.

Coroner Meyer reports no such residue of blood.

Second: there still could have been blood drops that occurred after being wiped down.

So what you are saying is that there was both a wiping down event and an additional deposit of blood event, both independent of each other.

Would Coroner Meyer been aware of this possibility when he concluded that JonBenet had been wiped down, since the blood stain arriving after Jonbenet has been wiped down invalidates his reason for concluding she had been wiped down?

So in other words, the sections that were next to her body at the time they were studied by the doctor were not the same sections that were next to her when the bleeding occurred.

So Coroner Meyer who was present at the autopsy has got it all wrong, and you who knows the distribution of JonBenet's underwear in space, yet was absent from the autopsy has got it all right?

But even if you don't buy that: even if the drops came from inside, that doesn't necessarily mean that there would be staining on both the bloomies and the matching exterior of the skin regardless.

Again you repeat yourself and contradict the basis for Coroner Meyer arriving at his conclusion that JonBenet was wiped down: e.g.

Autopsy, verbatim extract

3. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

You said:

Nothing in the autopsy report concluded that she was wiped down "after," definitively. You're simply jumping to the conclusion yourself that she was wiped "after" being dressed in the bloomies, which is illogical. The logical thing to believe, would be that she was wiped down beforehand, then the underwear was applied, then the strangulation occurred, then her bladder released.

I'm claiming she was wiped down after being dressed in the size-12's, because Coroner Meyer thinks the bloodstain on the size-12's and the absence of blood on her genitals allows him to conclude she was wiped down, i.e. she was wearing the size-12's when she was wiped down.

Other counterfactual events notwithstanding, I'll stick with Coroner Meyer's interpretation, after all, he conducted the autopsy.

.

 

[singularity]

If BR was not responsible for the prior abuse, who was, and why?

Oh please. You know damn good and well that there's a list of potential abusers in her life. In fact, you and I have had discussions about the possibility of Jonbenet having multiple abusers but now that you're "BDI-all" as you say, you've narrowed it down to only Burke and question why anyone would think someone else was abusing her.

Its not the soiling that is an issue, its that a homicide victim is wearing her brothers long johns and oversized underwear,

The soiling is not an issue?!? Really? Both children in the house had issues in this department and when one of them is murdered and just so happens to be soiled, I consider it an issue.

No sense in cherry picking which soiling episodes get to be relevant.

The soiling is a much bigger issue than this so called redressing. As already stated, her wearing his clothing wouldn't have been considered breaking news.

Nope, ever since the autopsy we have known the condition of the long johns and underwear worn by JonBenet.

Don't twist my words. Nothing I said goes against what is in the autopsy. You know what I was referring to.....how all of these elaborate theories claimed she was redressed in fresh clothing after death. The moment these photographs were viewed and people saw the extent of the soiling, it gave a moment of pause. Its because they themselves knew she was just as likely wearing those items when she was attacked. Its why its morphed into a wiping down after the redressing. It used to be before or during the redressing.

 

[mysterymike]

BR is responsible, whether on purpose or by accident, and mom and pop covered it up.

 

[UKGuy]

Oh please. You know damn good and well that there's a list of potential abusers in her life. In fact, you and I have had discussions about the possibility of Jonbenet having multiple abusers but now that you're "BDI-all" as you say, you've narrowed it down to only Burke and question why anyone would think someone else was abusing her.

The soiling is not an issue?!? Really? Both children in the house had issues in this department and when one of them is murdered and just so happens to be soiled, I consider it an issue.

No sense in cherry picking which soiling episodes get to be relevant.

The soiling is a much bigger issue than this so called redressing. As already stated, her wearing his clothing wouldn't have been considered breaking news.

Don't twist my words. Nothing I said goes against what is in the autopsy. You know what I was referring to.....how all of these elaborate theories claimed she was redressed in fresh clothing after death. The moment these photographs were viewed and people saw the extent of the soiling, it gave a moment of pause. Its because they themselves knew she was just as likely wearing those items when she was attacked. Its why its morphed into a wiping down after the redressing. It used to be before or during the redressing.

singularity,

Oh please. You know damn good and well that there's a list of potential abusers in her life. In fact, you and I have had discussions about the possibility of Jonbenet having multiple abusers but now that you're "BDI-all" as you say, you've narrowed it down to only Burke and question why anyone would think someone else was abusing her.

BDI All is Kolar's take on the JonBenet homicide. I'll go along with that until something shows otherwise. I'm more BDI with PR and JR doing some of the staging.

Its quite possible more than one person in the Ramsey household was abusing JonBenet. After BDI, PDI seems the most likely to me.

how all of these elaborate theories claimed she was redressed in fresh clothing after death.

JonBenet could have been dressed in fresh clothing after which the person who ligature asphyxiated her caused her to void her bladder thereby urine stain her long underwear and size-12's.

The moment these photographs were viewed and people saw the extent of the soiling, it gave a moment of pause. Its because they themselves knew she was just as likely wearing those items when she was attacked.

I was always neutral about the long underwear as it had been euphemistically referred to. Once I saw the photographs and realized JonBenet was wearing a pair of Burke Ramsey's long johns and not simply long underwear, that changed my perspective.

Although the urine stained clothing underpins some PDI specific theories, it does not prevent Patsy from ligature asphyxiating JonBenet, either knowingly or unknowingly killing JonBenet, whilst fabricating a cime-scene to deflect blame from Burke Ramsey.

I reckon BDI explains more of the evidence than say PDI does, and in a more consistent manner. I think we will find out someday soon whether the case is PDI, since, assuming there is no sexual assault with PDI, one or both doctors who examined JonBenet's genitals, might tell us their opinion?

Its why its morphed into a wiping down after the redressing. It used to be before or during the redressing.

No, its because Coroner Meyer says it happened after she was redressed, i.e. she had to be wearing them, for them to become bloodstained.

.

 

[otg]

Singularity, Userid, and UKGuy:

I understand how one might dispute the finding of “sexual” abuse, but it’s important for everyone to understand it in order to fully understand the possibilities. The issue is best understood by looking at what was said by one of the "experts" who was asked his opinion. From an earlier post:


Dr. Krugman was brought in by the DA, Alex Hunter, three months after JonBenet’s death. He was not part of the original group asked to view the evidence of sexual abuse. I really don’t know if (being part of the DA’s group) Krugman was given access to all the evidence the BPD had that was shared with the group of experts, but I think he probably was. (In some places, it says that he was only given the AR and other "police reports".) In various interviews, quotes, and snippets he seems to have been all over the place about the possibility of sexual abuse -- but that's because he draws a distinct difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse. So we have to be careful in reading his statements to differentiate between exactly what he is referring to.

In one place Krugman’s view was this (emphasis mine):

Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent (sic) of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.
​

(Ever wonder where Steve Thomas came up with his "bedwetting" theory?)

In another quote, Krugman said the following:

"There was probably no way Beuf could know from routine physical exams if JonBenet was sexually abused,” said Krugman.
​

And in yet another:

"Signs of physical abuse are pretty obvious when you see bruises or fractures or abrasions,” said Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the University of Colorado Medical School in Denver and former director of the Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. But “children can be sexually abused and have perfectly normal exams.”
​

Okay, one more:

About three months ago, Krugman was asked by Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter to consult on the Ramsey case. He studied the full autopsy report and several other documents.
Krugman said he told Hunter basically what he said Monday, that “there is nothing here that is specific that this was a child who was sexually abused.” Instead, Krugman said, “I see a child who was physically abused and is dead.”
​

Dr. Krugman seemed to be telling investigators things that he was unwilling to commit to publicly (JMO). But the best window into what Krugman seemed to be thinking came in an interview on Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997:

COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?
KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.
COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?
KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.
COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.
KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
​

What I gather from what Krugman is saying in the above discourse that seems to get misinterpreted by many when only parts of his statements are quoted is that the genital injuries which we assume to be of a “sexual” nature because of their location, he views as possibly “physical” abuse because of the unknown intent of the perpetrator. Krugman never disputes or diminishes the injuries to JonBenet’s genitals -- only the reason for their being inflicted. IOW, because the assailant might not have been seeking sexual gratification (in his opinion), the injuries might have been intended only as physical punishment (again, in his opinion).


(variously and respectfully sbm)

I reckon there was both a sexual assault and a physical assault probably with the paintbrush, intended as staging.

So why did Coroner Meyer cite Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact?

Also you have Coroner Meyer saying verbatim at autopsy that JonBenet was the victim of Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration.

You know, my friend, I can’t let that go unaddressed. So for others who don’t know our debate history on this subject... Dr. Meyer used both phases (sort of) according to Det. Arndt for the reasoning in one of the search warrants. Actually, the search warrant (http://www.acandyrose.com/12291996warrant03.gif) was written by Det. James Byfield where he states in his affidavit what was told to him by Arndt (who was present at the autopsy). Meyer does not use either of the phrases in the AR, nor does he state (again, according to Arndt) that she was digitally penetrated. Meyer in one sentence stated (an observation) that “the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.” Then in a separate sentence, he (Meyer) states “his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.” Obviously, his opinion of “sexual contact” is in reference to the assault which he believed was “consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.” It does not mean that there were two separate events. Nor does his observation conclude that a finger was used in the assault. It could just as easily be any other object of similar shape or size that would be close to the shape or size of a finger. The paintbrush or a douche attachment could just as easily have caused the injury. In fact, something other than a finger probably caused the injury because of the description given of it by Dr. John McCann (emphasis mine):

It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger.
​

Would the douching have left any chemical signature inside JonBenet?

Chemical? Probably not, if only water was used. I suppose had they tested for chlorine (used in water purification), they might have been able to explain the following sentence taken directly from the AR:

A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault.
​

I personally believe that the wood particles found in her vagina indicate that the paintbrush was inserted by her assailant. But I don’t completely dismiss the possibility that the acute vaginal injuries might have been caused by douching to remove trace evidence, and that the wood particles were from secondary transfer.

 

[Jennifer17]

I think that maybe you have to have a vagina to know that you can have blood come out of a vagina without any external blood on the vulva. It happens every 28 days with females.

 

[UKGuy]

Singularity, Userid, and UKGuy:

I understand how one might dispute the finding of “sexual” abuse, but it’s important for everyone to understand it in order to fully understand the possibilities. The issue is best understood by looking at what was said by one of the "experts" who was asked his opinion. From an earlier post:


Dr. Krugman was brought in by the DA, Alex Hunter, three months after JonBenet’s death. He was not part of the original group asked to view the evidence of sexual abuse. I really don’t know if (being part of the DA’s group) Krugman was given access to all the evidence the BPD had that was shared with the group of experts, but I think he probably was. (In some places, it says that he was only given the AR and other "police reports".) In various interviews, quotes, and snippets he seems to have been all over the place about the possibility of sexual abuse -- but that's because he draws a distinct difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse. So we have to be careful in reading his statements to differentiate between exactly what he is referring to.

In one place Krugman’s view was this (emphasis mine):

Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.’s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent (sic) of “toilet rage” and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. “The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.
​

(Ever wonder where Steve Thomas came up with his "bedwetting" theory?)

In another quote, Krugman said the following:

"There was probably no way Beuf could know from routine physical exams if JonBenet was sexually abused,” said Krugman.
​

And in yet another:

"Signs of physical abuse are pretty obvious when you see bruises or fractures or abrasions,” said Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the University of Colorado Medical School in Denver and former director of the Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. But “children can be sexually abused and have perfectly normal exams.”
​

Okay, one more:

About three months ago, Krugman was asked by Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter to consult on the Ramsey case. He studied the full autopsy report and several other documents.
Krugman said he told Hunter basically what he said Monday, that “there is nothing here that is specific that this was a child who was sexually abused.” Instead, Krugman said, “I see a child who was physically abused and is dead.”
​

Dr. Krugman seemed to be telling investigators things that he was unwilling to commit to publicly (JMO). But the best window into what Krugman seemed to be thinking came in an interview on Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997:

COSSACK: Doctor, you are a leading child abuse expert. The police brought to you the autopsy report of JonBenet Ramsey for your opinion. You concluded that this was not perhaps a case of sex abuse, but perhaps a case of child abuse, why?
KRUGMAN: Well first Roger child abuse to me includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a variety of other forms of abuse and neglect. What I said at the time was that I couldn't say with certainty that this was a sexual abuse case. It clearly was a physical abuse case. And it was a physical abuse case because of the massive brain injury, the skull fracture, and because of the strangulation.
COSSACK: Why were you not able to say with certainty about a sexual abuse case, Doctor?
KRUGMAN: Well for one to know with certainty that sexual abuse occurred that night I think one would need some forensic evidence that I'm not sure is available. I haven't seen any certainly to make me feel that way. There are a lot of people around the country who have from afar or even from looking at the autopsy said they are certain she was sexually abused. The problem is that children who are sexually abused may or may not have any physical findings. The reason I wouldn't say with certainty that she was or wasn't is because at least 40% of children have absolutely no physical findings and they are being sexually abused; whereas children who have some physical findings around the genital area, may have been physically abused or may have been sexually abused. And I saw nothing to let me know with certainty that sexual abuse was here in this particular case that particular night.
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
COSSACK: Well why would you suggest that it is a coverup? I mean, what is there to suggest sexual abuse being a coverup to perhaps hide physical abuse?
KRUGMAN: Well let's again be careful of our terms. There was a lesion an abrasion on the hymen. That may have been part of sexual abuse. That may have been part of physical abuse. That may have been part of a coverup. I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened. And I think the main problem we have with this case and in this country is that we are using the wrong system that is the criminal justice system to try to deal retrospectively with a problem like child abuse, which is an enormous public health problem and has killed over 2,000 other children anonymously since JonBenet died.
COSSACK: Doctor what I am and I agree with you, of course, but what I am particularly interested in is your use of the word coverup here as some sort of way of perhaps hiding something. And I'm trying to get you to explain that to me.
KRUGMAN: Well I'm not sure I can explain it to you Roger other than to say that when you see an injury someplace on a child there can be a lot of different reasons why that injury is there. And if you are involved in an investigation or you are trying to work out diagnostic possibilities you need to think of them all and then you need to have other information that helps you sort out those possibilities.
​

What I gather from what Krugman is saying in the above discourse that seems to get misinterpreted by many when only parts of his statements are quoted is that the genital injuries which we assume to be of a “sexual” nature because of their location, he views as possibly “physical” abuse because of the unknown intent of the perpetrator. Krugman never disputes or diminishes the injuries to JonBenet’s genitals -- only the reason for their being inflicted. IOW, because the assailant might not have been seeking sexual gratification (in his opinion), the injuries might have been intended only as physical punishment (again, in his opinion).


(variously and respectfully sbm)
You know, my friend, I can’t let that go unaddressed. So for others who don’t know our debate history on this subject... Dr. Meyer used both phases (sort of) according to Det. Arndt for the reasoning in one of the search warrants. Actually, the search warrant (http://www.acandyrose.com/12291996warrant03.gif) was written by Det. James Byfield where he states in his affidavit what was told to him by Arndt (who was present at the autopsy). Meyer does not use either of the phrases in the AR, nor does he state (again, according to Arndt) that she was digitally penetrated. Meyer in one sentence stated (an observation) that “the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.” Then in a separate sentence, he (Meyer) states “his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.” Obviously, his opinion of “sexual contact” is in reference to the assault which he believed was “consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.” It does not mean that there were two separate events. Nor does his observation conclude that a finger was used in the assault. It could just as easily be any other object of similar shape or size that would be close to the shape or size of a finger. The paintbrush or a douche attachment could just as easily have caused the injury. In fact, something other than a finger probably caused the injury because of the description given of it by Dr. John McCann (emphasis mine):

It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger.
​

Chemical? Probably not, if only water was used. I suppose had they tested for chlorine (used in water purification), they might have been able to explain the following sentence taken directly from the AR:

A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault.
​

I personally believe that the wood particles found in her vagina indicate that the paintbrush was inserted by her assailant. But I don’t completely dismiss the possibility that the acute vaginal injuries might have been caused by douching to remove trace evidence, and that the wood particles were from secondary transfer.

otg,
Krugman was Thomas' likely source for his bedwetting theory, particularly with him being non-comital on any sexual asssault.

Meyer in one sentence stated (an observation) that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Then in a separate sentence, he (Meyer) states his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. Obviously, his opinion of sexual contact is in reference to the assault which he believed was consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. It does not mean that there were two separate events.

For brevity I usually paraphrase Meyer as

1. Digital Penetration
2. Sexual Contact

Readers are at liberty to disambiguate whether Digital can be substituted with Intrumental and the Contact was coterminus with the Digit?

It does not mean that there were two separate events.

ITA. Coroner Meyer might simply be observing the results of staging by the use of the paintbrush?

Now for some Hand Waving: the above remarks do not rule out JonBenet being the victim of an acute sexual assault.

Krugman admits as much when he says I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened.

In addition to any antemortem sexual assault an internal injury caused by the paintbrush might represent perimortem sexual behaviour on behalf of JonBenet's assailant?

This might explain why the paintbrush would be used as part of the ligature device, i.e. a putative MO?

Two qualified Doctors examined JonBenet's genitals, at different points in the same day, neither appeared to contradict the others opinion.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

So presumably you accept Coroner Meyer's reasoning why he thinks JonBenet was wiped down?

For the case you make to be valid you have to know that there is blood on another exterior area of JonBenet's genitals.

Coroner Meyer reports no such residue of blood.


So what you are saying is that there was both a wiping down event and an additional deposit of blood event, both independent of each other.

Would Coroner Meyer been aware of this possibility when he concluded that JonBenet had been wiped down, since the blood stain arriving after Jonbenet has been wiped down invalidates his reason for concluding she had been wiped down?


So Coroner Meyer who was present at the autopsy has got it all wrong, and you who knows the distribution of JonBenet's underwear in space, yet was absent from the autopsy has got it all right?


Again you repeat yourself and contradict the basis for Coroner Meyer arriving at his conclusion that JonBenet was wiped down: e.g.

Autopsy, verbatim extract


You said:

I'm claiming she was wiped down after being dressed in the size-12's, because Coroner Meyer thinks the bloodstain on the size-12's and the absence of blood on her genitals allows him to conclude she was wiped down, i.e. she was wearing the size-12's when she was wiped down.

Other counterfactual events notwithstanding, I'll stick with Coroner Meyer's interpretation, after all, he conducted the autopsy.

.

Just for what it's worth: when you post like this (where you nitpick every single sentence, etc.), I never read the whole post and only will scan it. I'm not telling you that to make you change your posting style; I'm simply telling you that because I obviously will not address every single point in this post because it's utterly tedious to read a post that is structured this way. If you want me to address more of your post in the future, paragraphs will heed a better result; but if not, that's fine too.

You're assuming that it was blood and only blood that could have been wiped away. It could have been urine, from the first time she wet herself and from the event that sparked the rage.

Quite honestly, I never know what's real in the majority of your posts because, as you just said above, "it's the reader's liberty to disambiguate what I say" (paraphrasing). I'm sure you conveniently employ that reasoning with almost all of your "points."

 

[otg]

For brevity I usually paraphrase Meyer as

1. Digital Penetration
2. Sexual Contact

No, actually you usually phrase this aspect in such a way that suggests you believe (and you’ve specifically stated as much several times in the past) that Dr. Meyer is stating two separate events. For example (emphasis mine):

In the same context Coroner Meyer opined that JonBenet had been subject to Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration.

Readers are at liberty to disambiguate whether Digital can be substituted with Intrumental and the Contact was coterminus with the Digit?

It would be presumptuous of me (an American) to explain construction of a sentence in the English language to one from whose country we’ve borrowed our language. But I’m sure you know the meaning of the word “and,” and it does not suggest that the two events are “coterminus” (nor coterminous).

We have many new posters and we should be careful in what we state so they don't accept conjecture or theory with fact. It is impossible for someone to disambiguate two separate possibilities when only one is stated as fact leaving out the phrase "consistent with" used by Dr. Meyer.

ITA. Coroner Meyer might simply be observing the results of staging by the use of the paintbrush?

I believe he was but didn’t know that at the time, but he wouldn’t have stated it in the AR if he did suspect it of being part of any staging. That determination would be the responsibility of investigators and a prosecutor -- had it ever gone to trial.

Now for some Hand Waving: the above remarks do not rule out JonBenet being the victim of an acute sexual assault.

Krugman admits as much when he says I just don't see enough things in the autopsy to say with certainty what happened.

In addition to any antemortem sexual assault an internal injury caused by the paintbrush might represent perimortem sexual behaviour on behalf of JonBenet's assailant?

This might explain why the paintbrush would be used as part of the ligature device, i.e. a putative MO?

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. In fact, I’ve always thought that the paintbrush was broken and added to the ligature specifically to mask its original use in the sexual assault. That (IMO) is why the end that would have evidentiary bodily fluids on it has never been found. (And please don’t suggest again here that the rounded end was the “splinter” that was found in her.)

Two qualified Doctors examined JonBenet's genitals, at different points in the same day, neither appeared to contradict the others opinion.

Absolutely.

 

[Userid]

^ Exactly. We all need to be careful not to pawn conjecture as fact.

 

[UKGuy]

No, actually you usually phrase this aspect in such a way that suggests you believe (and you’ve specifically stated as much several times in the past) that Dr. Meyer is stating two separate events. For example (emphasis mine):

It would be presumptuous of me (an American) to explain construction of a sentence in the English language to one from whose country we’ve borrowed our language. But I’m sure you know the meaning of the word “and,” and it does not suggest that the two events are “coterminus” (nor coterminous).

We have many new posters and we should be careful in what we state so they don't accept conjecture or theory with fact. It is impossible for someone to disambiguate two separate possibilities when only one is stated as fact leaving out the phrase "consistent with" used by Dr. Meyer.




I believe he was but didn’t know that at the time, but he wouldn’t have stated it in the AR if he did suspect it of being part of any staging. That determination would be the responsibility of investigators and a prosecutor -- had it ever gone to trial.




I agree wholeheartedly with the above. In fact, I’ve always thought that the paintbrush was broken and added to the ligature specifically to mask its original use in the sexual assault. That (IMO) is why the end that would have evidentiary bodily fluids on it has never been found. (And please don’t suggest again here that the rounded end was the “splinter” that was found in her.)




Absolutely.

otg,

I believe he was but didn’t know that at the time, but he wouldn’t have stated it in the AR if he did suspect it of being part of any staging. That determination would be the responsibility of investigators and a prosecutor -- had it ever gone to trial.

ITA. I'm thinking this is why he went for the second opinion, i.e. he knew he could be second guessed on the stand, so wanted backup on his opinion?

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. In fact, I’ve always thought that the paintbrush was broken and added to the ligature specifically to mask its original use in the sexual assault. That (IMO) is why the end that would have evidentiary bodily fluids on it has never been found. (And please don’t suggest again here that the rounded end was the “splinter” that was found in her.)

ITA.

Thats a GOTCHA on my coterminus spelling, typing too fast, its latin for terminating at the same location.

I'm relaxed how people interpret Meyer's verbatim remarks. I simply think multiple sexual assault events took place on JonBenet.

There is patently more to the case than people think.

.

 

[questfortrue]

Oh please. You know damn good and well that there's a list of potential abusers in her life. In fact, you and I have had discussions about the possibility of Jonbenet having multiple abusers but now that you're "BDI-all" as you say, you've narrowed it down to only Burke and question why anyone would think someone else was abusing her.
~RSBM~
.

I agree, Singularity, no one knows for sure who was molesting JB. As I’ve stated before there were several who had access to her. BR looks to be ‘good for it,’ but there may have been more than one abuser. As Koldkase and Christine Courtois have indicated, sometimes this behavior is generational. The following are just some random thoughts I’ve had about this aspect of the crime.

Mountain climbers use the term acclimatization to reference the time taken to allow the body to become accustomed to lower amounts of oxygen. Those who’ve studied molestation use the term ‘grooming,’ and it’s a similar process which means that it takes place over a period of time.

Patsy had ‘sexualized’ her daughter in the pageants. It was likely an unconscious action, perhaps thinking it cute to have her daughter learn some of the suggestive movements for the stage. Her brother BR thought his sister was ‘flaunting’ her stuff during the pageants.

There are hints that the family did have loose boundaries in spite of Patsy’s protestations of the opposite. It is not normal for a 5/6 year old to call out to any adult to come assist her in the bathroom.

Materials in the home fostering loose boundaries? Although it’s never been proven, there were reports a woman saw a photo of a toddler JonBenét dressed provocatively only in a boa in the Charlevoix bedroom of JR and PR. May not be true or mean anything. Though I personally do not find it ‘off’ that a naked full size Barbie was found in the children’s play room, some will consider it a sign of something. I was, however, startled to see a nude gold male statue/sculpture/candle holder in the basement, with a child or two clinging to him. Some won’t find that a sign of anything at all. And it may just be considered art. Inappropriate photos of JB in the basement? Well, we’ve never seen them so it’s difficult to say, except the detectives brought them to the attention of Patsy, not JR.

And then we have the famous scene of JR in his skivvies reading the note on the floor. God, why did Patsy throw that image into the interview when it’s something many of us wish to ‘unsee’? This brings me to mention Freud in passing. Since I’m not equipped to take down Freud’s theory of how the unconscious mind governs behavior, I’m far from being able to really understand Hodges’ book. Hodges was a proponent of JR as an abuser. But I do respect that Hodges studied this couple and believed, as did one or two of the housekeepers, that there was sexual dysfunction between them.

Yet Kolar’s description of SBP and his theory that BR’s behavior is indicative of this syndrome is absolutely sound. He did his homework. What I found masterful in his book is his ability to place BR in the context of the family. Even the Duggars removed Josh from the home for treatment when it was discovered that he had touched one of his younger sisters who was “in the single digit" age range. If the parents were aware of what was going on between siblings, what were the Rs thinking? Oh, yeah, they didn’t even have a door on the master bedroom. Molestation cannot be viewed as simply the problem of one person in a family; the dynamics of the family are involved.

The stories about BR are tied to the inimitable source material (the Globe), in which it was claimed one of the housekeepers found BR and JB nude underneath a ‘fort’ of blankets. Not knowing which housekeeper, it’s also never been discussed how old they were at the time. A six/seven year old playing doctor with his three and a half year old sibling may be innocent exploration. A nine almost ten year old playing doctor should not be viewed as normal. But perhaps the Rs thought it no big deal. If either of them had really given it any thought it speaks to a victimization of their daughter. JB was, as the Duggars explained, in the “single digit” age range.

Back to my opening disclaimer and bafflement. If her genital injuries were caused by BR, did Patsy know and just figure he’d grow out of it? If these injuries were caused by an older person, how could anyone ever say anything. The issue would be buried so deep, no extended family would ever bring it up or ask the question, who was molesting Little Ms. Christmas.

 

[Ambitioned]

But I do respect that Hodges studied this couple and believed, as did one or two of the housekeepers, that there was sexual dysfunction between them.

Well I'm not surprised at that what with her cancer treatments. Even LHP stated John was worried about his unsucked penis or something to that effect.

Molestation cannot be viewed as simply the problem of one person in a family; the dynamics of the family are involved.

So how do you think Don and Nedra Paugh play into this? JW.

Thanks for your lengthy analysis. Very fascinating!!

 

[jj44]

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

I agree, Singularity, no one knows for sure who was molesting JB. As I’ve stated before there were several who had access to her. BR looks to be ‘good for it,’ but there may have been more than one abuser. As Koldkase and Christine Courtois have indicated, sometimes this behavior is generational. The following are just some random thoughts I’ve had about this aspect of the crime.

Mountain climbers use the term acclimatization to reference the time taken to allow the body to become accustomed to lower amounts of oxygen. Those who’ve studied molestation use the term ‘grooming,’ and it’s a similar process which means that it takes place over a period of time.

Patsy had ‘sexualized’ her daughter in the pageants. It was likely an unconscious action, perhaps thinking it cute to have her daughter learn some of the suggestive movements for the stage. Her brother BR thought his sister was ‘flaunting’ her stuff during the pageants.

There are hints that the family did have loose boundaries in spite of Patsy’s protestations of the opposite. It is not normal for a 5/6 year old to call out to any adult to come assist her in the bathroom.

Materials in the home fostering loose boundaries? Although it’s never been proven, there were reports a woman saw a photo of a toddler JonBenét dressed provocatively only in a boa in the Charlevoix bedroom of JR and PR. May not be true or mean anything. Though I personally do not find it ‘off’ that a naked full size Barbie was found in the children’s play room, some will consider it a sign of something. I was, however, startled to see a nude gold male statue/sculpture/candle holder in the basement, with a child or two clinging to him. Some won’t find that a sign of anything at all. And it may just be considered art. Inappropriate photos of JB in the basement? Well, we’ve never seen them so it’s difficult to say, except the detectives brought them to the attention of Patsy, not JR.

And then we have the famous scene of JR in his skivvies reading the note on the floor. God, why did Patsy throw that image into the interview when it’s something many of us wish to ‘unsee’? This brings me to mention Freud in passing. Since I’m not equipped to take down Freud’s theory of how the unconscious mind governs behavior, I’m far from being able to really understand Hodges’ book. Hodges was a proponent of JR as an abuser. But I do respect that Hodges studied this couple and believed, as did one or two of the housekeepers, that there was sexual dysfunction between them.

Yet Kolar’s description of SBP and his theory that BR’s behavior is indicative of this syndrome is absolutely sound. He did his homework. What I found masterful in his book is his ability to place BR in the context of the family. Even the Duggars removed Josh from the home for treatment when it was discovered that he had touched one of his younger sisters who was “in the single digit" age range. If the parents were aware of what was going on between siblings, what were the Rs thinking? Oh, yeah, they didn’t even have a door on the master bedroom. Molestation cannot be viewed as simply the problem of one person in a family; the dynamics of the family are involved.

The stories about BR are tied to the inimitable source material (the Globe), in which it was claimed one of the housekeepers found BR and JB nude underneath a ‘fort’ of blankets. Not knowing which housekeeper, it’s also never been discussed how old they were at the time. A six/seven year old playing doctor with his three and a half year old sibling may be innocent exploration. A nine almost ten year old playing doctor should not be viewed as normal. But perhaps the Rs thought it no big deal. If either of them had really given it any thought it speaks to a victimization of their daughter. JB was, as the Duggars explained, in the “single digit” age range.

Back to my opening disclaimer and bafflement. If her genital injuries were caused by BR, did Patsy know and just figure he’d grow out of it? If these injuries were caused by an older person, how could anyone ever say anything. The issue would be buried so deep, no extended family would ever bring it up or ask the question, who was molesting Little Ms. Christmas.

View attachment 118209

questfortrue,

Back to my opening disclaimer and bafflement. If her genital injuries were caused by BR, did Patsy know and just figure he’d grow out of it? If these injuries were caused by an older person, how could anyone ever say anything. The issue would be buried so deep, no extended family would ever bring it up or ask the question, who was molesting Little Ms. Christmas.

I reckon Patsy knew what was going on, she explicitly sanctioned JonBenet sleeping in BR's bedroom, she probably thought this would help her get a night's sleep?

Regardless of your RDI theory JonBenet exhibits chronic signs of sexual assault, so someone was regularly abusing JonBenet!

The KISS answer is that multiple people were abusing JonBenet, the complex one is that one person is responsible, the latter does not square with a PDI.

I used to think like this: so I can rule out BR as he is too young to be abusing JonBenet for sexual gratification, so the case must be JDI?

After reading Kolar's diagnosis I accept BR's personality might have developed into abusing JonBenet, e.g. do 9-year old boys have sexual desires and act them out?

How did BR's friends view JonBenet, how did the parents of these friends view JonBenet, did they know what was going on?

I reckon they did, but never ever thought it would end in JonBenet's death.

So as a rider, many people were molesting Little Ms. Christmas, due to her pageant appearances she was very popular.

Also bear in mind both Burke and JonBenet were in therapy prior to JonBenet's death, JR's bank account would have to pay the therapists every month when the invoices arrived, so JR knew full well what was taking place, despite DocG's attempt to invoke telepathy.

So it looks like JonBenet's death is the culmination of chronic familial abuse over a long period, likely normalized via pageants, bed sharing, and sleepovers, hence the cover up, and the Stines being employed by the R's, i.e. keep it in house?

.

 

[otg]

UKG, my friend, just a few random comments:

Regardless of your RDI theory JonBenet exhibits chronic signs of sexual assault, so someone was regularly abusing JonBenet!

The KISS answer is that multiple people were abusing JonBenet, the complex one is that one person is responsible, the latter does not square with a PDI.

I don't see how you can arbitrarily declare one to be the KISS answer and the other complex. I might see it as just the opposite. In the end, either is a distinct possibility.

I used to think like this: so I can rule out BR as he is too young to be abusing JonBenet for sexual gratification, so the case must be JDI?

That's the very reason so many, for so long, found it so difficult to even consider that Burke might have been responsible for any of this.

After reading Kolar's diagnosis I accept BR's personality might have developed into abusing JonBenet, e.g. do 9-year old boys have sexual desires and act them out?

I can tell you that it is extremely rare for a prepubescent child (of either sex) to develop sexual desires without some type of initiation into the subject by another (usually) older individual. Even then, without the hormones that begin to change at puberty, any activity that some might interpret as being "sexual" are mere acts of an inquisitive nature -- not "sexual desire." Of course, anything that is outside the norm can also be an exception.

 

[questfortrue]

For anyone regarding Colorado Statutes applying to Abuse and Neglect -

Colorado has had a mandatory reporting statute on the books since 1986/87. C.R.S. 19-3-304. This requires any nurse, counselor, therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist and a long list of others, to report abuse or neglect to the proper authorities. During the period in which the R children were allegedly seeing therapists, no one reported anything. Only after the GJ had concluded did someone from JB’s school step forward and tell the police of their conversation with JR regarding JB’s toileting issues at school.

 

[UKGuy]

UKG, my friend, just a few random comments:I don't see how you can arbitrarily declare one to be the KISS answer and the other complex. I might see it as just the opposite. In the end, either is a distinct possibility.


That's the very reason so many, for so long, found it so difficult to even consider that Burke might have been responsible for any of this.


I can tell you that it is extremely rare for a prepubescent child (of either sex) to develop sexual desires without some type of initiation into the subject by another (usually) older individual. Even then, without the hormones that begin to change at puberty, any activity that some might interpret as being "sexual" are mere acts of an inquisitive nature -- not "sexual desire." Of course, anything that is outside the norm can also be an exception.

otg,

I don't see how you can arbitrarily declare one to be the KISS answer and the other complex. I might see it as just the opposite. In the end, either is a distinct possibility.

I agree they are interchangable options.

That's the very reason so many, for so long, found it so difficult to even consider that Burke might have been responsible for any of this.

Sure, when its characterized as a premeditated sexual assault, it does not look credible that a 9-year old boy did it all, as per Kolar.

I can tell you that it is extremely rare for a prepubescent child (of either sex) to develop sexual desires without some type of initiation into the subject by another (usually) older individual. Even then, without the hormones that begin to change at puberty, any activity that some might interpret as being "sexual" are mere acts of an inquisitive nature -- not "sexual desire." Of course, anything that is outside the norm can also be an exception.

So by definition do we have an Older Individual interacting within any of the RDI theories?

If the motivation behind JonBenet's sexual assault was sexual gratification, does that rule out BR and PR?

.

 

[UKGuy]

For anyone regarding Colorado Statutes applying to Abuse and Neglect -

Colorado has had a mandatory reporting statute on the books since 1986/87. C.R.S. 19-3-304. This requires any nurse, counselor, therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist and a long list of others, to report abuse or neglect to the proper authorities. During the period in which the R children were allegedly seeing therapists, no one reported anything. Only after the GJ had concluded did someone from JB’s school step forward and tell the police of their conversation with JR regarding JB’s toileting issues at school.

questfortrue,
Maybe they did and under statute you are not notified?

 

[icedtea4me]

During The ENQUIRER interview, Patsy admitted she considered and rejected the possibility that John was sexually abusing JonBenet. She openly admitted that during her struggle to defeat ovarian cancer between 1993 and 1994, John and Patsy's sex life suffered. She totally rejects the notion of John abusing JonBenet, but her reasoning is odd.

She said her mother "came to take care of the kids (when I had cancer). She slept in the other bed in JonBenet's room. I mean, if John was coming in to molest JonBenet, you know that's not going to happen 'cause Grandma was right there every night."

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.ht...

Please note that Patsy had considered John had been sexually abusing JonBenet. Why would that thought even cross her mind? But then she rejects it. Why did she reject it? Did she say "John would never do such a thing"? No, she said she rejected it because Grandma Nedra was in JonBenet's room every night. So, the only thing preventing John from having sexually molested JonBenet has nothing to do with him. It has to do with the presence of Nedra. That means if John couldn't have sexually molested JonBenet when Grandma Nedra was there, then he certainly could've when she wasn't.

And Grandma Nedra was not there Christmas night 1996.