Is the molester also the killer?

[Ames]

Solace,

There are two distinct occassions, one when she was sexually assaulted, and after she was redressed in the size-12's.

Her sexual injuries are not all staged, she was assaulted while still alive, she was wiped down, she was wearing size-12's despite a drawer full of size-6's, the evidence indicates her sexual assault was concealed on both occassions, e.g. no size-6's, no accompanying blood or semen, and only trace blood stains on her size-12's all hiding any sexual assault.

If her death was accidental why a sexual assault and if its to be staged as a sociopathic lust murder why conceal the sexual assault, something does not add up?


.

I believe that the wiping down was done the same reason that she was wrapped "lovingly" in a blanket. I believe that it was the PARENT coming out in them. I really don't think that they were trying to get rid of anything, unless it was fibers. I don't think that they were trying to get rid of semen...because I don't believe that she was molested that night.

If you are talking about the paintbrush insertion....that was done for two reasons...to make it look like the "intruder" molested her and inserted the paintbrush, AND it was done to TRY to cover up the previous evidence of molestation.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

There are two distinct occassions, one when she was sexually assaulted, and after she was redressed in the size-12's.

Her sexual injuries are not all staged, she was assaulted while still alive, she was wiped down, she was wearing size-12's despite a drawer full of size-6's, the evidence indicates her sexual assault was concealed on both occassions, e.g. no size-6's, no accompanying blood or semen, and only trace blood stains on her size-12's all hiding any sexual assault. I understand that she was assaulted while still alive, but "unconscious" is what I believe. Size 12s could have just been grabbed without realizing and left on because it went with the staging or they could have been grabbed intentionally for the staging.

If her death was accidental why a sexual assault and if its to be staged as a sociopathic lust murder why conceal the sexual assault, something does not add up? I think it most definitely adds up. Because Patsy isn't going to jail for this, an intruder is. And in order to make you believe an intruder did this, we will have to sexually assault her with the paintbrush and leave her in the basement. Where is all the semen UK? There is none anywhere. This is a staged assault.


.

My reply above.

 

[UKGuy]

My reply above.

Solace,

But her sexual assault was hidden, it was concealed, she was wiped down, Coroner Meyer opines she was cleaned up.

Why hide the assault if the intention is to blame it on an intruder?


There is no semen or blood precisely because she was cleaned up.


An accidental death that requires a hidden sexual assault, how does that add up?


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

But her sexual assault was hidden, it was concealed, she was wiped down, Coroner Meyer opines she was cleaned up.

Why hide the assault if the intention is to blame it on an intruder?


There is no semen or blood precisely because she was cleaned up.


An accidental death that requires a hidden sexual assault, how does that add up?


.

UK, do you think that they knew LE would realize that she was wiped down?

 

[UKGuy]

UK, do you think that they knew LE would realize that she was wiped down?

Solace,

Not immediately, since casual observation would not reveal this or her sexual assault either, and this is the point, why conceal her sexual assault if it was perpetrated for staging purposes?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Yes interesting particularly the reference to the call on the day they were due to be elsewhere.


.

yes,now they have given themselves a reason to cancel the trip.

 

[JMO8778]

conceal the sexual assault, something does not add up? I think it most definitely adds up. Because Patsy isn't going to jail for this, an intruder is. And in order to make you believe an intruder did this, we will have to sexually assault her with the paintbrush and leave her in the basement. Where is all the semen UK? There is none anywhere. This is a staged assault.

there doesn't need to be any for it to still be a sexual assault.remember JR's shirt fibers were found in her crotch area..what was he wiping away??? (saliva?) O. Razor would say it's from a sexual assault..his fibers being there,that's pretty damning,IMO.it must have been something pretty incriminating.I can't see him using his shirt to clean her up for a soiling incident.I may be wrong but I think he would have used something else for that.It seems he used what he had handy at the time,esp if he was undressed anyway...his shirt.
could that be the reason someone looked up the word incest?? since JB wasn't penetrated per se(maybe not other than the paintbrush or digitally),was this person trying to find more info on exactly what all is included in the legal definition of incest?
considering JR's fiber evidence,JB most likely suffering previous sexual abuse, JR trying to account for his underwear fibers in JB's room near her bed,and the word incest being looked up..I think it's possible she was molested that same night.
also consider JR was behaving in guilty ways as well...being all too anxious to appear on CNN, and being overly anxious to be seen at church seems to point to him doing something more than just hiding an accidental murder done by PR.

 

[JMO8778]

Solace,

Not immediately, since casual observation would not reveal this or her sexual assault either, and this is the point, why conceal her sexual assault if it was perpetrated for staging purposes?


.

it seems a previous sexual assault was cleaned up,in effect...HIDDEN,and then a new (staged) sexual assualt was done for the purpose of pointing to a sexual predator intruder,would you agree?

 

[DeeDee249]

There must have been significant blood on her thighs, at least. At the autopsy, when her thighs were tested for fluorescence (that would have indicated semen/blood) it showed blood, no semen. JBR was assaulted with that paintbrush while alive. She bled enough for some to end up on her thighs. She was obviously naked, at least from the waist down, at that point. Then, after she was wiped down the panties and long johns were pulled back up or put back on. I feel this was done after her heart stopped pumping, as she wasn't bleeding, but a few drops of blood seeped out onto the panties, unknown to the killer. The release of urine could have happened just after, as a post-mortem release, or JBR could have been so frightened before losing consciousness she lost control before the long johns and panties were removed for the sexual assault (and resulting bleeding).
And there doesn't need to be ANY semen anywhere for it to be a sexual assault. The killer, if there was truly a sexual assault and not just staging that night, may not have gotten to that point.

 

[BBB167893]

You thinking that someone went too far, thinking they had it controlled?

 

[UKGuy]

it seems a previous sexual assault was cleaned up,in effect...HIDDEN,and then a new (staged) sexual assualt was done for the purpose of pointing to a sexual predator intruder,would you agree?

JMO8778,

That is possible and with access to the forensic evidence we could answer that definitively.

As it stands we cannot be certain, but regardless of which sequence of events you think took place, the question still remains, why was her sexual assault hidden if its purpose was be part of the staging?

The question can be asked whether she was sexually assaulted once or twice.

So the big question for the Steve Thomas Toilet Rage fans, is if it was an accidental death, why a hidden sexual assault, perpetrated possibly not just once but twice?


.

 

[UKGuy]

There must have been significant blood on her thighs, at least. At the autopsy, when her thighs were tested for fluorescence (that would have indicated semen/blood) it showed blood, no semen. JBR was assaulted with that paintbrush while alive. She bled enough for some to end up on her thighs. She was obviously naked, at least from the waist down, at that point. Then, after she was wiped down the panties and long johns were pulled back up or put back on. I feel this was done after her heart stopped pumping, as she wasn't bleeding, but a few drops of blood seeped out onto the panties, unknown to the killer. The release of urine could have happened just after, as a post-mortem release, or JBR could have been so frightened before losing consciousness she lost control before the long johns and panties were removed for the sexual assault (and resulting bleeding).
And there doesn't need to be ANY semen anywhere for it to be a sexual assault. The killer, if there was truly a sexual assault and not just staging that night, may not have gotten to that point.

DeeDee249,

JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to her death, she bled profusely, enough to register on the fluorescence tests.

Now if this was intended to reflect a staged homicide why bother wiping her down and redressing her, where is the percentage in that, what sociopathic intruder is concerned with clean underwear and genital hygiene?

Coroner Meyer is of the opinion that JonBenet was also digitally penetrated which is distinct from her acute injury, due to her abnormally enlarged hymen.

The question remains, if JonBenet's death was accidental, why does it need a hidden sexual assault?


.

 

[Camper]

UK post #91 QUOTE "As it stands we cannot be certain, but
regardless of which sequence of events you think took place,
the question still remains, why was her sexual assault hidden
if its purpose was be part of the staging?

Camper response ->This would point to a random
intruder who had shown up 'that' night only, NOT been there
BEFORE.

Next UK post QUOTE "Coroner Meyer is of the opinion that
JonBenet was also digitally penetrated which is distinct
from her acute injury, due to her abnormally enlarged hymen.

The question remains, if JonBenet's death was accidental,
why does it need a hidden sexual assault? UNQUOTE

Camper comment ->If it was an accident by
a perp who was under the influence, a perp known to the
family, then they still needed the 'look' of an outside
'perp', imop.

.

 

[Solace]

DeeDee249,

JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to her death, she bled profusely, enough to register on the fluorescence tests. Where does it say she bled profusely. I have never read that. Are not the fluorescence tests there to pick up things not seen by the "naked" eye, such as semen, etc.

Now if this was intended to reflect a staged homicide why bother wiping her down and redressing her, where is the percentage in that, what sociopathic intruder is concerned with clean underwear and genital hygiene? John and Patsy are not rational at this moment. What is the point in writing a three page ransom note? First time anyone has ever seen a three page ransom note, but I think you agree one of them wrote it and most likely Patsy. Three pages was fine with her. And wiping down JonBenet could have been an act of sorrow and probably was.

Coroner Meyer is of the opinion that JonBenet was also digitally penetrated which is distinct from her acute injury, due to her abnormally enlarged hymen. Could have been from the paint brush, the tearing of the hymen in which case there would have been bleeding but probably not that much since she was near death. And again, I am not ruling out prior sexual abuse, but I don't think it is likely. I think the fact that she had serious bedwetting problems and INFECTIONS that she was constantly scratching herself.

The question remains, if JonBenet's death was accidental, why does it need a hidden sexual assault? It is not necessarily hidden. They know the coroner is going to find out invastion. And this is done to prove that the parents are not capable of doing it. It is not easy to stage this stuff especially if you actually loved the child and the murder of her was in an "accidental" rage action. Just the fact of carrying her to the basement requires some kind of strenth or attitude that I don't have. Sorrow probably took over at the end and they cleaned her up and wrapped her up as lovingly as they could. You would agree that the tying of the hands was ridiculous. It was not tight and if she were alive, she could have gotten out of it. So obviously someone was having a hard time doing that.


.

Uk SEE ABOVE.

 

[Albert18]

We all know of cases where somebody is murdered and the location of the murder is in disarray. Investigators then try to determine whether this was a robbery, turned murder, or if the intent was to commit murder and scattering things around is just an attempt to make it look like a robbery gone bad.

Isn't that what we have in this case with the sexual assault?

The Ramsey's want us to believe this was a sexual assault/kidnapping gone bad. We know the kidnapping was a hoax, so why wouldn't the sexual assault be a hoax?

Here is an important quote from Dr. Ronald Wright, University of Miami School of Medicine, from a story in the Rocky Mountain News in talking about the sexual assault.

"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.

"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''

So we have a brutal head wound, then subtle sexual assault injuries, a subtle strangulation, and nothing else. No defensive wounds and the autopsy is full of the word abrasion, not contusion. JonBenet was not slapped around or beaten and was cleaned up and wrapped in a blanket.

This suggest to me somebody wanted this to look like a Polly Klaas type killing but the evidence suggests to me the only "real" event that night was the head wound.

i.e. Forget the cottonpickin sexual assault. It's bogus.

 

[Ames]

digitally penetrated[/I] which is distinct from her acute injury, due to her abnormally enlarged hymen. Could have been from the paint brush, the tearing of the hymen in which case there would have been bleeding but probably not that much since she was near death. And again, I am not ruling out prior sexual abuse, but I don't think it is likely. I think the fact that she had serious bedwetting problems and INFECTIONS that she was constantly scratching herself.

There was a video...I believe that it was played on Geraldo....where JB was at some sort of School performance....and she had a toy saxophone...and she was scratching herself with it. It was thought at the time that she was masterbating (I hate that word...)....but, I seriously doubt that she would have stood in front of all of those people (the audience) and done that. I think that she was itching...and using the saxophone to scratch with. That couldn't have been good for her.....

 

[Ames]

We all know of cases where somebody is murdered and the location of the murder is in disarray. Investigators then try to determine whether this was a robbery, turned murder, or if the intent was to commit murder and scattering things around is just an attempt to make it look like a robbery gone bad.

Isn't that what we have in this case with the sexual assault?

The Ramsey's want us to believe this was a sexual assault/kidnapping gone bad. We know the kidnapping was a hoax, so why wouldn't the sexual assault be a hoax?

Here is an important quote from Dr. Ronald Wright, University of Miami School of Medicine, from a story in the Rocky Mountain News in talking about the sexual assault.

"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.

"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''

So we have a brutal head wound, then subtle sexual assault injuries, a subtle strangulation, and nothing else. No defensive wounds and the autopsy is full of the word abrasion, not contusion. JonBenet was not slapped around or beaten and was cleaned up and wrapped in a blanket.

This suggest to me somebody wanted this to look like a Polly Klaas type killing but the evidence suggests to me the only "real" event that night was the head wound.

i.e. Forget the cottonpickin sexual assault. It's bogus.

Thanks for posting the quote by Ronald Wright...it seems like I had read that before. And I agree...I don't believe that a sexual assault took place either. Why would an intruder insert a paintbrush anyway?? If he was trying to be sadistic....why not something larger? And how did he know that every supply that he would need that night, was someplace in the Ramsey home? "HE" came in empty handed....to commit a vicious crime. YEAH RIGHT. I totally 100 percent agree with you....everything except the headwound, was for staging purposes.

 

[UKGuy]

We all know of cases where somebody is murdered and the location of the murder is in disarray. Investigators then try to determine whether this was a robbery, turned murder, or if the intent was to commit murder and scattering things around is just an attempt to make it look like a robbery gone bad.

Isn't that what we have in this case with the sexual assault?

The Ramsey's want us to believe this was a sexual assault/kidnapping gone bad. We know the kidnapping was a hoax, so why wouldn't the sexual assault be a hoax?

Here is an important quote from Dr. Ronald Wright, University of Miami School of Medicine, from a story in the Rocky Mountain News in talking about the sexual assault.

"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.

"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''

So we have a brutal head wound, then subtle sexual assault injuries, a subtle strangulation, and nothing else. No defensive wounds and the autopsy is full of the word abrasion, not contusion. JonBenet was not slapped around or beaten and was cleaned up and wrapped in a blanket.

This suggest to me somebody wanted this to look like a Polly Klaas type killing but the evidence suggests to me the only "real" event that night was the head wound.

i.e. Forget the cottonpickin sexual assault. It's bogus.

Albert18,

i.e. Forget the cottonpickin sexual assault. It's bogus.

Discounting the forensic evidence will not advance us very far. JonBenet was sexually assaulted, possibly twice, and there is physical evidence of prior sexual abuse, including professional opinions, so why bother hiding the sexual assault?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Uk SEE ABOVE.

Solace,

Where does it say she bled profusely. I have never read that. Are not the fluorescence tests there to pick up things not seen by the "naked" eye, such as semen, etc.

The fluorescence tests did pick up that her thighs had been smeared with blood, and wiped down, we would need the Coroners notes to check the detail for other areas such as her legs , stomach etc.

So why does an accidental death require a hidden staged sexual assault?



.

 

[Solace]

Solace,


The fluorescence tests did pick up that her thighs had been smeared with blood, and wiped down, we would need the Coroners notes to check the detail for other areas such as her legs , stomach etc.

So why does an accidental death require a hidden staged sexual assault?


.

You seem to be disregarding my other posts but here it is again. She bled, they wiped her down. They also swaddled her in the blanket. That is an act of someone who cares for the child and is sorry. They wiped her down not to hide the act. The act was done intentionally to avert eyes from them. If there was blood on her legs, which I did not read about, but I will choose to believe you, they wiped it off I think in an act of sorrow. You have heard about parents doing that haven't you UK. That is usually how they are caught by ending up doing a loving act in the end. It leads the police to them every time. Come on.