PR/JR wrote the RN to explain their dead daughter in basement

PR/JR wrote the RN to explain their dead daughter in basement


  • Total voters
    111

THE BUNK

New Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
456
Reaction score
5
“digital penetration and sexual contact”

Interesting no penile penetration. Many pedophiles have attempted this (disgusting as that sounds). Given that the killer knew that JonBenet was going to be murdered, why would he care if he tore her in sexual intercourse? If it's vengeance, the more pain that JonBenet suffers the better I assume.

If there is sexual molestation, it is more likely the perp wanted to do it in a way that it would not cause any permanent damage that would be visible. Such an action would be something more in line with a family member, teacher or close friend.
 

Tadpole12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
7,810
Reaction score
12,156
Heyya Anti-K

If it was staged “to obliterate evidence of a sa on the 23rd,” or at any other time, than why would they un-stage what they just staged by wiping and straightening her clothes, and covering her in the blanket, etc?

IDK Only JR describes the blanket as papoose like. IMO JBR could have been rolled and packed for future disposal, staged and/or restaged and/or 'real' evidence intact for relocation.

or

perhaps JBR was never wiped, though the 'appearance is consistent with wiping', the fibers left could be from a glove or other source of material, friction contact

or

it might have been one of the few dignities JBR was afforded that night




And, no offence, but I sometimes get cranky when the sexual assault is referred to as being staged. It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death. And, then it was essentially covered up.
...

AK

Okay
 

Anti-K

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
4
I think we got tangled up somewhere. Either that, or you have a knack for twisting things. Not important right now.

The idea that I'm trying to get across is not that it didn't HAPPEN, but that it was not done for sexual gratification. Rather, it was most likely done as an attempt to obscure older injuries and throw suspicion elsewhere at the same time. Thus, STAGING. Ya with me so far?

Also, based on my studies of child murders, in cases of sexual assault, whether with objects or otherwise, much more damage WAS done. Those perps had no qualms about that. There just was not much damage done. From what I know, the FBI analysis was similar to mine, as well.

In fairness to you, there are forms of sexual abuse that leave no marks at all.

Oh, and I HAVE talked about it being staged. Maybe you haven't heard, but my thoughts are widely available and much better than anything I can say here.

Lastly, in response to

I would say that it would be un-staging if the attempt was to reveal the truth. In this case, it's more like the "too many cooks" story, if you take my meaning.

No, I do not twist what others say, and I did not twist anything that you said, and it is rude and disrespectful for you to suggest such things. You very clearly posted that the sexual abuse was not real. You may have meant something else, but you didn’t say something else. So, if there is any error, or misunderstanding or “tangle” it is on you.
.

You might mean to say that the sexual assault was PART of a staged crime scene. But, the assault itself was not staged. If you want to say that it was part of a staged crime scene and then speculate from there that the motivation for the assault was to “obscure older injuries and throw suspicion elsewhere,” that’s fine. But, it doesn’t make the sexual assault a staged sexual assault.
...

AK
 

Anti-K

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
4
Anti-K,

Not a phrase I remember using. Re-staging would be more apt. Since prior injuries are masked, particularly through the use of the paintbrush handle. So its not that one scenario was undone and a new one started, more that prior crime-scene objects were incorporated into a revised staging, e.g. pink nightgown and bedroom swapped for the basement?


.

I don’t remember you using the term, either. But, I think that it is implied; however, if you want to call it re-staging, than that’s fine by me.
...

AK
 

Anti-K

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
4
Anti-K,
Well to many its not obvious at all. Some think there might be staging involved, that is JonBenet was injured internally in an attempt to mask some prior sexual assault. The wine-cellar staging might represent a restaging of this scenario?

.

I was referring specifically to the quote posted: Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an 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.

In this quoted passage Arndt claims that she heard Meyer say “that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.” Meyer then told Arndt that it “was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.”
Jonbenet may have been a victim of prior abuse, and some speculate that the sexual assault performed at or near point of death may have been an attempt to cover up that abuse, but in the passage you quoted, it seems that “digital penetration” and the “sexual contact” Meyer makes reference to are one and the same.
...

AK
 

2 percent

New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
11
Anti-K: Someone inserted a foreign object inside JonBenet. That constitutes a sexual assault.
SuperDave: If it was done with the intent of gratifying the offender. I don't think it was, for a couple of reasons.

Anti-K: The fact that this occurred disproves your (unfounded and unsupportable) claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done.”
SuperDave: It's neither unfounded nor unsupportable, pilgrim. Indeed, I based it on the findings of the pathologists and FBI experts. Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done, as if they were repulsed by it. Also, using an object allowed them to do it without having to touch JB. It's as if the person took a blind shot and said, "ugh, there, it's done."


Personally, I think less damage to the genitals and thighs plus the suggestion of digital penetration points straight to a preferential offender know to JB. If this was a one-off assault, the offender so jacked to sexually assault her that he couldn't even get her out of the house first, I would expect way more damage to he genital area and JB in general. I'd also expect to see more than digital penetration. Unless the murderer was impotent. Or a woman.

But the evidence of the sexual assault that night and the evidence of one or more previous sexual assaults tells me someone was going very slow with and easy with their sexual advances.
 

BBB167893

Former Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
107
No, I do not twist what others say, and I did not twist anything that you said, and it is rude and disrespectful for you to suggest such things.

Wasn't even trying! :D

I see you have some spark in you, Anti-K. That's just prime.

You very clearly posted that the sexual abuse was not real. You may have meant something else, but you didn’t say something else. So, if there is any error, or misunderstanding or “tangle” it is on you.

I can buy that.

You might mean to say that the sexual assault was PART of a staged crime scene. But, the assault itself was not staged. If you want to say that it was part of a staged crime scene and then speculate from there that the motivation for the assault was to “obscure older injuries and throw suspicion elsewhere,” that’s fine. But, it doesn’t make the sexual assault a staged sexual assault.

Yes, that is what I meant to say.
 

Anti-K

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
4
Anti-K: Someone inserted a foreign object inside JonBenet. That constitutes a sexual assault.
SuperDave: If it was done with the intent of gratifying the offender. I don't think it was, for a couple of reasons.

Anti-K: The fact that this occurred disproves your (unfounded and unsupportable) claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done.”
SuperDave: It's neither unfounded nor unsupportable, pilgrim. Indeed, I based it on the findings of the pathologists and FBI experts. Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done, as if they were repulsed by it. Also, using an object allowed them to do it without having to touch JB. It's as if the person took a blind shot and said, "ugh, there, it's done."


Personally, I think less damage to the genitals and thighs plus the suggestion of digital penetration points straight to a preferential offender know to JB. If this was a one-off assault, the offender so jacked to sexually assault her that he couldn't even get her out of the house first, I would expect way more damage to he genital area and JB in general. I'd also expect to see more than digital penetration. Unless the murderer was impotent. Or a woman.

But the evidence of the sexual assault that night and the evidence of one or more previous sexual assaults tells me someone was going very slow with and easy with their sexual advances.

There are a few explanations for extent of the sexual assault: for example: inexperience, timidity, uncertainty, immaturity, curiosity, conscious intent, etc.

The extent of the sexual assault could simply mean that we are dealing with A Killer Who Happened to Molest, as opposed to A Molester Who Happened to Kill.

I think that it detracts from the argument that this was a sexually motivated crime.
...

AK
 

Anti-K

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
4
Wasn't even trying! :D

I see you have some spark in you, Anti-K. That's just prime.



I can buy that.



Yes, that is what I meant to say.

I think that the damage done would have been greater than seen if the objective was to “obscure older injuries.” And, I think the crime would have been staged as a sexual crime because that is what is needed to explain the new injuries.

Another problem with the sexual assault being a part of a staged crime scene designed to “obscure older injuries and throw suspicion elsewhere” is that the assault was essentially hidden. The staged scene is a kidnapping: ransom note, wrist ligatures and tape; and, one could argue that the kidnapping was staged to further hide the sexual aspect of the crime.

The (supposed) instrument used for the assault was disposed of (or, at least, removed from the home), and the victim cleaned up, clothes straightened, wrapped in blanket, etc. Actions of this sort are of the kind that should have directed suspicion anywhere but “elsewhere.” The proof of that is that it is these actions that cause many to suspect the Ramseys of committing them.
...

AK
 

bettybaby00

Active Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
9
Anti-K,
Well to many its not obvious at all. Some think there might be staging involved, that is JonBenet was injured internally in an attempt to mask some prior sexual assault. The wine-cellar staging might represent a restaging of this scenario?

.

If Meyer is describing it all has happening that night, "close to or at the time of her death," why was he compelled to ask Dr. Sirontak to return to the morgue and offer a second opinion? And why then, based on their conclusions, did Meyer, along with investigators seek the opinion of a gaggle of experts. B/C no six year old should have those injuries....

Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét. He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position. Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death. Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.

IMO staging makes sense b/c there is no logical motive for an unknown perpetrator to inflict this injury on JonBenet. Sexual predators don't typically assault when their victim is unconscious.
 

otg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
155
I don't think I've agreed with more of AK's posts (or more ardently) than I just did when I read this page. The genital injuries that were inflicted on JonBenet just prior to her death were not done to "hide" past injuries. Simple logic should tell us that no one would commit an act that they wanted noticed (sexual assault to hide previous abuse), and then try to hide what they did by attempting to remove evidence of it (removal of blood from the assault). That line of thought just makes no sense to me.

Also, as I have so often disputed with UKGuy in the past, Meyer is not referring to two separate acts when he states his opinion that she "had been subjected to sexual assault", and then that that assault was "consistent with digital penetration". He is describing how that sexual assault might have occurred -- and "consistent with" does not mean that it had to be a finger.
 

MzOpinion8d

Former Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
3,950
Reaction score
220
Yes, Im the same person who suggested jbenet wore her mother's excessively-shedding jacket into the (cold dank) basement for warmth,

but I really wasnt joking that BR may have asked his mother's help to draft his "school assignment".. deliberately & knowingly, born out of acute resentment and the knowledge of not just Patsy's refocus onto the newly golden pagent girl but also of his dawning comprehension that his Very much-beloved mother had an illness that was sure to leave only a finite number of days on earth left to spend with him.

That ransom note was written by a bright-though naive- boy of nine. Ask any NON-criminalogist childhood developemental expert!

It would be highly unlikely that a 9 year old composed that note. And if he did what you said, why wouldn't the note be in Patsy's normal handwriting?
 

DeeDee249

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
8,053
Reaction score
306
It would be highly unlikely that a 9 year old composed that note. And if he did what you said, why wouldn't the note be in Patsy's normal handwriting?

I agree. No way BR had anything at all to do with that ransom note. I also do not think he had anything at all to do with the staging.
 

Anti-K

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
4
I think that the damage done would have been greater than seen if the objective was to “obscure older injuries.” And, I think the crime would have been staged as a sexual crime because that is what is needed to explain the new injuries.

Another problem with the sexual assault being a part of a staged crime scene designed to “obscure older injuries and throw suspicion elsewhere” is that the assault was essentially hidden. The staged scene is a kidnapping: ransom note, wrist ligatures and tape; and, one could argue that the kidnapping was staged to further hide the sexual aspect of the crime.

The (supposed) instrument used for the assault was disposed of (or, at least, removed from the home), and the victim cleaned up, clothes straightened, wrapped in blanket, etc. Actions of this sort are of the kind that should have directed suspicion anywhere but “elsewhere.” The proof of that is that it is these actions that cause many to suspect the Ramseys of committing them.
...

AK
Read the quote you provided. Meyer calls in Sirontak for a second opinion. Sirontak agrees with Meyer. After “FURTHER INSPECTION” it is noted that there may be sign of prior abuse.

Before Sirontk is called in and beofer “further inspection,” when Arndt is present, the digital penetration and the sexual contact referred to in the passage quoted by I-forget-who is one and the same.

Later, it was determined that there were signs of possible prior abuse.
...

AK
 

Tadpole12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
7,810
Reaction score
12,156
posted by cynic at FFJ
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...e-of-ONGOING-SEXUAL-ABUSE&p=195607#post195607

"Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét.
He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.
Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.
Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.

James Kolar, Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 61"
 

Wildflower73

New Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Perhaps initially the ransom note was written for that purpose. I have always wondered if perhaps after PR wrote the note, if JR or someone/an attorney that they may have called, reminded them that kidnapping was a federal offense and would be handled by the FBI; while a death would be investigated by the BPD.
I would imagine the R"s connections and influence would have more impact on the local DA and the Boulder police than on a federal agency.

just MOO
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
posted by cynic at FFJ
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...e-of-ONGOING-SEXUAL-ABUSE&p=195607#post195607

"Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét.
He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.
Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.
Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.

James Kolar, Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? Page 61"

Tadpole12,
concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.
Thanks this helps to clarify my interpretation of the evidence. Does the said foreign object represent digital penetration?

.
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
I don't think I've agreed with more of AK's posts (or more ardently) than I just did when I read this page. The genital injuries that were inflicted on JonBenet just prior to her death were not done to "hide" past injuries. Simple logic should tell us that no one would commit an act that they wanted noticed (sexual assault to hide previous abuse), and then try to hide what they did by attempting to remove evidence of it (removal of blood from the assault). That line of thought just makes no sense to me.

Also, as I have so often disputed with UKGuy in the past, Meyer is not referring to two separate acts when he states his opinion that she "had been subjected to sexual assault", and then that that assault was "consistent with digital penetration". He is describing how that sexual assault might have occurred -- and "consistent with" does not mean that it had to be a finger.

otg,
January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, excerpt
Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an 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.
Your phraseology, i.e reversing Coroner Meyer's phrase sequence to: 1. had been subjected to sexual assault 2. consistent with digital penetration and replacing contact with assault does not carry the same meaning as Coroner Meyer's original remarks.


He is describing how that sexual assault might have occurred -- and "consistent with" does not mean that it had to be a finger.
I agree with you here. So do you think that penetration by the paintbrush handle might represent an injury consistent with digital penetration or could it have been afflicted by some other foreign object as described by Dr. Sirontak?

This from Dr. Cyril Wecht.
At 6:15:
Well guess what? The injuries are for the most part old, they're chronic.
A good part of the hymen is, is absent, and that's an old, old phenomenon, it's been there for a while.
Then the pathologist report, and I'm taking it right from the autopsy report.
He reports, superficial erosion of the vaginal mucosa, that's the lining, the delicate lining of the vaginal canal, at the 7 o'clock position, and that's been there for a while, that's not acute.
And then he finds microscopically, chronic inflammation, under the microscope.
That means it's been there for days, and could be longer than days, but it's not fresh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wJYiEN1OnI&NR=1

Autopsy Report, excerpt
Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation.The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.
Nearly all of the above is technical medical terms stating that JonBenet had been subjected internally to chronic assault, excepting Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. suggests no foreign fluid was introduced internally.

Autopsy Report, excerpt
On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present in the skin of the fourchette and the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly.The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice.
The above excerpt suggests that JonBenet was bleeding internally, so what caused the bleeding?

Was it the original sexual assault or was it the result of some kind of staging? A minimalistic explanation goes like this: Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet then as she was being cleaned up the birefringent foreign material was introduced by accident. Note how the word foreign only seems to coincide with birefringent and object?


. Simple logic should tell us that no one would commit an act that they wanted noticed (sexual assault to hide previous abuse), and then try to hide what they did by attempting to remove evidence of it (removal of blood from the assault). That line of thought just makes no sense to me.
From the autopsy and Coroner Meyers remark's to Detective Arndt we know that JonBenet was subject to both chronic and acute sexual contact.

We are not dealing with Simple logic here, it might be better described as complex logic. Consider a BDI where JonBenet is digitally assaulted then for either ritualistic or exploratory purpose the unbroken paintbrush handle is used internally? Later the latter is broken and incorporated into some form of staging by either of the parents?

If its PDI then PR might have applied the paintbrush handle so to stage an internal assault?

JR has a motive for rejecting any form of staged sexual assault, and simply attempting to hide it away, since he would know he would be the prime suspect.




.
 

questfortrue

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
129
For clarification on acute inflammatory infiltrate response:

INFLAMMATORY INFILTRATE
The inflammatory or leukocytic infiltrate consists of white blood cells which leave the blood and enter (infiltrate) the inflamed connective tissue. Cells of the inflammatory infiltrate include neutrophils, lymphocytes and monocytes. Immigration of these cells into peripheral tissues is one of the principal purposes for inflammation, bringing to a site of injury the immune-system cells which can combat infection and clean up damaged tissue.
(From medical school definition)

If I’m interpreting this correctly the paintbrush assault injury, as I believe the medical practitioners were able to conclude, happened shortly before she died, because the white blood cells (inflammatory infiltrate response) had not had a chance to occur and begin the healing process.

Also, the term “abrasion” within her vaginal vault and mentioned in the autopsy Kolar further interprets as an injury by the broken end of a paintbrush: As further insult, the perpetrator is believed to have inserted the broken end of the paintbrush, used as a handle in the garrote, into her vagina at or near the time of her death. Kolar (Kindle 341-342)
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
10,956
Reaction score
3,437
For clarification on acute inflammatory infiltrate response:

INFLAMMATORY INFILTRATE
The inflammatory or leukocytic infiltrate consists of white blood cells which leave the blood and enter (infiltrate) the inflamed connective tissue. Cells of the inflammatory infiltrate include neutrophils, lymphocytes and monocytes. Immigration of these cells into peripheral tissues is one of the principal purposes for inflammation, bringing to a site of injury the immune-system cells which can combat infection and clean up damaged tissue.
(From medical school definition)

If I’m interpreting this correctly the paintbrush assault injury, as I believe the medical practitioners were able to conclude, happened shortly before she died, because the white blood cells (inflammatory infiltrate response) had not had a chance to occur and begin the healing process.

Also, the term “abrasion” within her vaginal vault and mentioned in the autopsy Kolar further interprets as an injury by the broken end of a paintbrush: As further insult, the perpetrator is believed to have inserted the broken end of the paintbrush, used as a handle in the garrote, into her vagina at or near the time of her death. Kolar (Kindle 341-342)

questfortrue,
Thanks for the clarification on the acute inflammatory infiltrate, you put it much better than I did. Your quote from Kolar is what I'm trying to elucidate, i.e. was it say post acute assault ritualistic behavior or was it part of the staging?

.
 
Top