and I've been led (unwillingly I must say) into BDSM descriptions of human branding. Considering that Noreen says he was taken into the sex slave trade, and from what I have learned over time I thought that would make sense.
This gets a bit odd for me, but here we go. I think not only the symbol itself is screaming bloody murder to someone who knows much more than I about this type of shit, but the LOCATION does as well:
"Branding is usually done with a hot metal object to scar the body. It is sometimes seen as an ultimate act of submission and commitment, to slavery if not to the relationship. A brand will be with the slave for many years, and is likely to show a mark for the rest of the person's lifetime. Brands are normally placed high on the outer thigh, on the belly just above the crotch or on the breast."
more
"For some slaves and owners, branding is an intense desire, indicating total commitment and psychologically stamping the slave as property so the slave truly feels owned and wanted."
"Branding is not part of play; serious branding should not be considered as a 'scene' but should only be done by a knowledgeable practitioner."
http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/BrandingSo what does this mean? My take, based on the assumption that Noreen is telling the truth about the 1997 visit:
According to this site, the location of this type of brand would be UNIQUE in the world of BDSM/sex slavery. From the first paragraph I quoted, the outer thigh, belly, crotch and breast are very difficult to show off in a public setting in 21st century America. This type of brand could be shown off much easier in a public setting...I'm thinking of scenes from Eyes Wide Shut if you want a visual (you probably didn't).
If I were Noreen, I would be SCREAMING for Paul Bonacci to see if he recognized this brand or, better yet, if he had it himself. I think that would validate his entire story and lead us further into the rabbit hole.