What we don't know

[Jayelles]

Larry Schiller indicated that there was a lot he couldn't put in his book. Others have stated that there is evidence which has never been made public. Beckner refused to discuss DNA-x in his deposition and it was obvious from Lin Wood's reaction that this was evidence that TeamRamsey did not have.

Lou Smit went public with the evidence HE had access to and apparently he had already shared this with jameson. However, Lou Smit resigned from the case before the Grand Jury and since he became involved again a couple of years ago, he has remained schtumm.

On another forum, one poster picked up on a question that was asked of Patsy in one of her police interviews regarding the brand of her make-up. Why would investigators ask Patsy what brand of make-up she wore? It's hardly a common question for a man to ask a woman! So perhaps make-up was found at the scene?

Has anyone else picked up on any odd interview questions which might be a clue about the evidence we don't know about?

Police usually keep some things back which only the killer would know about.

[Brefie]

Larry Schiller indicated that there was a lot he couldn't put in his book. Others have stated that there is evidence which has never been made public. Beckner refused to discuss DNA-x in his deposition and it was obvious from Lin Wood's reaction that this was evidence that TeamRamsey did not have.

Lou Smit went public with the evidence HE had access to and apparently he had already shared this with jameson. However, Lou Smit resigned from the case before the Grand Jury and since he became involved again a couple of years ago, he has remained schtumm.

On another forum, one poster picked up on a question that was asked of Patsy in one of her police interviews regarding the brand of her make-up. Why would investigators ask Patsy what brand of make-up she wore? It's hardly a common question for a man to ask a woman! So perhaps make-up was found at the scene?

Has anyone else picked up on any odd interview questions which might be a clue about the evidence we don't know about?

Police usually keep some things back which only the killer would know about.


Perhaps they were trying to find out if Patsy could remember something trivial like a make up brand, but not when her daugher was last bathed and the numerous other important things that she SHOULD HAVE remembered.

[capps]

Larry Schiller indicated that there was a lot he couldn't put in his book. Others have stated that there is evidence which has never been made public. Beckner refused to discuss DNA-x in his deposition and it was obvious from Lin Wood's reaction that this was evidence that TeamRamsey did not have.

Lou Smit went public with the evidence HE had access to and apparently he had already shared this with jameson. However, Lou Smit resigned from the case before the Grand Jury and since he became involved again a couple of years ago, he has remained schtumm.

On another forum, one poster picked up on a question that was asked of Patsy in one of her police interviews regarding the brand of her make-up. Why would investigators ask Patsy what brand of make-up she wore? It's hardly a common question for a man to ask a woman! So perhaps make-up was found at the scene?

Has anyone else picked up on any odd interview questions which might be a clue about the evidence we don't know about?

Police usually keep some things back which only the killer would know about.

Interesting thread Jayelles!

Yes,the make up does make me curious,such an odd question.
Another thing I would like to know more about that was mentioned in one of the interviews,was the pictures of JonBenet either taken of her in the basement,or a picture of her taken somewhere else and brought to the basement,they weren't clear which way it was. Anyway ... seems there may be pictures of JonBenet they are concerned about.

I wonder if the killer knows?

[Becba]

Larry Schiller indicated that there was a lot he couldn't put in his book. Others have stated that there is evidence which has never been made public. Beckner refused to discuss DNA-x in his deposition and it was obvious from Lin Wood's reaction that this was evidence that TeamRamsey did not have.

Lou Smit went public with the evidence HE had access to and apparently he had already shared this with jameson. However, Lou Smit resigned from the case before the Grand Jury and since he became involved again a couple of years ago, he has remained schtumm.

On another forum, one poster picked up on a question that was asked of Patsy in one of her police interviews regarding the brand of her make-up. Why would investigators ask Patsy what brand of make-up she wore? It's hardly a common question for a man to ask a woman! So perhaps make-up was found at the scene?

Has anyone else picked up on any odd interview questions which might be a clue about the evidence we don't know about?

Police usually keep some things back which only the killer would know about.
It seems I recall someone mentioning JonBenet was made up when she was found. Aside from her hair being in the 2 pony tails, it sounded like someone had put make up on her.
I wish I could figure out where I got that from. I just recently read 3 books on the case and the info runs together. I will try later to see if I can find it in one of the books. I thought it was strange.

[Maikai]

Well, they made such a big deal about Patsy having makeup on early in the morning, perhaps they were going to recommend the same brand to their wives! Otherwise I don't know the relevance of it, unless they found some on JBR's clothing.

In one of the early search warrants of the house, they redacted something that was found in the cellar room---perhaps the Barbie nightgown?

The entreprenaur article wasn't publically discussed--the one with X's on the other people in the picture with JR, and the heart around his face. JR was asked about it in one of the interviews, and he had no knowledge of the marked up article. If the intruder brought that in, then the relevance is it was a copycat from "Ricochet," meant to convey revenge--or part of the whole movieline scenario. Where did it come from? A lot of times articles about the CEO are spread out on a table near the CEO's office. It was a year old. I find that a very curious clue. Did they ever match the red ink on JBR's hand to the red ink on the marked up article?

Somebody else mentioned the ransom note might be something the perp was very proud of--I tend to agree. They might have wanted to create a mystery based on movie themes--afterall, we're still talking about it today.

Lou Smit pointed out you can't do or write what you don't know. Someone knew about extortion movies---moreso than the average person.

You also have the animal hairs found on JBR--most likely a transference from the perp. Some have said they were wolfhound hairs (Tracey?).

There was a piece of paper found in JBR's waste basket in her room with writing on it, addressed to the Ramseys. Something to the effect, enjoy your Christmas---was that a sarcastic message written by the perp?

A chair was placed in front of, or in back of a door leading to the train room, as if to block access--JR noted that. Did Officer French not go into the room because of the chair? You'd think if the basement was thoroughly searched, he would have made note of the suitcase by the open window.

The conversations between Linda Arndt and the Ramseys on the 26th were never revealed....Linda Arndt claims she asked a lot of questions.

[Zman]

Larry Schiller indicated that there was a lot he couldn't put in his book. Others have stated that there is evidence which has never been made public. Beckner refused to discuss DNA-x in his deposition and it was obvious from Lin Wood's reaction that this was evidence that TeamRamsey did not have.

Lou Smit went public with the evidence HE had access to and apparently he had already shared this with jameson. However, Lou Smit resigned from the case before the Grand Jury and since he became involved again a couple of years ago, he has remained schtumm.

On another forum, one poster picked up on a question that was asked of Patsy in one of her police interviews regarding the brand of her make-up. Why would investigators ask Patsy what brand of make-up she wore? It's hardly a common question for a man to ask a woman! So perhaps make-up was found at the scene?

Has anyone else picked up on any odd interview questions which might be a clue about the evidence we don't know about?

Police usually keep some things back which only the killer would know about.
I not only think there are many odd questions that are asked of PR and JR I think there are many meaningless questions meant to distract the suspects during questioning.
I am still under the opinion that LE has and has always streched the truth about any evidence they have against the R's. Lets tell them we have this, lets tell them we have that.
When I read the interviews it always seems like LE is just hoping JR or PR will rattle or slip under some pressure and admit to the crime.

[Eagle1]

"It seems I recall someone mentioning JonBenet was made up when she was found. Aside from her hair being in the 2 pony tails, it sounded like someone had put make up on her.
I wish I could figure out where I got that from. I just recently read 3 books on the case and the info runs together. I will try later to see if I can find it in one of the books. I thought it was strange."

Apparently LE wanted to find out if the makeup JBR was wearing was possibly Patsy's, which either she or someone else could have been using. But why were they or why was someone making her up and styling her hair at that hour??? Editing to add, was there a thick enough layer on JonBenet that LE could scape off some to analyze and find out what brand?

[Sabrina]

I've never heard that Jon Benet was wearing makeup!! Where are you getting this from?

It is possible, and highly probable that makeup Patsy was wearing rubbed off on Jon Benet and her clothing. Of course this would have been analyzed and of course it is something which should be asked of Patsy Ramsey. This was her mother, and she came in close contact with her before and after the death.

[Jayelles]

I've never heard that Jon Benet was wearing makeup!! Where are you getting this from?

It is possible, and highly probable that makeup Patsy was wearing rubbed off on Jon Benet and her clothing. Of course this would have been analyzed and of course it is something which should be asked of Patsy Ramsey. This was her mother, and she came in close contact with her before and after the death.
If JBR was wearing make-up, it should be on the autopsy report - right? However, I have never read that she was wearing make-up to visit the Whites on Christmas day - wouldn't that be just a bit OTT?

I think there may be a bit on "confusion" here ;-)

[Moab]

On another forum, one poster picked up on a question that was asked of Patsy in one of her police interviews regarding the brand of her make-up. Why would investigators ask Patsy what brand of make-up she wore? It's hardly a common question for a man to ask a woman! So perhaps make-up was found at the scene?
If I remember correctly, the fact that she was already wearing full makeup when the police arrived was a discussion point right from the beginning. It also went to the timeline of whether or not Patsy even slept the night before. It surely doesn't surprise me at all that she was questioned about the brand, there probably was no doubt about there being makeup on JBR or her clothing Jay, especially after her swan dive on top of JBR after she was brought upstairs.

[Nuisanceposter]

Patsy claimed that she didn't take a shower that morning because her shower was broken, but she wouldn't go anywhere without her make up. Now how am I to believe that a woman so obsessed with appearances will apply make up before going downstairs to make coffee but feels fine skipping a shower, right before she's about to meet family for Christmas celebration? I don't believe that. I don't believe Patsy slept at all Christmas night, and I highly suspect that JonBenet didn't sleep either. I would have no problem believing JonBenet had been made up for their gadding about at various parties Christmas night. Was the make up smeared on her, or had it been applied carefully? Was she wearing her hair in the two ponytails when the Rams were out celebrating with friends Christmas night?

[sissi]

In the early days a, confessing, poster claimed she had on make up and nail polish, his account was dismissed when someone called him on the "nailpolish". I thought it was batman, but I am not finding it, so I probably am wrong.

[Eagle1]

We should clarify what we mean, smears of makeup on the body and clothing or deliberately applied makeup to the face.

I remember about Patsy being made up, don't remember ever hearing before that there was any makeup on JonBenet. We need to know how much, and on what part of her, if anyone knows. Yes I could have gotten smeared on her when Patsy fell on her, or, if there was a woman with the intruder/intruders, maybe from her. An earring was found lying in the street just off the sidewalk concrete. Could have been there for months, and could have been a pervert's, not necessarily a woman's. Don't ask me for a source. I forget. Maybe ST or Schiller.

[narlacat]

The earring is mentioned in PMPT.

[Jayelles]

We should clarify what we mean, smears of makeup on the body and clothing or deliberately applied makeup to the face.

I remember about Patsy being made up, don't remember ever hearing before that there was any makeup on JonBenet. We need to know how much, and on what part of her, if anyone knows. Yes I could have gotten smeared on her when Patsy fell on her, or, if there was a woman with the intruder/intruders, maybe from her. An earring was found lying in the street just off the sidewalk concrete. Could have been there for months, and could have been a pervert's, not necessarily a woman's. Don't ask me for a source. I forget. Maybe ST or Schiller.You just said in your previous post that JonBenet was wearing make-up!

I quote:-


Apparently LE wanted to find out if the makeup JBR was wearing was possibly Patsy's, which either she or someone else could have been using. But why were they or why was someone making her up and styling her hair at that hour??? Editing to add, was there a thick enough layer on JonBenet that LE could scape off some to analyze and find out what brand?Deary me!

[narlacat]

QUOTE>>Patsy claimed that she didn't take a shower that morning because her shower was broken, but she wouldn't go anywhere without her make up. Now how am I to believe that a woman so obsessed with appearances will apply make up before going downstairs to make coffee but feels fine skipping a shower, right before she's about to meet family for Christmas celebration?<<


And like she couldn't have had a shower in another bathroom, was John using his shower?? I can't remember. Even if he was, the kids had their own bathroom's didn't they?? I know JonBenet did, not sure about Burke. Was there another shower in one of the kids bathroom's??

[Maikai]

QUOTE>>Patsy claimed that she didn't take a shower that morning because her shower was broken, but she wouldn't go anywhere without her make up. Now how am I to believe that a woman so obsessed with appearances will apply make up before going downstairs to make coffee but feels fine skipping a shower, right before she's about to meet family for Christmas celebration?<<


And like she couldn't have had a shower in another bathroom, was John using his shower?? I can't remember. Even if he was, the kids had their own bathroom's didn't they?? I know JonBenet did, not sure about Burke. Was there another shower in one of the kids bathroom's??

or bath every night in Colorado weather--it is very dry climate--particularly in winter. At the most a quick washup would do. It makes sense that Patsy would put on makeup before going downstairs...it was a big house, and her bedroom was on the 3rd story.

[narlacat]

Yeah well, that may be Maikai but I find it odd that Patsy would not have had a shower before going on such a trip and where she was hoping to impress her step daughter's husband to be.

QUOTE>>It makes sense that Patsy would put on makeup before going downstairs...it was a big house, and her bedroom was on the 3rd story.<<

Like she wouldn't have been going upstairs again at some stage.

[Becba]

Do we all agree it has been out in the public that JonBenets hair was done up in 2 ponytails. One over the other?

I am saying she was done up for someones fantasy. As far as make up I read a statement saying she was made up or something to the effect. I will look for the statement tomorrow if I have time. I know it is not worth anything without fact to back it up. I just got the impression someone had put makeup on her.

[Maikai]

Yeah well, that may be Maikai but I find it odd that Patsy would not have had a shower before going on such a trip and where she was hoping to impress her step daughter's husband to be.

QUOTE>>It makes sense that Patsy would put on makeup before going downstairs...it was a big house, and her bedroom was on the 3rd story.<<

Like she wouldn't have been going upstairs again at some stage.

perhaps Patsy isn't as vain as some think she is? Colorado in winter is very drying on the skin, but great for good hair days--none of that humidity to suck the life out of it. Patsy has said, and it seems reasonable, that she got herself together before she got the kids up.

[Eagle1]

Looking good for her family at all times must have been part of Patsy's mission in life, like housewife June Cleaver's wearing high heels at home. Patsy may have thought it'd be good for the kids to follow her example, or something like that. Whatever.

[deanws]

The shower thing is just another lie out of her mouth. I have 4 bathrooms in my house and a half bath also. She could have taken a shower in another bath in the house. I know some of you smarties will remember how many bathrooms she had in that house. How many were there? I do a lot of things, including leaving my house without make-up.....but NEVER would I go someplace special, like meeting out of town family without taking a bath. They had gone to a party the night before eating crab! Gross...that alone would make me want to take a bath.

[deanws]

Do we all agree it has been out in the public that JonBenets hair was done up in 2 ponytails. One over the other?

I am saying she was done up for someones fantasy. As far as make up I read a statement saying she was made up or something to the effect. I will look for the statement tomorrow if I have time. I know it is not worth anything without fact to back it up. I just got the impression someone had put makeup on her. I have seen kids wear their hair like that often. I don't really see anything provocative with that type of hair style. When I taugh first grade, I noticed that girls wear ponytails in all kinds of wierd ways! LOL :laugh: Sometimes it is quite amusing.

[TLynn]

I remember reading that there were hair ties scattered on the floor of JonBenet's bedroom.

I have always wanted to see the pictures from FW's dinner that night - see how JonBenet's hair was done, etc.

[Nehemiah]

I remember reading that there were hair ties scattered on the floor of JonBenet's bedroom.

I have always wanted to see the pictures from FW's dinner that night - see how JonBenet's hair was done, etc.

Yes, there were hair ties scattered about. The ponytail bands in her hair were blue, yet she was wearing black pants, vest, and white top. Any Southern mom *knows* to match the hair ties and the clothes, :o and I'm willing to bet most anything that Patsy would never mismatch JB. I mean, that's very important stuff.

I agree TLynn, if there weren't something in those photos from the last supper, we'd have seen them by now. As I've said many times over, (I believe) JB's clothes tell us a lot about what happened on that fateful night.

In regards to makeup and taking a shower, I always wear my makeup, but I don't always shower every single day.

[Moab]

In regards to makeup and taking a shower, I always wear my makeup, but I don't always shower every single day. Then you were "Brought up Right" according to Truvy in Steel Magnolias ;)

Here are the Rules for being a Southern Belle...
Here's How:



Offer Mint Julep or Iced Tea to everyone who visits your house.
Eat grits everyday for breakfast.
Refer to your house as "The Plantation" no matter how small your house may be.
Refer to all men as "gentlemen caller" or "beaux".
Never let a man know you're interested or chase him because you know there are too many men who want you for you to expend the extra effort.
When you have a dating dilemma and have one gentleman caller over when you are expecting another, claim to be "expired" and excuse yourself for a nap until he leaves.
Whenever you are asked to do any work, fan yourself and claim to have the "vapors."
Refer to every party you go to, even a kegger at the local university, as a "cotillion." All other parties are yankee garbage.
Try to use words like "darlin'", "sweet" or "precious" in every sentence.
Belong to a country club. If you don't, refer to any club you belong to as a "country club". No one will know the difference.
Set under a magnolia tree with a parasol fanning yourself often. Passers-by will take notice of your belle-ness.
Never marry a Yankee unless you want to be a Yankee by association.
Never be seen without your makeup and girdle.

[Nehemiah]

;) Absolutely.

[Moab]

;) Absolutely.
I just knew you would understand!

Tips: A parasol and an umbrella are not the same thing. If you refer to your parasol as an "umbrelly" you will never be a belle.
Being a belle is a lifetime of work so practice everyday.

[txsvicki]

Patsy claimed that she didn't take a shower that morning because her shower was broken, but she wouldn't go anywhere without her make up. Now how am I to believe that a woman so obsessed with appearances will apply make up before going downstairs to make coffee but feels fine skipping a shower, right before she's about to meet family for Christmas celebration? I don't believe that. I don't believe Patsy slept at all Christmas night, and I highly suspect that JonBenet didn't sleep either. I would have no problem believing JonBenet had been made up for their gadding about at various parties Christmas night. Was the make up smeared on her, or had it been applied carefully? Was she wearing her hair in the two ponytails when the Rams were out celebrating with friends Christmas night?

Has anyone ever said if JonBenet had those 2 pony tails in her hair at the party? I remember girls wearing their hair that way some but I'm not sure it would have been a way to style the hair for a christmas party. I have just now started to read the books about the case, and I'm sort of suprised that there are so many facts that are not ever mentioned in them, and I just wonder if Boulder LE ever checked out some of these things or it's just not being allowed out to the public.

[UKGuy]

Has anyone ever said if JonBenet had those 2 pony tails in her hair at the party? I remember girls wearing their hair that way some but I'm not sure it would have been a way to style the hair for a christmas party. I have just now started to read the books about the case, and I'm sort of suprised that there are so many facts that are not ever mentioned in them, and I just wonder if Boulder LE ever checked out some of these things or it's just not being allowed out to the public.

txsvicki,

I guess the BPD will have checked this out, I believe photographs were taken at the White's so it should be easy to tell if she had pony tails. But I rather doubt it.

Another forensic aspect linked to the White's party is JonBenet's clothes, those worn to the party should retain some forensic residue, particularly the underwear she wore beneath her black velvet pants. Any underwear she wore should have fibers from her velvet pants, so the big question is: do the size-12 underwear she was found wearing contain any form of fiber residue from any source at all, or were they clean on, out off the packet that night?

I have an uncorroborated hunch that JonBenet was engaged in dressing up prior to her death. Whether this was innocent or for more darker reasons, and there is tangential evidence to suggest the latter, but its not compelling only an aspect of other similar victim profiles.

A thread on this clothing topic already exists where we turned things over, but I have never felt the explanations matched the evidence.



.

[Maikai]

She supposedly had a new pair on, from Bloomingdales, and they were in a pack that had days of the week on them. JonBenet couldn't read....but she had the correct day panties on--Wednesday. Someone must have helped her pick out the right day--my guess is Patsy, earlier in the day.

[Nehemiah]

She supposedly had a new pair on, from Bloomingdales, and they were in a pack that had days of the week on them. JonBenet couldn't read....but she had the correct day panties on--Wednesday. Someone must have helped her pick out the right day--my guess is Patsy, earlier in the day.

If so, what's your thoughts on why Patsy would pick out underwear that were much larger than JB's regular size?

[narlacat]

She supposedly had a new pair on, from Bloomingdales, and they were in a pack that had days of the week on them. JonBenet couldn't read....but she had the correct day panties on--Wednesday. Someone must have helped her pick out the right day--my guess is Patsy, earlier in the day.I thought JonBenet could read?
According to Nedra she had been reading since she was three.
Even if that isn't true, she would have known the days of the week to look at. She had nearly finished her first year at school.

[Maikai]

If so, what's your thoughts on why Patsy would pick out underwear that were much larger than JB's regular size?

Except even the larger size is pretty small, and since the larger ones were in her drawer, the size just wasn't noticed. OR...the thought occurred to me the perp took them out of the package. It just makes me wonder how the right day ended up on her,

[Maikai]

I thought JonBenet could read?
According to Nedra she had been reading since she was three.
Even if that isn't true, she would have known the days of the week to look at. She had nearly finished her first year at school.

JR said Burke helped JBR with passing out the presents, since he could read the labels--or something to that effect. She went to pre-school, and was in kindergarten---she might have learned the days of the week--don't know.

[narlacat]

I thought pre school and kindergarten were two differrent thinngs. Kindergarten is the first year of school.
I've heard that too about Burke handing out the presents.
You would think she would have been able to recognize her own families names and at least know the days of the week to look at by age 6.

[Maikai]

I thought pre school and kindergarten were two differrent thinngs. Kindergarten is the first year of school.
I've heard that too about Burke handing out the presents.
You would think she would have been able to recognize her own families names and at least know the days of the week to look at by age 6.

first grade the first year of school.....and kindergarten fun time, but nowadays it's not the same as when I went to school. There might have been other writing on the labels Burke helped with--ie: little messages besides the names.

She might have known the days of the week----it's one question I thought the cops should have asked Patsy.

[sandraladeda]

Except even the larger size is pretty small, and since the larger ones were in her drawer, the size just wasn't noticed. OR...the thought occurred to me the perp took them out of the package. It just makes me wonder how the right day ended up on her,But why would he/she bother?

[UKGuy]

But why would he/she bother?

Spot on! Why bother if you are just another deranged nasty domestic abductor.

Whose gonna bother whether JonBenet is wearing underwear, particularly to bed, since we all know she as a bed wetting problem.

So whats the big deal about wiping her down, and placing a clean pair on her, why bother hiding what will become an obvious sexual assault, staged or not?

And if you are Mommy why not fetch a pair of her normal size from her bathroom where they were kept, the size-12's were in her bedroom, not only would that look normal, but would probably never be noticed or remarked upon in the aftermath.

For me it looks as if the person who assaulted her was not the same person who re-dresssed her, e.g. their motives may have been different, that is one is attempting to remove forensic evidence and another is staging forensic evidence.

Its as if the wine-cellar staging had more than one phase and aspects were tweaked at a later stage to make her final appearance more consistent with the ransom note?

[UKGuy]

Thought I might place this here, sadly more evidence of the "choking game" and erotic asphyxiation, this time its a teenage girl:

Sasha Is Dead, but Why?:
http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-me-chokinggame18nov18,0,1210644.story?coll=ktla-news-1

[simplesimon]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/242904_choking30.html
This also gives tips to look for in kids..

[sandraladeda]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/242904_choking30.html
This also gives trips to look for in kids..Scary. I am going to have a litle powwow with my kids and talk about this. Thanks for the link.

[Zman]

Spot on! Why bother if you are just another deranged nasty domestic abductor.

Whose gonna bother whether JonBenet is wearing underwear, particularly to bed, since we all know she as a bed wetting problem.

So whats the big deal about wiping her down, and placing a clean pair on her, why bother hiding what will become an obvious sexual assault, staged or not?

And if you are Mommy why not fetch a pair of her normal size from her bathroom where they were kept, the size-12's were in her bedroom, not only would that look normal, but would probably never be noticed or remarked upon in the aftermath.

For me it looks as if the person who assaulted her was not the same person who re-dresssed her, e.g. their motives may have been different, that is one is attempting to remove forensic evidence and another is staging forensic evidence.

Its as if the wine-cellar staging had more than one phase and aspects were tweaked at a later stage to make her final appearance more consistent with the ransom note?
Some speak of the "redressing" of JBR as a fact.

I see no reason to think she was.

OK I'll bite!

How is her final apperance more consistent with the RN?

[Holdontoyourhat]

Thought I might place this here, sadly more evidence of the "choking game" and erotic asphyxiation, this time its a teenage girl:

Sasha Is Dead, but Why?:
http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-me-chokinggame18nov18,0,1210644.story?coll=ktla-news-1C'mon: "sadly more evidence..." and "this time its a teenage girl," as if its been established JBR was involved in a 'choking game'.

You're taking a standard garrote and make-believing it was used for a choking game.

You're way off.

Here's why JBR wasn't involved in a 'choking game':

The idea that JBR would be involved in anything like that willingly is contradictory to just about every rational thought on how any six-year-old might react to those circumstances. IOW, its safe to rule out that JBR, age 6, was willingly involved in a 'choking game' or EA. Please feel free to establish a precedent.

The other option is that JBR was involved unwillingly in a 'choking game.' The glaring, stark problem with this theory is that she would be screaming alot.

I don't know what the perp did with JBR, but it had more to do with sexual assault and murder, and not a 'game' taken 'too far' so it accidentally got 'out of hand' and was 'staged to look like a foreign faction did it.' Thats just a baseless fictional creation.

[Brefie]

I don't know what the perp did with JBR, but it had more to do with sexual assault and murder, and not a 'game' taken 'too far' so it accidentally got 'out of hand' and was 'staged to look like a foreign faction did it.' Thats just a baseless fictional creation.

Why baseless? Because the holier than thou Ramsey's say so? Whatever happened was (badly) staged to look like a foreign faction did it. What's the point of being terrorists if you do everything anonymously?? From what I know about terrorists, which admittedly is little, they usually like to take the 'credit' for what they have done.

[UKGuy]

Some speak of the "redressing" of JBR as a fact.

I see no reason to think she was.

OK I'll bite!

How is her final apperance more consistent with the RN?

Zman,

That you have no reason to think she had been redressed is an entirely valid inference.

The wine-cellar crime scene viewed as staging has been covered already in another thread.

Her final appearance is more consistent with the ransom note since, if you accept she was being redressed, she appeared as has been potrayed in the media e.g. the consequence of a bedside abduction.

That is she is enclosed in a blanket from her bed, her parents state that she is wearing the clothes they left her in the previous night, she has been asphyxiated, there is a noose around her neck, she appears bound by the wrists, and has also apparently been sexually assaulted.

So the general impression is that of a young girl removed from her bed in the middle of the night by an unknown assailant, who binds her, tortures her using the paintbrush handle, whilst asphyxiating her, generating perverse pleasure for this sadistic sexual predator!

If you peruse the literature or cases relating to nightime domestic abductions, then you will find they relate generally to preteen girls, who are either assaulted in bed, or/and removed from the house by the predator to what the predator considers a safe location where he further sexually violates his victim, sadly often resulting in their death.

Their have been numerous infamous cases of recent in the USA, some resulting in federal legislation regarding sex offenders.

JonBenet's homicide does not fit this pattern, she was not removed from the house, she was in fact concealed within the house like the contents of a russian doll.

Patsy Ramsey stated that she undressed JonBenet for bed and placed the white longjohns on her, despite her pyjamas from the previous night, lying under her pillow. JonBenet was photographed in these same pyjamas on xmas day, smiling with her hair straight and no pigtails! Patsy also stated that she had some memory loss regarding what underwear, if any, JonBenet was wearing when she removed her black velvet pants worn to the Whites. Similarl applies to her socks, since she was recovered with barefeet.

So if you are putting a child to bed with a history of bedwetting, do you leave the childs underwear on, or remove it. If I was a mother I would consider whether soiled underwear would add to the risk of acquiring a genital infection?

Now lets consider if you find JonBenet's corpse in another part of the house, say a bedroom, and she may be clothed or naked, she may have endured some sexual assault but not display any obvious trauma, she may even be posed to either gratify someone else's lust, or the posing may be part of then current staging to suggest another scenario such as an accident.

The ransom note suggests she has been abducted, question: where from answer: her bed, that is it is unlikely she answered a knock at the front door bleary eyed, and was kidnapped in the dead of the night.

Well you dont abduct a little girl, construct a ransom note, then retire with her to the basement awaiting delivery of your ransom?

So although you can interpret the contents of the ransom note ad infinitum, it is generally assumed she has been forcibly removed from her bed, some think additionally by the use of a stun gun, employed by a monster lurking under her bed.

But the then current disposition of JonBenet's corpse may not match that of a girl abducted from her bed. It may fit some other scenario which is now being dumped in favor of one involving the ransom note.

But if as the ransom note implies she has been removed from her bed, then surely her final appearance should reflect this?

So JonBenet was removed to the wine-cellar so that her final "bedtime" appearance could be concluded. That is she was not hidden from view to deter her discovery, but to give the person redressing her more time to complete the task.

So lets assume the previous scenario, which may actually be as she was at the time of death, that is wearing urine-stained longjohns, which is consistent with PDI due to a bedwetting rage.

Well she has to be wiped down as a prelude to redressing, she will need clean underwear on, and some manifestly obvious bed-clothing e.g. her Barbie Gown!

But she has suffered a head trauma and been asphyxiated, how can you explain that away. Well you cannot but you can attempt to cover it up by knotting the noose around her arms, stick on some duct tape, that will explain why she was not heard crying out, oh and insert the paintbrush handle inside her, that will make a sexual assault obvious and a motive for an attempted house abduction.

That is the person carrying out the above is retrospectively tweaking her corpse to match a bedtime abduction. But as we all know those urine-stained longjohns, and the white gap top worn to the whites, was not removed and replaced with her Barbie Gown.

What other purpose would her Barbie Gown have, particularly located in the wine-cellar?

Also she may have been wrapped in the white blanket, not as an act of loving kindness to her corpse, but to avoid the transfer of forensic evidence as she was being transported about the ramsey household. That is if you intend to move JonBenet into the wine-cellar for some redressing you do not want to contaminate your own clothing and surroundings with her body or clothing, urine or any other post-mortem seepage!

All the above discounts her mysterious nightime pigtails, her day-of-the-week size-12 underwear, and her multi-colored hair-ties.

It may even be possible, to construct a third prior staging scenario, in which you can add the latter discounted items. Possibly even other items of forensic evidence recovered from the house, and you might paint a picture of JonBenet wearing her longjohns as a midpoint between her initial staging and her intended final staging of wearing her Barbie Gown.

Some of the forensic evidence removed from the scene does not allow us to directly imagine the possible stages in the sequences that follow her staging, but some of the inconsistencies, such as her pigtails, or her size-12 underwear, lack of socks, the longjohns contrasting with the white gap top, and the blanket, all suggest a journey in re-dressing!

[Zman]

Zman,

That you have no reason to think she had been redressed is an entirely valid inference.

The wine-cellar crime scene viewed as staging has been covered already in another thread.

Her final appearance is more consistent with the ransom note since, if you accept she was being redressed, she appeared as has been potrayed in the media e.g. the consequence of a bedside abduction.

That is she is enclosed in a blanket from her bed, her parents state that she is wearing the clothes they left her in the previous night, she has been asphyxiated, there is a noose around her neck, she appears bound by the wrists, and has also apparently been sexually assaulted.

So the general impression is that of a young girl removed from her bed in the middle of the night by an unknown assailant, who binds her, tortures her using the paintbrush handle, whilst asphyxiating her, generating perverse pleasure for this sadistic sexual predator!

If you peruse the literature or cases relating to nightime domestic abductions, then you will find they relate generally to preteen girls, who are either assaulted in bed, or/and removed from the house by the predator to what the predator considers a safe location where he further sexually violates his victim, sadly often resulting in their death.

Their have been numerous infamous cases of recent in the USA, some resulting in federal legislation regarding sex offenders.

JonBenet's homicide does not fit this pattern, she was not removed from the house, she was in fact concealed within the house like the contents of a russian doll.

Patsy Ramsey stated that she undressed JonBenet for bed and placed the white longjohns on her, despite her pyjamas from the previous night, lying under her pillow. JonBenet was photographed in these same pyjamas on xmas day, smiling with her hair straight and no pigtails! Patsy also stated that she had some memory loss regarding what underwear, if any, JonBenet was wearing when she removed her black velvet pants worn to the Whites. Similarl applies to her socks, since she was recovered with barefeet.

So if you are putting a child to bed with a history of bedwetting, do you leave the childs underwear on, or remove it. If I was a mother I would consider whether soiled underwear would add to the risk of acquiring a genital infection?Wow I'm full. I can't read another bite UKGuy.

Lets stop pretending for just a second that PR has to do everthing perfectly. Its late, been a long Christmas Day and she has to get up early the next morning. Most times PR would maybe be more detailed or aware of how her daughter was going to bed. But that night maybe she just wanted to get to bed and missed taking her pigtails out and which underware she had on or even if her socks came off when her pants were removed.

Now lets consider if you find JonBenet's corpse in another part of the house, say a bedroom, and she may be clothed or naked, she may have endured some sexual assault but not display any obvious trauma, she may even be posed to either gratify someone else's lust, or the posing may be part of then current staging to suggest another scenario such as an accident.

The ransom note suggests she has been abducted, question: where from answer: her bed, that is it is unlikely she answered a knock at the front door bleary eyed, and was kidnapped in the dead of the night.

Well you dont abduct a little girl, construct a ransom note, then retire with her to the basement awaiting delivery of your ransom?

So although you can interpret the contents of the ransom note ad infinitum, it is generally assumed she has been forcibly removed from her bed, some think additionally by the use of a stun gun, employed by a monster lurking under her bed.

But the then current disposition of JonBenet's corpse may not match that of a girl abducted from her bed. It may fit some other scenario which is now being dumped in favor of one involving the ransom note.

But if as the ransom note implies she has been removed from her bed, then surely her final appearance should reflect this?
It does. Why go on a witch hunt for other reasons?

So JonBenet was removed to the wine-cellar so that her final "bedtime" appearance could be concluded. That is she was not hidden from view to deter her discovery, but to give the person redressing her more time to complete the task.

So lets assume the previous scenario, which may actually be as she was at the time of death, that is wearing urine-stained longjohns, which is consistent with PDI due to a bedwetting rage.
Or maybe the fact that she was attacked in her bed with a stun gun explains why she wet herself. I'm pretty sure I would.

Well she has to be wiped down as a prelude to redressing, she will need clean underwear on, and some manifestly obvious bed-clothing e.g. her Barbie Gown!

But she has suffered a head trauma and been asphyxiated, how can you explain that away. Well you cannot but you can attempt to cover it up by knotting the noose around her arms, stick on some duct tape, that will explain why she was not heard crying out, oh and insert the paintbrush handle inside her, that will make a sexual assault obvious and a motive for an attempted house abduction.

That is the person carrying out the above is retrospectively tweaking her corpse to match a bedtime abduction. But as we all know those urine-stained longjohns, and the white gap top worn to the whites, was not removed and replaced with her Barbie Gown.

What other purpose would her Barbie Gown have, particularly located in the wine-cellar? Maybe it was just caught up in the white blanket and fell along the side.

Also she may have been wrapped in the white blanket, not as an act of loving kindness to her corpse, but to avoid the transfer of forensic evidence as she was being transported about the ramsey household. That is if you intend to move JonBenet into the wine-cellar for some redressing you do not want to contaminate your own clothing and surroundings with her body or clothing, urine or any other post-mortem seepage!

All the above discounts her mysterious nightime pigtails, her day-of-the-week size-12 underwear, and her multi-colored hair-ties.Why are they mysterious pigtails?
We don't know she didn't where them that night to the Whites.

It may even be possible, to construct a third prior staging scenario, in which you can add the latter discounted items. Possibly even other items of forensic evidence recovered from the house, and you might paint a picture of JonBenet wearing her longjohns as a midpoint between her initial staging and her intended final staging of wearing her Barbie Gown.

Some of the forensic evidence removed from the scene does not allow us to directly imagine the possible stages in the sequences that follow her staging, but some of the inconsistencies, such as her pigtails, or her size-12 underwear, lack of socks, the longjohns contrasting with the white gap top, and the blanket, all suggest a journey in re-dressing!I will never understand this staging nonsense. You don't stage a kidnapping by tying your dead victim up in your basement. You don't stage a rape and murder by leaving a RN. You have to pick one or the other. Kidnapped or assualted.

I would think she was left as she was. No wiping, no redressing. At least IMO.

[kidzndogznme]

Patsy claimed that she didn't take a shower that morning because her shower was broken, but she wouldn't go anywhere without her make up. Now how am I to believe that a woman so obsessed with appearances will apply make up before going downstairs to make coffee but feels fine skipping a shower, right before she's about to meet family for Christmas celebration? I don't believe that. I don't believe Patsy slept at all Christmas night, and I highly suspect that JonBenet didn't sleep either. I would have no problem believing JonBenet had been made up for their gadding about at various parties Christmas night. Was the make up smeared on her, or had it been applied carefully? Was she wearing her hair in the two ponytails when the Rams were out celebrating with friends Christmas night?
I know it seems weird that PR would apply full makeup and skip a shower but if you read the interrogation of PR from 14 months after JBR was killed (sorry don't have a link) you will see several references to PR being less than clean. She says she did not take a shower that morning but applied makeup for 20-30 minutes. She also says she changed her underwear but put on the same clothes from the night before over top of the clean undies. She goes on to mention that she hates laundry and would wear the same outfit 2-3 times before washing to cut down on dirty clothes. She mentions a little red jumpsuit of JBR that had to be dry cleaned after having "several" spots on it. Maybe she is very vain about her looks but thinks she smells pretty good without showering???

[kidzndogznme]

I have seen kids wear their hair like that often. I don't really see anything provocative with that type of hair style. When I taugh first grade, I noticed that girls wear ponytails in all kinds of wierd ways! LOL :laugh: Sometimes it is quite amusing.
I have 2 daughters and I cannot picture how it would look to have "2 ponytails one over the other". Can you describe it better???

[Nuisanceposter]

You section off the top part of the hair and make a pony tail near the crown of the head, then gather up the rest of the hair including first pony tail to make a second one lower on the back of the head. This would have been uncomfortable for sleeping.

[Nehemiah]

You section off the top part of the hair and make a pony tail near the crown of the head, then gather up the rest of the hair including first pony tail to make a second one lower on the back of the head. This would have been uncomfortable for sleeping.

If anyone here knows the Whites, ask them if she wore her hair like that to their home on Christmas night. Then, come back and tell us. ;)

[txsvicki]

Patsy claimed that she didn't take a shower that morning because her shower was broken, but she wouldn't go anywhere without her make up. Now how am I to believe that a woman so obsessed with appearances will apply make up before going downstairs to make coffee but feels fine skipping a shower, right before she's about to meet family for Christmas celebration? I don't believe that. I don't believe Patsy slept at all Christmas night, and I highly suspect that JonBenet didn't sleep either. I would have no problem believing JonBenet had been made up for their gadding about at various parties Christmas night. Was the make up smeared on her, or had it been applied carefully? Was she wearing her hair in the two ponytails when the Rams were out celebrating with friends Christmas night?


I am just now reading the books about the murder. One said that Pasty smokes or smoked back then. I can't believe that she wouldn't wash her hair before going to another Christmas get together or meeting someone new because a smoker's hair will not smell very nice.

[Nuisanceposter]

I am just now reading the books about the murder. One said that Pasty smokes or smoked back then. I can't believe that she wouldn't wash her hair before going to another Christmas get together or meeting someone new because a smoker's hair will not smell very nice.
I can't believe she wouldn't shower before going out to meet family, including Melinda's new boyfriend for the first time. They were out at a Christmas party the night before - I don't know about the rest of you, but parties in general (and especially Christmas parties where you will be wearing long sleeves) usually cause me to perspire while attending them. Then there's the whole crab feast, and drinks, and laughing and carrying on...I still have trouble believing that Patsy didn't need a shower the next morning to feel like she was in top form to be hosting the older kids (and meeting the new boyfriend) at a second Christmas gathering. I have serious trouble believing she would put on the same outfit for a second day in a row. She was extremely focused on appearance, hence the make up before going down to make coffee...would she not have stopped to at least select a new outfit or do a cursory washing of self before setting about her day of travel and hosting? Her shower may have been broken, but there were others available...John was coming out of the shower when she supposedly started shouting for him upon finding the ransom note.

As for Patsy not caring and not bathing...that was post-murder Patsy. Pre-murder Patsy was all about making sure she and her kids and her house were always at 100% in appearance. You don't raise a child beauty pageant winner by not caring if your hair is washed or if you're wearing the same outfit two days in a row. She had eight different Christmas trees all decked out for the Parade of Homes thing! She overheard people complain that her home was too gaudy and over-decorated. Any woman who goes that far with house and kids is doing it herself too. All brand name labels, all the time. Perfectly applied expensive make up. Hair tinted and styled, or else a nice wig. Appearance was everything.

[Jayelles]

On wearing the same clothes
For starters, I *really* don't see anything odd in her wearing an outfit that she had worn the previous day for a few hours - especially if it was brand new. Quality clothing is chemically treated by the manufacturer to keep it crisp and stain-resistant during the selling period. That is why garments get dirtier faster after they have been laundered. Christmas/party clothes aren't like regular clothes. We tend to wear them several times over the christmas period.

On smoking
I don't think Patsy was smoking during that period of her life - not regularly anyway. Someone did report her smoking cigars at her 40th birthday party but I don't think that constitutes smoking (could be wrong - I'm not knowledgeable about smoking).

No shower - double bluff?
What no-one seems to have considered is that the "not had a shower" could have been a double bluff!

Supposing Patsy got home from the Whites, changed out of her party clothes, got into a situation where JonBenet was accidentally killed. Then supposing she staged the crime, showered and washed her hair before donning her party clothes once more?

If she told police that she HADN'T showered then one would fully expect that there would be plenty of forensic evidence on both Patsy and her clothes. NOT finding any evidence on an unwashed suspect would go some way to clearing that suspect - yes?.

Murder suspects expect to have their clothes taken for forensic testing. The Ramseys weren't tested for forensics until much, much later.

We only have Patsy's word that she didn't shower that morning. OTOH - was she ever asked if she'd showered the previous night?

[Cranberry]

In the 6/98 JR interview (paragraph # 298) JR states that plumbers fixed Patsy's shower in November and then the tile work was fixed by Merv over Thanksgiving.

[Moab]

No shower - double bluff?
What no-one seems to have considered is that the "not had a shower" could have been a double bluff!

We only have Patsy's word that she didn't shower that morning. OTOH - was she ever asked if she'd showered the previous night?
Excellent question! Many people who need to leave the house early in the mornings shower at night!

[UKGuy]

[b]No shower - double bluff?
What no-one seems to have considered is that the "not had a shower" could have been a double bluff!

Supposing Patsy got home from the Whites, changed out of her party clothes, got into a situation where JonBenet was accidentally killed. Then supposing she staged the crime, showered and washed her hair before donning her party clothes once more?

If she told police that she HADN'T showered then one would fully expect that there would be plenty of forensic evidence on both Patsy and her clothes. NOT finding any evidence on an unwashed suspect would go some way to clearing that suspect - yes?.

Murder suspects expect to have their clothes taken for forensic testing. The Ramseys weren't tested for forensics until much, much later.

We only have Patsy's word that she didn't shower that morning. OTOH - was she ever asked if she'd showered the previous night?

Jayelles,
There may be some mileage in your "double bluff" idea. Having an early morning shower could be interpreted as "normal" behaviour, after all I believe JR had a shower that morning, so which way does the guilt indicator swing?

Patsy was the wife of a millionaire, she had a housemaid, tumble dryers and washing machines, she could even send stuff to the dry cleaners, expense would not be an issue, so for me her wearing the same outfit two days running, particularly for entirely different social outings, is a red-flag.

[Nuisanceposter]

Patsy was the wife of a millionaire, she had a housemaid, tumble dryers and washing machines, she could even send stuff to the dry cleaners, expense would not be an issue, so for me her wearing the same outfit two days running, particularly for entirely different social outings, is a red-flag. And being that she was the wife of a millionaire as well as imo a superficial person, I don't find it hard to believe that she had more than enough Christmas outfits to not have to wear the same one two days in a row. The same outfit twice in a row + no shower (how interesting that it appears as though perhaps her shower wasn't broken after all, thanks, Cranberry) is a big double red flag to me.

[Linda7NJ]

If the shower was broken how did John manage to take one?

[narlacat]

It wasn't John's shower that didnt work, it was Patsy's.

[Nuisanceposter]

It wasn't John's shower that didnt work, it was Patsy's.
And that just pounds home the point that Patsy's reason for not showering is suspect...hers didn't work, but there were other functional showers in the house.

[Zman]

And that just pounds home the point that Patsy's reason for not showering is suspect...hers didn't work, but there were other functional showers in the house.
Its how you look at it.

PR not taking a shower points to her innocence.

If you just murdered your daughter and particapated in the coverup you would be more likely to shower. To help remove evidence.

[Maikai]

Jayelles,
There may be some mileage in your "double bluff" idea. Having an early morning shower could be interpreted as "normal" behaviour, after all I believe JR had a shower that morning, so which way does the guilt indicator swing?

Patsy was the wife of a millionaire, she had a housemaid, tumble dryers and washing machines, she could even send stuff to the dry cleaners, expense would not be an issue, so for me her wearing the same outfit two days running, particularly for entirely different social outings, is a red-flag.

wearing an outfit you only had on for a few hours the day before, and wearing one you might have worn before that was hanging in the closet?

[Jayelles]

I repeat.

1. We only have Patsy's word that she didn't take a shower that morning
2. I do not recall from the interview transcripts whether she was asked if she had taken one the previous night.

People expect that a killer would shower to get rid of forensic evidence. Many have been distracted by thoughts that Patsy was somehow "unclean" because they accept that she didn't shower. Now, if the ramseys are involved in this murder, don't you think it would have been a clever piece of cover-up if Patsy had used John's shower before he did and then claimed that she hadn't showered at all? Police could have checked her own shower and found no recent signs of use - thus supporting her claims. If she had been taken immediately to the police station and tested for forensics, there would have been none.

Like it or not, statistically, they are the most likely culprits and therefore the Ramseys' word should not be taken as gospel. If what they say cannot be corroborated by a third party or borne out by evidence, then it should be regarded as *potentially* false.

Unless the Ramseys can be unequivocably cleared by evidence, then the investigators must continue to regard them as suspects. I believe this to be the case. Mary Keenan/Lacy has been very careful in choosing her words regarding the Ramseys. She has never said that they have been cleared.

[Maikai]

in December, you'd know it's a very dry climate--you don't sweat unless you're a sweathog with a problem, or you've been up all night killing your child and covering it up. People that live there don't take showers everyday in winter, because it dries the skin out and instead just wash up and go on their merry way. Hairstyles last a lot longer, because of the dry climate---hair doesn't have to be washed everyday. Patsy dyed her hair Christmas day---chances are she washed the dye off in the shower--sometime before going to the White's. That's all there is to it.

[Maikai]

Someone can be cleared---and they can again be suspects. That terminology doesn't mean anything. Mary Keenan/Lacy said she agrees with Judge Carnes......who said there is evidence it was an intruder. If an intruder, it wasn't a Ramsey---that's as good as being cleared. Barry Scheck said the DNA was a problem, and the BPD can't have it both ways--they can't clear people because of DNA, and not the Ramseys.

[itsreenw]

Patsy supposedly didn't take a shower because her shower was broken. I am sure she found somewhere to shower before going to the White's party. I bet she was nice and clean and smelling good for that event. So why couldn't she use whatever shower she had been using in the days prior to that?

I also read somewhere that Patsy called down to Charlevoix and had the florist or someone put all the Christmas fixin's on the house so it would be nice and pretty for JR's kids and the son-in-law to be. She went through all that and didn't bother to bathe?? And for no other reason than for the sake of sharing pictures later, Patsy would have changed her clothes.

No way would she have been in pictures taken on the 25th AND 26th, wearing the same outfit. I'm not referring to studio pics, just pics taken by family members opening gifts, etc..

[txsvicki]

in December, you'd know it's a very dry climate--you don't sweat unless you're a sweathog with a problem, or you've been up all night killing your child and covering it up. People that live there don't take showers everyday in winter, because it dries the skin out and instead just wash up and go on their merry way. Hairstyles last a lot longer, because of the dry climate---hair doesn't have to be washed everyday. Patsy dyed her hair Christmas day---chances are she washed the dye off in the shower--sometime before going to the White's. That's all there is to it.


Yet another reason to wash her her hair again. Hair can still smell a little from the dye and be too dark after first dyeing and a couple of washes get it back to normal. I wonder if Patsy smoked or not. One of the books said that she stood outside chain smoking and got locked out while John was being questioned. If she did smoke during the Christmas holidays, her clothing could also smell like cigarette smoke somewhat even if she only smoked a few standing outside.

[LinasK]

The other option is that JBR was involved unwillingly in a 'choking game.' The glaring, stark problem with this theory is that she would be screaming alot.

I don't know what the perp did with JBR, but it had more to do with sexual assault and murder, and not a 'game' taken 'too far' so it accidentally got 'out of hand' and was 'staged to look like a foreign faction did it.' Thats just a baseless fictional creation.
You don't know that JB didn't scream her head off, supposedly some neighbors did hear screaming.

JBR was sexually assaulted in a game that did get out of hand. JR didn't plan to murder her, but was too chicken to seek help and admit what he'd been doing to her. It was easier on his reputation to concoct a "foreign faction" and pin a kidnapping on them. It would have gone according to plan if Linda Ardnt had searched the basement herself rather than making John do it. This is my theory...

Also, in response to another poster, Patsy purchased the size 12 panties for her niece. I believe she re-dressed her in the correct day of the week.

Kindergarden now is what the equivalent of first grade used to be.( I've seen the standards for the Calif. Dept of Education). Now they do in pre-school what we previously did in kindergarden.

[Jayelles]

Someone can be cleared---and they can again be suspects. That terminology doesn't mean anything. Mary Keenan/Lacy said she agrees with Judge Carnes......who said there is evidence it was an intruder. If an intruder, it wasn't a Ramsey---that's as good as being cleared. Barry Scheck said the DNA was a problem, and the BPD can't have it both ways--they can't clear people because of DNA, and not the Ramseys.
Carnes said that based upon the evidence - and we all know that she based her statement on the evidence she saw which was NOT the police file but Lou SMit's powerpoint presentation. That presentation was not updated after 1998 at that point.

There was a lot NOTconsidered by Carnes. She only had the Ramsey side of the story upon which to make her decision. There is no doubt whatsoever that if Judge carnes had made an opposite ruling based upon only BORG information, it would have been deemed unsafe by the RST. No doubt whatsoever.

[Leve]

Just a thought about the pony tails. JBR may have slept in pony tails beacuse of product in her hair. If you have to use alot of conditioner or if you use hairspray it can cause acne if your hair gets in your face at night. I read that JBR got acne after the pageants from the make-up so her face may have been sensitive.

I really wish the BPD had asked such questions or that we had access to the questions/answers.

[Maikai]

Carnes said that based upon the evidence - and we all know that she based her statement on the evidence she saw which was NOT the police file but Lou SMit's powerpoint presentation. That presentation was not updated after 1998 at that point.

There was a lot NOTconsidered by Carnes. She only had the Ramsey side of the story upon which to make her decision. There is no doubt whatsoever that if Judge carnes had made an opposite ruling based upon only BORG information, it would have been deemed unsafe by the RST. No doubt whatsoever.

The Ramseys hiring attorneys?

Pineapple in the small intestine?

Patsy wearing the same clothes two days in a row?

The bedwetting theory with no evidence JBR wet the bed that night?

A white male working in the underwear factory in Asia that left his DNA on the panties?

Carnes looked at the evidence, and she came to the conclusion there was evidence of an intruder---something the BPD should have concluded earlyon, instead of trying to make the evidence fit a suspect (the parents).

[Jayelles]

The Ramseys hiring attorneys?

Pineapple in the small intestine?

Patsy wearing the same clothes two days in a row?

The bedwetting theory with no evidence JBR wet the bed that night?

A white male working in the underwear factory in Asia that left his DNA on the panties?

Carnes looked at the evidence, and she came to the conclusion there was evidence of an intruder---something the BPD should have concluded earlyon, instead of trying to make the evidence fit a suspect (the parents).
What are you talking about? The pineapple is a fact. The sheets tested positive for urine. The people working most closely to the case say the DNA COULD have come from a worker at the panties factory.

She looked at the evidence she was given - decided that there COULD have been an intruder and said so. RST claim this means the Ramseys are cleared.

The Carnes judgement has no more value to the murder case than a Mickey Mouse judgement would have. She was ruling on a libel case - not a murder case.

[why_nutt]

Carnes looked at the evidence, and she came to the conclusion there was evidence of an intruder---something the BPD should have concluded earlyon, instead of trying to make the evidence fit a suspect (the parents).

Patsy's doctors in Charlevoix and Boulder came to the conclusions that she was suffering from spinal problems and possible pregnancy in 1992 and early 1993, but that did not make them correct. For that matter, her oncologist in Atlanta came to the conclusion that he had removed all of her cancer when he performed her hysterectomy, and he turned out wrong, since he missed a golfball-sized tumor present at the time.

What does this teach us? People who come to conclusions can and are wrong, and Carnes is no different.

If you want to believe her, though, then you have to concede that the Ramseys were lying through their teeth about the night of December 25th, because Carnes states unambiguously that Burke fell asleep in the car after the family left the Whites, and therefore he would have been in no shape to enthusiastically put together some complicated parking garage model with tiny decals for half an hour, as John Ramsey said happened.

Which do you throw your lot in with? Carnes knows the truth, and John Ramsey lied, or Carnes did not know all the truth, and got things wrong, which puts all of what she said at risk for credibility issues?

[capps]

Quote by Why_Nutt:
"If you want to believe her, though, then you have to concede that the Ramseys were lying through their teeth about the night of December 25th, because Carnes states unambigously that Burke fell asleep in the car after the family left the Whites, and therefore he would have been in no shape to enthusiastically put together some complicated parking garage model with tiny decals for half an hour, as John Ramsey said happened."

Why_Nutt,

Carnes said that Burke was sleeping after the Ramsey's left the White's?

I know JR said he and Burke were putting together a model.But a complicated model,and applying little decals for half an hour?

First I'm hearing these two things,can you give a source please?

[concernedperson]

Patsy's doctors in Charlevoix and Boulder came to the conclusions that she was suffering from spinal problems and possible pregnancy in 1992 and early 1993, but that did not make them correct. For that matter, her oncologist in Atlanta came to the conclusion that he had removed all of her cancer when he performed her hysterectomy, and he turned out wrong, since he missed a golfball-sized tumor present at the time.

What does this teach us? People who come to conclusions can and are wrong, and Carnes is no different.

If you want to believe her, though, then you have to concede that the Ramseys were lying through their teeth about the night of December 25th, because Carnes states unambigously that Burke fell asleep in the car after the family left the Whites, and therefore he would have been in no shape to enthusiastically put together some complicated parking garage model with tiny decals for half an hour, as John Ramsey said happened.

Which do you throw your lot in with? Carnes knows the truth, and John Ramsey lied, or Carnes did not know all the truth, and got things wrong, which puts all of what she said at risk for credibility issues?
This is a really good post and should set parameters for the future. This is addressing this case with heads on. Go, you are so importent.

[Maikai]

What are you talking about? The pineapple is a fact. The sheets tested positive for urine. The people working most closely to the case say the DNA COULD have come from a worker at the panties factory.

She looked at the evidence she was given - decided that there COULD have been an intruder and said so. RST claim this means the Ramseys are cleared.

The Carnes judgement has no more value to the murder case than a Mickey Mouse judgement would have. She was ruling on a libel case - not a murder case.

The point is, Carnes didn't speculate and try to explain away evidence that survived the messed up crime scene, or believed the circumstantial case presented at the trial.

The DNA is from a white male---what's the likelihood that a white male handled the underwear in an asian factory? The pineapple location in the digestive tract was eaten earlier in the day....if in fact it was pineapple and not some other greenish yellow vegetable or fruit. The urine on the sheets were traces, and considering JBR did have accidents once in the while, and Patsy kept a rubber covering on the mattress pad, traces don't point to her wetting the bed that night.

Carnes ruling was good enough that the current DA agreed with it---something she apparently supported way before the case before Carnes.

[Maikai]

Patsy's doctors in Charlevoix and Boulder came to the conclusions that she was suffering from spinal problems and possible pregnancy in 1992 and early 1993, but that did not make them correct. For that matter, her oncologist in Atlanta came to the conclusion that he had removed all of her cancer when he performed her hysterectomy, and he turned out wrong, since he missed a golfball-sized tumor present at the time.

What does this teach us? People who come to conclusions can and are wrong, and Carnes is no different.

If you want to believe her, though, then you have to concede that the Ramseys were lying through their teeth about the night of December 25th, because Carnes states unambiguously that Burke fell asleep in the car after the family left the Whites, and therefore he would have been in no shape to enthusiastically put together some complicated parking garage model with tiny decals for half an hour, as John Ramsey said happened.

Which do you throw your lot in with? Carnes knows the truth, and John Ramsey lied, or Carnes did not know all the truth, and got things wrong, which puts all of what she said at risk for credibility issues?

in Boulder. Patsy had first had symptoms in Boulder, but the cancer was missed because the CAT scan didn't cover the area the tumors were located in. It may or may not have made a difference in the stage of the tumors. Ovarian cancer wasn't suspected when she first started seeking medical help for symptoms. What that teaches us is doctors can be wrong, and mistakes can be deadly.

I'll take your word that Carnes believes Burke was asleep---I don't recall reading that, but I only perused her opinion. I don't think it matters one way or another. A kid can be sound asleep one minute, and running around the next. Mary Keenan Lacy went on the record publically agreeing with Carnes opinion about the intruder theory---which hopefully, sent the investigation in another direction.

[Jayelles]

The point is, Carnes didn't speculate and try to explain away evidence that survived the messed up crime scene, or believed the circumstantial case presented at the trial.

The DNA is from a white male---what's the likelihood that a white male handled the underwear in an asian factory? The pineapple location in the digestive tract was eaten earlier in the day....if in fact it was pineapple and not some other greenish yellow vegetable or fruit. The urine on the sheets were traces, and considering JBR did have accidents once in the while, and Patsy kept a rubber covering on the mattress pad, traces don't point to her wetting the bed that night.

Carnes ruling was good enough that the current DA agreed with it---something she apparently supported way before the case before Carnes.
This post is so full of oft-repeated misinformation that it almost seems futile to correct it.

1. We cannot tell race from DNA. At least we couldn't at the time Lou Smit stated the DNA was from a white male. The "caucasian" bit almost certainly came from a hair and we do not know that the foreign DNA and the hair were from the same person. BIG LEAP.

2. The whole point about the pineapple is that if it WAS eaten earlier in the day then the time at which the Ramseys came home was at the very latest extreme of when she must have died. That points to the ramseys as the killers.

3. The urine on the sheets is of little relevance as you say Jonbenet was a bedwetter. However, the RST are always claiming that the sheets were dry when of course this is ridiculous. You cannot tell from a photo whether the bed had been wet the previous night. The photo was taken many hours later when the sheets would have dried naturally. Anyone using that photo as "evidence" that she didn't wet the bed has very low standards indeed. The sheets had traced of creatin (sp) on it. Creatin is found in urine but it doesn't make up 100% of urine. You would expect to find TRACES. Besides, the whole bed-wtting thing is just a theory that Steve Thomas offered as a motive for Patsy taking a fatal slug at JonBenet. I personally think it's unlikely but even if the motive wasn't bed-wetting. Logically, it doesn't mean that Patsy didn't kill her for some other reason.

Carnes did her job - which was to rule on a civil libel case. Mary Lacy has played a careful political game with the ramsey case. She acknowledged Carnes' judgement whilst quietly underlining that the Ramseys are NOT excluded from the investigation.

I simply cannot understand the thinking of people who interpret carnes and Lacy's comments as the Ramseys being cleared.

[Nehemiah]

Trixie posted on another thread her thoughts about the possibility that the entire autopsy report was not released to the public. I honestly hadn't thought of that before, but I can see that it could be something that LE is still holding onto.

Why would only a partial report have been released? Is this a common practice...to satisfy the public? Anyone know?

[Linda7NJ]

Trixie posted on another thread her thoughts about the possibility that the entire autopsy report was not released to the public. I honestly hadn't thought of that before, but I can see that it could be something that LE is still holding onto.

Why would only a partial report have been released? Is this a common practice...to satisfy the public? Anyone know?
I always thought autopsy reports were a matter of public record?

[Nuisanceposter]

I always thought autopsy reports were a matter of public record?
Not when there's an investigation going on and details in the autopsy are needed to be kept quiet in order to ferret out the killer.

[tipper]

Not when there's an investigation going on and details in the autopsy are needed to be kept quiet in order to ferret out the killer.


http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail97.asp?ID=83 (http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail97.asp?ID=83)

5/16/1997

Ramsey autopsy to become more open

by Pam Regensberg
Daily Times-Call

BOULDER -- By Wednesday morning, the public will know more about the death of former Little Miss Colorado JonBenet Ramsey .

District Court Judge Carol Glowinsky ruled late Thursday that JonBenet's autopsy report -- except for six edited portions -- will be released. Glowinsky's ruling largely opens documents she sealed 90 days ago.

[...]
Kelley on Wednesday filed an objection to keeping the document sealed for an additional 90 days.
Glowinsky, however, partly sided with Kelley.

``Despite 90 additional days of intensive investigation, the coroner argues that the case is still within the early stage of investigation,'' Glowinsky wrote. ``After a review of the limited evidence offered by the coroner to support this conclusion, the court finds that while the investigation remains active, it is no longer in its early stages.''

Therefore, much of the autopsy will be unsealed next Wednesday.

Much of the information the coroner sought to restrict is technical and medical in nature and is the type of evidence investigators are not likely to receive through tips and leads, she said.

Glowinsky ruled the coroner did not meet the burden of proof needed to keep the records under wraps.

Nevertheless, Glowinsky did grant the county's request to keep six portions of the public record sealed for an additional 90 days. She said some of the information is descriptive and could be used to substantiate certain leads being pursued by police.

After 90 days, the entire autopsy report will be unsealed.

[Nehemiah]

The full report was reported to have been released on Aug. 13. http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html But, how would we as the public know if anything were kept secret and not really released? Is it common practice for a "full and complete" autopsy report to be released to the public, yet portions redacted for LE?

[trixie]

You know, I first got this idea from eithor Cyril Wecht or someone who had written about it and there were things stated that I hadn't read in the autopsy report. I think there are two. One to satisfy the publics need to know and another more detailed one the coroner or holds on to in case there is a trial. I think there are things in that second report that would shed some light on some of the questions we have. If anyone thinks things like this aren't done think again. I'll bet it's perfectly legal too since it's still an open case.

[Zman]

You know, I first got this idea from eithor Cyril Wecht or someone who had written about it and there were things stated that I hadn't read in the autopsy report. I think there are two. One to satisfy the publics need to know and another more detailed one the coroner or holds on to in case there is a trial. I think there are things in that second report that would shed some light on some of the questions we have. If anyone thinks things like this aren't done think again. I'll bet it's perfectly legal too since it's still an open case.
Now after reading Tippers post above how could you say it's "perfectly legal". It obviously would not be since the judge ordered the entire report released.

[trixie]

Now after reading Tippers post above how could you say it's "perfectly legal". It obviously would not be since the judge ordered the entire report released.

If there are two reports then one may have been released in it's entirety.

[Zman]

If there are two reports then one may have been released in it's entirety.
So what your saying is LE may be dishonest with evidence claims.

[trixie]

Evidence claims? I wasn't aware there has been a trial and all evidence had to be turned over to the defense. I'm not saying I know any of this for sure but I truly do suspect there is a more complete, more detailed autopsy report that the public hasn't been made privy to. You don't have to believe it, but I do. My gosh, just think about all the things we don't know. The PUBLIC certainly doesn't have all the evidence. What about the mysterious DNA found at the crime scene, not on Jonbenets body? This is yet a THIRD DNA sample that hasn't been matched to anybody. This is not the DNA found in her panites or under her nails. This evidence has not been written about in ANY book to date. This is just an example of how much the public doesn't know. A tremendous amount, I think. So why is it so hard to believe that the autopsy report released to the public is the one and only one?

[Zman]

Evidence claims? I wasn't aware there has been a trial and all evidence had to be turned over to the defense. I'm not saying I know any of this for sure but I truly do suspect there is a more complete, more detailed autopsy report that the public hasn't been made privy to. You don't have to believe it, but I do. My gosh, just think about all the things we don't know. The PUBLIC certainly doesn't have all the evidence. What about the mysterious DNA found at the crime scene, not on Jonbenets body? This is yet a THIRD DNA sample that hasn't been matched to anybody. This is not the DNA found in her panites or under her nails. This evidence has not been written about in ANY book to date. This is just an example of how much the public doesn't know. A tremendous amount, I think. So why is it so hard to believe that the autopsy report released to the public is the one and only one?
I just believe the opposite, there's less evidence then we are led to believe.

[trixie]

Here is a link to an example of evidence that we do not know about.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.txt

Scroll down to section 120 and read through section 139. Pay special attention to section 121, and 123, because that is proof we don't know all the evidence in this case.

When you have time you should read the whole depo, it's quite interesting and informative. I've narrowed it down for you considerably so it won't take much time and hopefully you and others reading this will read it. I'd like to discuss it. I have some thoughts.

[capps]

Here is a link to an example of evidence that we do not know about.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.txt

Scroll down to section 120 and read through section 139. Pay special attention to section 121, and 123, because that is proof we don't know all the evidence in this case.

When you have time you should read the whole depo, it's quite interesting and informative. I've narrowed it down for you considerably so it won't take much time and hopefully you and others reading this will read it. I'd like to discuss it. I have some thoughts.

Trixie,

I quickly read the depo,not the whole depo,only the area which you advised to read.

Interesting ...
If I'm understanding it correctly,they have foreign DNA,that is not from JonBenet's clothing or body. Then where is this DNAX found ... and more importantly .... who's is it?

What are your thoughts?

[trixie]

Well ,I have no idea where it was found but it seems it was found after the Grand Jury disbanded.

My thought when reading it were that this DNA is FEMALE.

That's why Beckner couldn't say why it was not compared to Chris Wolfs. He said it would be getting into evidence, and so of course he couldn't and didn't have to go there. That's the only reason I can think of why unidentified DNA wouldn't have been compared to Chris Wolfs, unlike the other foreign DNA found on Jonbenets underwear and under her nails which they know is male.

If you read between the lines you'll see it in Beckners responses.

[Zman]

Here is a link to an example of evidence that we do not know about.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.txt

Scroll down to section 120 and read through section 139. Pay special attention to section 121, and 123, because that is proof we don't know all the evidence in this case.

When you have time you should read the whole depo, it's quite interesting and informative. I've narrowed it down for you considerably so it won't take much time and hopefully you and others reading this will read it. I'd like to discuss it. I have some thoughts.


Have to admit that 120-140 is as close to Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First" as you can get.

Sounds like a cop throwing out threats.
We have other DNA. Everyone worry.

[narlacat]

Here is a link to an example of evidence that we do not know about.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.txt

Scroll down to section 120 and read through section 139. Pay special attention to section 121, and 123, because that is proof we don't know all the evidence in this case.

When you have time you should read the whole depo, it's quite interesting and informative. I've narrowed it down for you considerably so it won't take much time and hopefully you and others reading this will read it. I'd like to discuss it. I have some thoughts.

It IS quite interesting and informative. Thanks for the link Trixie.
The depo's and interviews are interesting reading.

[Linda7NJ]

IMO The Ramseys are far more twisted than most give them credit for. Just how twisted, we don't know.

[Zman]

IMO The Ramseys are far more twisted than most give them credit for. Just how twisted, we don't know.
What would make you think that?
Twisted how?

[trixie]

I don't know if I would call them twisted. Well, maybe. I honestly think they were a normal happy family up until the night of Dec. 25,1996. Because of that tragedy they have had to go into CYA and cover-up mode and that makes them seem twisted because of all the bizarre things they've had to do and say. But before that I really don't see anything twisted about them. I think Patsy is spoiled rotten and used to being protected and taken care of and coddled and getting what she wants. That comes out to me in her interviews. Some of the answers she gives I'd be embarrassed about but she obviously is not because she's spoiled so it's all normal for her. (I definately can detect a huge lack of communication between Patsy and John. I don't think they talked or interacted all that much, they didn't seem to know that much about each other.)

The only kind of twisted thing I can think of before JB was killed is when Patsy said the doll in the box looked like JB in a coffin. Where was her mindset for that thought to even occur to her? I dunno, I think I would see a doll in a box.