The Grand Jury

[Nehemiah]

It has been the thoughts of some here that the GJ in the Ramsey case was used to test opinion and the political/legal waters with respect to protecting the Boulder bureaucracy.

On 10/13/1999, the Boulder grand jury wrapped up a 13-month inquiry during which it had examined 30,000 pages of testimony and evidence, bringing the $2 million investigation to an *inconclusive* finish.

Since it has been so long ago that we discussed the GJ, let's go back and remember what we used to know about it.

[Summergirl]

Well.. I do remember that Kane almost didnt let Lou Smit testify. But after he did, I honestly believe that he saved from John and Patsy being arrested for murdering JonBenet. :behindbar

What else does everyone remember?

[Zman]

Well.. I do remember that Kane almost didnt let Lou Smit testify. But after he did, I honestly believe that he saved from John and Patsy being arrested for murdering JonBenet. :behindbar

What else does everyone remember?
How did LS do this?

[Summergirl]

He pleaded to Alex Hunter and Kane to show his intruder evidence.. and finally, gave in and he was allowed to show the grand jury.

[Nehemiah]

Jeffrey Shapiro turned in the editors of the Globe to the FBI for conspiring to blackmail a police detective for sealed grand jury evidence.

There is so little that we actually know about the proceedings that it is difficult to discuss, but I was in hopes that we could start by listing out who was called before the GJ. Also, does anyone find it odd that John/Patsy themselves were not questioned?

[Summergirl]

I dont understand why they werent questioned.. I guess there are some things we will never know! :waitasec:

I guess Lou Smit showed enough evidence to the Grand Jury so they didnt have to go to the stand? I dont know.

[Nuisanceposter]

Also, does anyone find it odd that John/Patsy themselves were not questioned?
Very odd. How can you not question the people who owned the house, found the note, found the child? How can you not hear from the parents of 6 year old child found dead in her own home? They questioned Burke but not John and Patsy? Maybe I just don't know how the GJ operates...

[Nehemiah]

Very odd. How can you not question the people who owned the house, found the note, found the child? How can you not hear from the parents of 6 year old child found dead in her own home? They questioned Burke but not John and Patsy? Maybe I just don't know how the GJ operates...

My sentiments, exactly.

BlueCrab has his own reasoning on this, but he is absent.

We do know that Melinda, JAR, Burke, and yes, even Doug S testified. It seems that J/P would hold the keys to what the GJ needed to know.

[capps]

My sentiments, exactly.

BlueCrab has his own reasoning on this, but he is absent.

We do know that Melinda, JAR, Burke, and yes, even Doug S testified. It seems that J/P would hold the keys to what the GJ needed to know.

Nehemiah,

I am very perplexed as to why JR and PR weren't called.
Even if the jury thought that it was an intruder,or minors,as some posters believe,you would think,since they called in just about everyone else,they would have called the parents in,just to get their statements under oath.

This tends to make me think .... there is information out there,that we are not privy to,but I can't imagine what it is.

[narlacat]

Its true.
We do not know all the facts.
Some are being kept from us.

[Maikai]

It has been the thoughts of some here that the GJ in the Ramsey case was used to test opinion and the political/legal waters with respect to protecting the Boulder bureaucracy.

On 10/13/1999, the Boulder grand jury wrapped up a 13-month inquiry during which it had examined 30,000 pages of testimony and evidence, bringing the $2 million investigation to an *inconclusive* finish.

Since it has been so long ago that we discussed the GJ, let's go back and remember what we used to know about it.

There was no reason to call the GJ in the first place. It was only done because of Steve Thomas's resignation letter. The Governor wanted something done, because he didn't want the media hounding him.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe the Ramseys weren't called because then the police would have to turn over information they didn't want the Ramseys or their attorneys to know about.

I believe Lou Smit stopped the runaway train against the Ramseys. The DNA was a big problem. Several jurors had scientific backgrounds and advanced degrees. It's no coincidence they had the BPD running around collecting DNA. I do think the DNA was inconclusive during that time, but what they did have had the same markers as that under JBR's nails and in her panties. Amazing to me that it was just a few years ago, another blood spot was tested with more markers.

[Barbara]

John and Patsy were not called to testify because calling them would have entitled them to other statements and evidence that the authorities did not wish to share with them.

I don't know all the legalities but that is the reason they were not called.

The GJ itself was called just to keep the public quiet. There was never going to be an indictment, nor a trial. Haddon and Hunter would see to that. Money pays for innocence in Boulder also.

[Zman]

John and Patsy were not called to testify because calling them would have entitled them to other statements and evidence that the authorities did not wish to share with them.

I don't know all the legalities but that is the reason they were not called.

The GJ itself was called just to keep the public quiet. There was never going to be an indictment, nor a trial. Haddon and Hunter would see to that. Money pays for innocence in Boulder also.
Your accusing these public officials of taking bribes?
That's a pretty serious charge.
Do you have anything besides opinion to back that up.

[Brefie]

Your accusing these public officials of taking bribes?
That's a pretty serious charge.
Do you have anything besides opinion to back that up.

Ummm....I'll take a guess. The Ramseys were not arrested. Nor were they questioned for 4 months. You think that if this were a family on welfare this would happen?

However, it's not necessarily bribes that this money paid for.

[Becba]

The Ramseys would get access to all the evidence against them if they were arrested.
Perhaps if they were questioned by the GJ they might see evidence LE did not want them to know they had. LE certainly held back evidence from the public. Perhaps it was their strategy to not question the Ramseys because they wanted to save it for the trial and let loose for a conviction.
Some have reasoned LE was afraid the GJ would be sympathetic to the parents testimony.
Does anyone know if it is common for the indicted one to be called before the GJ? I am thinking that doesn't usually happen.

[capps]

John and Patsy were not called to testify because calling them would have entitled them to other statements and evidence that the authorities did not wish to share with them.

I don't know all the legalities but that is the reason they were not called.

The GJ itself was called just to keep the public quiet. There was never going to be an indictment, nor a trial. Haddon and Hunter would see to that. Money pays for innocence in Boulder also.

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
If the Ramsey's were not called,because LE did not want the Ramsey's to be privy to certain statements and evidence,that could be used at trial .... so the alternative was to not call them to the GJ,so they would not be indicted,therefore there is no trial? So what good is holding this information,if it will never be used,because there is,and probably never will be a trial? I must be missing something ... because I honestly don't get it.When will this "other" evidence that the LE has,ever be acknowledge? It must be something pretty important,for the LE wanting to hide it from the Ramsey's.

Also ... the GJ being called just to keep the public quiet ... I think that back fired also.If anything,I think the public's attention was more aroused,because the Ramsey's didn't testify.

Go figure ....

[Barbara]

Ummm....I'll take a guess. The Ramseys were not arrested. Nor were they questioned for 4 months. You think that if this were a family on welfare this would happen?

However, it's not necessarily bribes that this money paid for.

It's not a matter of bribes. Hal Haddon and Alex Hunter were very close business partners. These two shared information over breakfast every morning. Hal Haddon is one of the most, if not THE most powerful attorney in Boulder. These are FACTS.

Whether or not there were bribes or just old fashioned "good old boys" sticking together is speculative, but IMO, the corruption is absolutely blatant.

You are correct. If this family was not extremely wealthy, they would have been arrested, on trial, and very possibly sitting in prison today. You, me and certainly the family on welfare would not have had those perks, nor would they have had the powerful advocates the Ramseys had.

[Nehemiah]

This is from Judith Phillips' interview with Mary Suma. Judith was a friend to the Ramseys and friends with their friends.

JP: yeah, and as Alex Hunter's behavior and then realizing my belief that the whole, all the DA's are tied together in a conspiracy. At the helm..

Mame: a political conspiracy

JP: a political conspiracy, and Hal Haddon pulls their strings and they're all tied together. It's not anything unlike Chicago politics with Mayor Daly.

Mame: they get stuff done.

JP: right, they get stuff done. We may not like it, but

JP: yeah, yeah, right.

Mame: What is it they always say, The city that works, what did Bailey? Say to the city? To Chicago to remind them again I didn't grow up there but I spent 20 years there. But tell me, I did an interview with Bill Wise and he told me again that Alex Hunter has never met Hal Haddon. I know you weren't there to be able to confirm it.

JP: well, I find that very curious, simply because Hal Haddon had contributed to Alex Hunter's political campaign. Now..

Mame: you know that?

JP: yes, yes

Mame: cause I've gone back and looked at the years since they've been recording it and it's not there. But Hunter's reign goes back 30 years so I haven't gotten that far back yet.

JP: yeah, yeah, I believe that to be true.

[Zman]

It's not a matter of bribes. Hal Haddon and Alex Hunter were very close business partners. These two shared information over breakfast every morning. Hal Haddon is one of the most, if not THE most powerful attorney in Boulder. These are FACTS.

Whether or not there were bribes or just old fashioned "good old boys" sticking together is speculative, but IMO, the corruption is absolutely blatant.

You are correct. If this family was not extremely wealthy, they would have been arrested, on trial, and very possibly sitting in prison today. You, me and certainly the family on welfare would not have had those perks, nor would they have had the powerful advocates the Ramseys had.
Yes the "good old boys" may stick together and try to help each other when it involves affairs, gambleing, drinking, hookers and back door political deals of every kind but even the "good old boys" run from being associated with the cover up of the murder of 6 year old girls.

[capps]

Yes the "good old boys" may stick together and try to help each other when it involves affairs, gambleing, drinking, hookers and back door political deals of every kind but even the "good old boys" run from being associated with the cover up of the murder of 6 year old girls.

Good point Zman ... and a thought that I was pondering myself.

What great hold did the Ramsey's have on the political powers that be in Boulder? Certainly,the Ramsey's were wealthy,but hardly in the same arena pehaps as the Kennedy's or Donald Trump.

What did the "good ole boys" have to gain by protecting the Ramsey's? When it seems they would have alot to lose,if it ever came out in the open,that much was corrupt in the Ramsey case.

Doesn't seem worth it ... at least not for the sake of the Ramsey's.

They just weren't that important.

[Nehemiah]

I was thinking along these lines this very morning, capps.

What would the 'powers that be' have for a reason to cover up anything? Something that occurred to me is that whether the Rs are innocent/guilty, they definitely had money. Money to be made by attorneys. Perhaps Bynum saw the whole situation as a way to make money; perhaps it didn't matter if the family were involved in the murder or cover up.

Involved = money to keep them out of jail. Not involved = money to keep them out of jail. The whole affair was a money making scheme.
L Wood even bragged about how much he had made off the case.

Just a thought.

[capps]

Nehemiah,

That's always a possibility I guess ... I really just don't know.

I've always believed,there just is not enough hard facts on either side,to indict anyone.

It will either be an intruder (known or unknown) to be caught and confess,or a Ramsey to confess.

Neither will ever happen.

[Becba]

I think it has always been a move for the LE not to disclose their hand in a GJ hearing. They save evidence for the trial.

[BOESP]

My sentiments, exactly.

BlueCrab has his own reasoning on this, but he is absent.

We do know that Melinda, JAR, Burke, and yes, even Doug S testified. It seems that J/P would hold the keys to what the GJ needed to know.

I'm reviewing old messages and found the above. Does anyone know why Doug Stine testified before the Grand Jury? TIA

[Toltec]

I'm reviewing old messages and found the above. Does anyone know why Doug Stine testified before the Grand Jury? TIA

Doug Stine saw Patsy and Burke the night of JonBenet's murder.

Lou Smit was able to make his powerpoing demonstration to the grand jurors. The entire demonstration was filled with holes and downright lies.

And who's to say the grand jury chose not to indict. We only have Alex Hunter's words and my belief is that he felt there was not a slam dunk as far as evidence the Ramseys killed their daughter.You have to remember the man has not seen the inside of a court room.

[azwriter]

The Ramseys would get access to all the evidence against them if they were arrested.
Perhaps if they were questioned by the GJ they might see evidence LE did not want them to know they had. LE certainly held back evidence from the public. Perhaps it was their strategy to not question the Ramseys because they wanted to save it for the trial and let loose for a conviction.
Some have reasoned LE was afraid the GJ would be sympathetic to the parents testimony.
Does anyone know if it is common for the indicted one to be called before the GJ? I am thinking that doesn't usually happen.

You know Becba, that's a good point. I do know the GJ is not a trial so it would not be necessary for the suspects (parents) to be there. And what I'm wondering, if the session is only looking at a possible arrest and charges, why was Lou S allowed to present his theory of an intruder?
JMO

[Ames]

The Ramseys would get access to all the evidence against them if they were arrested.
Perhaps if they were questioned by the GJ they might see evidence LE did not want them to know they had. LE certainly held back evidence from the public. Perhaps it was their strategy to not question the Ramseys because they wanted to save it for the trial and let loose for a conviction.
Some have reasoned LE was afraid the GJ would be sympathetic to the parents testimony.
Does anyone know if it is common for the indicted one to be called before the GJ? I am thinking that doesn't usually happen.


You are right...it NEVER happens. That is saved for the trial. My husband has been called to testify before a Federal Grand Jury before, and the person that was being indicted was not even allowed in the building.

[Ames]

You know Becba, that's a good point. I do know the GJ is not a trial so it would not be necessary for the suspects (parents) to be there. And what I'm wondering, if the session is only looking at a possible arrest and charges, why was Lou S allowed to present his theory of an intruder?
JMO

VERY VERY good question. The GJ is only supposed to hear ONE SIDE...the accusing side, and then they decide whether or not there is enough evidence to indict or not. The rest is supposed to be saved for the trial. I believe that this is just another example of the Ramsey's being treated alot better than people that have less money than them. Alot of rules were broken....or overlooked. They were treated with KID GLOVES.

[SuperDave]

And what I'm wondering, if the session is only looking at a possible arrest and charges, why was Lou S allowed to present his theory of an intruder?

He essentially bullied them into it.

I don't see how anyone can say there was a runaway train against them. The case never got off the ground, thanks to the DA. This case is often categorized as a miscarriage of justice.

It wasn't a miscarriage.

It was an ABORTION!

[Ames]

He essentially bullied them into it.

I don't see how anyone can say there was a runaway train against them. The case never got off the ground, thanks to the DA. This case is often categorized as a miscarriage of justice.

It wasn't a miscarriage.

It was an ABORTION!


Excellent statement and extremely profound!!!! This case was aborted from the beginning....

[Rino]

Excellent statement and extremely profound!!!! This case was aborted from the beginning....
In the Susan Reinert case it took 3 GJ's to finally bring charges. Why have they decided to stop with the Ramsey case is what baffles me.

[Ames]

In the Susan Reinert case it took 3 GJ's to finally bring charges. Why have they decided to stop with the Ramsey case is what baffles me.

And me too!!...Makes absolutely no sense...

[BOESP]

And me too!!...Makes absolutely no sense...

Hi Ames,

Some old threads here also mention that if a child under ten years old was under suspicion, the Grand Jury could never disclose that information or disclose their findings that the child might have been the assailant. Colorado, apparently, has a law that protects children under ten years old from any mention of being involved in a crime.

It was an interesting discussion since it covered all the strange behavior from the Ramseys as well as the DA's department seemingly not delving into the case as they should have. It seems that if a child under ten in Colorado commits a crime, the only thing done is psychiatric counseling. All records are sealed.

I'm not sure how any leak would have been prevented except to say the threads here stated that there were severe penalties for anyone who leaked ANY information concerning a child's possible or prove able involvement.

I still tend to go with Steve Thomas's theory but I certainly found the "child involvement theory" very interesting.

[Ames]

Hi Ames,

Some old threads here also mention that if a child under ten years old was under suspicion, the Grand Jury could never disclose that information or disclose their findings that the child might have been the assailant. Colorado, apparently, has a law that protects children under ten years old from any mention of being involved in a crime.

It was an interesting discussion since it covered all the strange behavior from the Ramseys as well as the DA's department seemingly not delving into the case as they should have. It seems that if a child under ten in Colorado commits a crime, the only thing done is psychiatric counseling. All records are sealed.

I'm not sure how any leak would have been prevented except to say the threads here stated that there were severe penalties for anyone who leaked ANY information concerning a child's possible or prove able involvement.

I still tend to go with Steve Thomas's theory but I certainly found the "child involvement theory" very interesting.

Hi!

Colorado has some weird laws. I can understand a child not being mentioned if he/she is under ten year of age. Because we have that same law here, but....JB is not the one that committed the crime on herself, her parents...imo..did. This case should have gone to ten GJ...is necessary. Maybe even taken out of Boulder...if they could have.

[BOESP]

Hi!

Colorado has some weird laws. I can understand a child not being mentioned if he/she is under ten year of age. Because we have that same law here, but....JB is not the one that committed the crime on herself, her parents...imo..did. This case should have gone to ten GJ...is necessary. Maybe even taken out of Boulder...if they could have.

The old discussion here mentioned that, potentially, if Burke was involved, he would be protected under Colorado law and if so, that protection might explain the Ramseys odd behavior in all this. The discussion wasn't referring to JonBenet being protected -- I apologize for leaving the wrong impression. :slap:

There were a lot of messages talking about how Burke had never been cleared; that the DA's office said Burke wasn't a suspect (which isn't the same as being cleared). Hunter, supposedly, was caught off guard in an interview and based on Colorado law blurted out that Burke was cleared but the discussion indicated Hunter was abiding by law by making no mention of an under-ten-year-old child's possible connection.

I tend to agree with Steve Thomas's view yet the discussion about the Grand Jury and Burke was interesting reading. It made me wonder how much information was covered-up, if any, due to this law. Yet, the Grand Jury did call Burke to testify.

[Ames]

The old discussion here mentioned that, potentially, if Burke was involved, he would be protected under Colorado law and if so, that protection might explain the Ramseys odd behavior in all this. The discussion wasn't referring to JonBenet being protected -- I apologize for leaving the wrong impression. :slap:

There were a lot of messages talking about how Burke had never been cleared; that the DA's office said Burke wasn't a suspect (which isn't the same as being cleared). Hunter, supposedly, was caught off guard in an interview and based on Colorado law blurted out that Burke was cleared but the discussion indicated Hunter was abiding by law by making no mention of an under-ten-year-old child's possible connection.

I tend to agree with Steve Thomas's view yet the discussion about the Grand Jury and Burke was interesting reading. It made me wonder how much information was covered-up, if any, due to this law. Yet, the Grand Jury did call Burke to testify.

LOL, that's okay...we talked about this on another thread, and you explained it better on that one. I think that if Burke had of been involved, that the Ramsey's would have known that nothing would happen to him, so there would have been no need for a cover up. I don't believe that he had anything to do with it, either. Burke was called to testify, but I can assure you, that his lawyers or one of his families lawyers had rehearsed with him what might be asked, and what his reponse would be. BECAUSE when my husband had to testify at a GJ, the prosecution side, met with him...a day earlier, and told him what would be asked...and also told him how to answer. Does that sound fair to you? The justice system is NOT fair....I don't care what people say. He couldn't BELIEVE how the GJ system worked....he was in shock. Contrary to popular believe.....witnesses ARE told what the majority of the questions are, that will be asked...either by their own lawyers, or the proscecution side, and they actually DO rehearse what they are going to say. If their lawyer's do not know what the questions will be, they take a guess...and say..."Well, they will probably ask this, or proably ask that". But, in the case of my husband, he was a witness for the prosecution, so THEY are the ones that took him a day earlier, and went over questions with him. And they are the ONLY side that gets to present their case in front of a GJ. NO..its NOT fair!!!

[coloradokares]

And me too!!...Makes absolutely no sense...

It makes no sense because you dont know Boulder. The legacy was handed down from A. Hunter to Keenan/Lacey and the other cast of players who are still still in charge. The case was taken out of the hands of LE and given on a platter to the Office of the DA who immediately deep sixed until it until it was forced to be ressurected with the JMK farce. Business as usual in the Peoples Republic of Boulder Scoreboard reads Thomas and the People and justice 0 The good ol Boys and a few fat cats 1000. And the beat goes on .....la te da de dee ..... la te da de dah. Rythym keeps pounding music in my brain .... no insults to Sonny and Cher intended. Till that changes the beat goes on . That is just my opnion and I dont feel alone.

[Toltec]

What I am surprised about is after ten years, not one of the grand jury members leaked what was said in that courtroom.

I wanted to hear Burke's version of what happened. Am I right that grand jury members are allowed to ask the witnesses questions?

[Ames]

What I am surprised about is after ten years, not one of the grand jury members leaked what was said in that courtroom.

I wanted to hear Burke's version of what happened. Am I right that grand jury members are allowed to ask the witnesses questions?

Yep, when my husband testified before a grand jury....he was asked questions by the jury members, so I imagine that Burke was asked questions by them, too.

[DeeDee249]

What is inane about it is that with that law, if a child under 10 is involved, the crime never happened. So when the case "disappears"....it automatically points a finger at the child!

Now, is the Colorado law concerning a child if the child is GUILTY of the crime or merely INVOLVED in the crime?

[coloradokares]

What is inane about it is that with that law, if a child under 10 is involved, the crime never happened. So when the case "disappears"....it automatically points a finger at the child!

Now, is the Colorado law concerning a child if the child is GUILTY of the crime or merely INVOLVED in the crime?

Either it is moot, crazy eh?

[UKGuy]

What is inane about it is that with that law, if a child under 10 is involved, the crime never happened. So when the case "disappears"....it automatically points a finger at the child!

Now, is the Colorado law concerning a child if the child is GUILTY of the crime or merely INVOLVED in the crime?

DeeDee249,

Probably both, e.g. an innocent child witness would presumably be afforded the same protection else what is the point?


.

[BOESP]

What is inane about it is that with that law, if a child under 10 is involved, the crime never happened. So when the case "disappears"....it automatically points a finger at the child!

Now, is the Colorado law concerning a child if the child is GUILTY of the crime or merely INVOLVED in the crime?

DeeDee, I hope someone who knows can answer your question. Where I live, children are not exempt. If they are indicted, they are considered juveniles and their name is not made public, however, they still must be accountable. If the crime justifies it they can be tried as adults.

If you haven't read the old threads here by Blue Crab and the possible involvement of children in JonBenet's death, it is interesting reading.

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee, I hope someone who knows can answer your question. Where I live, children are not exempt. If they are indicted, they are considered juveniles and their name is not made public, however, they still must be accountable. If the crime justifies it they can be tried as adults.

If you haven't read the old threads here by Blue Crab and the possible involvement of children in JonBenet's death, it is interesting reading.

I lurked here for a long time, so I remember Blue Crab's posts, though I notice he is no longer here. (what happened to him, BTW?) I am familiar with his basic theories about BR's guilt in the murder of his sister and how and why his parents (and Colorado law) have protected him.

[Albert18]

The problem with BlueCrab's theory is that it made no sense. A minor issue.

The logic goes like this.

It is obvious there was no intruder. Which means one or more of the three Ramsey's who survived the night was responsible. The parents won't say what happened. The Boulder DA seems to know what happened but won't do anything. Colorado has a law that protects children under 10 from prosecution. Therefore it must have been Burke.

Because Colorado has a law protecting children under 10 and no charges were ever filed in the case, Burke must have done it. Holy Fright!

Here are the problems with the theory.

There is zero evidence linking Burke to the crime.

The Boulder DA's office has a proven track record of not doing anything against adults. The Midyette case might be a hint.

The mechanics of the crime says Burke could not have done it alone.

Physical evidence points to Patsy.

The law protects Burke but not Patsy.

If Burke or Patsy said anything, Patsy would be in trouble.

John shields Patsy but doesn't do the same with Burke. They hire the best lawyers money can buy and nobody is worried a child (a child) might undo everything? Maybe that tells us the child doesn't know anything?

I think it boils down to this. This case involves real people. Burke was just a little boy when this happened and we aren't talking about who broke a lamp. This is about the death of his sister and it is being mean and heartless to implicate him in her death unless there is evidence to suggest he was involved. Colorado having a law isn't evidence.

The fact Patsy went to her death without clearing the air so Burke could live in peace tells me all I need to know about her, although there may have been concern about John's skin. So, if John doesn't have a statement released after his death explaining what happened and giving peace to Burke, Melinda and John Andrew, then he and Patsy really are contemptible people.

Of course if John does release a statement and it only implicates Patsy, then he will be accused of protecting himself and/or Burke.

Of course if John doesn't release a statement upon his death, it would be argued he is still protecting Burke.

[BOESP]

The problem with BlueCrab's theory is that it made no sense. A minor issue.

The logic goes like this.

It is obvious there was no intruder. Which means one or more of the three Ramsey's who survived the night was responsible. The parents won't say what happened. The Boulder DA seems to know what happened but won't do anything. Colorado has a law that protects children under 10 from prosecution. Therefore it must have been Burke.

Because Colorado has a law protecting children under 10 and no charges were ever filed in the case, Burke must have done it. Holy Fright!

Here are the problems with the theory.

There is zero evidence linking Burke to the crime.

The Boulder DA's office has a proven track record of not doing anything against adults. The Midyette case might be a hint.

The mechanics of the crime says Burke could not have done it alone.

Physical evidence points to Patsy.

The law protects Burke but not Patsy.

If Burke or Patsy said anything, Patsy would be in trouble.

John shields Patsy but doesn't do the same with Burke. They hire the best lawyers money can buy and nobody is worried a child (a child) might undo everything? Maybe that tells us the child doesn't know anything?

I think it boils down to this. This case involves real people. Burke was just a little boy when this happened and we aren't talking about who broke a lamp. This is about the death of his sister and it is being mean and heartless to implicate him in her death unless there is evidence to suggest he was involved. Colorado having a law isn't evidence.

The fact Patsy went to her death without clearing the air so Burke could live in peace tells me all I need to know about her, although there may have been concern about John's skin. So, if John doesn't have a statement released after his death explaining what happened and giving peace to Burke, Melinda and John Andrew, then he and Patsy really are contemptible people.

Of course if John does release a statement and it only implicates Patsy, then he will be accused of protecting himself and/or Burke.

Of course if John doesn't release a statement upon his death, it would be argued he is still protecting Burke.

I admit the evidence, as known to the public, suggests parental involvement. However, I seriously doubt all the evidence is public. I tend to go along with Steve Thomas's theory of who killed JonBenet and how. I do appreciate you making the above points since it is always good to argue both sides of a theory.

There are those who use Lou Smit's investigation results to exclude Patsy. So, there are two sides to each coin. I don't agree with much of what Smit said, especially the part about the taser and the use of the basement window as an entry point but some do believe his analysis.

As I see it, no one on the Internet can come to a fully accurate conclusion unless they have access to all the evidence. I don't have access, so I can't state with surety what is suggested by the evidence. I think Steve Thomas is as close as we can come to someone with first-hand knowledge without an ax to grind. Some say he just wanted to be a hero, however, he had no reason to personally target Patsy unless that is where he thought the evidence led. He could have picked anyone as his suspect if he was truly just wanting to be a hero. Instead, based on evidence available to the public (including the various Ramsey videos), it suggests Thomas made an accurate assessment of what happened in this case, in my opinion.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response, Albert. I appreciate the good discussion.

[UKGuy]

I admit the evidence, as known to the public, suggests parental involvement. However, I seriously doubt all the evidence is public. I tend to go along with Steve Thomas's theory of who killed JonBenet and how. I do appreciate you making the above points since it is always good to argue both sides of a theory.



BOESP,
Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor.

Although other aspects of her staging were given attention e.g. garrote, wrist restraints, mouth gag, clean size-12 underwear, the one item pointing to a bedwetting was left ignored.

Patently the stager did not consider her urine-soaked longjohns as important evidence?

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy!

.

[coloradokares]

BOESP,
Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor.

Although other aspects of her staging were given attention e.g. garrote, wrist restraints, mouth gag, clean size-12 underwear, the one item pointing to a bedwetting was left ignored.

Patently the stager did not consider her urine-soaked longjohns as important evidence?

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy!

.

I have tossed that around for years, was Steve Thomas regarding JR as his main suspect? Therefore going through the back door trying to break Patsy. Only because I have personally heard accounts from what I consider to be impeccable sources, I have to say that those sources felt firmly that Steve Thomas at least appeared to consider Patsy as the main suspect or at the least that was how it appeared. That is not to say that John did not play any role in this. I think it'd be hard to deny he had a role in the staging. Dont we all wish we could be with Steve Thomas a few hours in a sound proof room, what I do know is there are just to many indications the situations were totally off the charts to only point towards John. The train was totally derailed, simple as it appears, I think the truth was complicated. :confused:

[BOESP]

Responses below in blue:

BOESP,
Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence. Could you be specific about what current forensic evidence you are referring to? Based on my knowledge of the case, Thomas's theory is consistent with all that is known to the public so I'd like to hear your opinion on what new evidence is against the bedwetting theory and why.

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor. Most dead people will evacuate the bladder and colon due to loss of muscle control but most bladders do not fully evacuate during natural urges. Some urine would likely remain in the bladder after normal evacuation and particularly if a bit of time passes between the discovered bed-wetting incident and the time of death. I can't discount the bedwetting theory based on the fact she was found in urine-soaked clothing. I'm not sure "soaked" is accurate either but maybe you could point to a source that indicates that. Also, could you source the info about her soiled pants being on her bathroom floor upstairs? TIA

Although other aspects of her staging were given attention e.g. garrote, wrist restraints, mouth gag, clean size-12 underwear, the one item pointing to a bedwetting was left ignored. It is possible postmortem urination could have gone unnoticed by whoever staged the scene. Hiding involuntary urination may not have been a concern of the stager but it is a possibility. If JonBenet was barely alive when taken to the basement, the staging could have been done perimortem with the stager, perhaps, thinking JonBenet was already clinically dead when in fact she was not. So, until a sequence is proved that she was dead before the staging was done I'm not comfortable saying postmortem evacuation means something that might discredit Thomas's theory.

Patently the stager did not consider her urine-soaked longjohns as important evidence? The stager may have thought she was dead when in fact she was not clinically dead (details, I hope, answered above :D).

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy! Yes, Thomas was clear that his theory was not conclusive. He was making a theory based on what he knew but leaving open the possibility, if new evidence arose, that he could be incorrect. I didn't read anything into his statements that makes me think he was padding the book.

[BOESP]

I have tossed that around for years, was Steve Thomas regarding JR as his main suspect? Therefore going through the back door trying to break Patsy. Only because I have personally heard accounts from what I consider to be impeccable sources, I have to say that those sources felt firmly that Steve Thomas at least appeared to consider Patsy as the main suspect or at the least that was how it appeared. That is not to say that John did not play any role in this. I think it'd be hard to deny he had a role in the staging. Dont we all wish we could be with Steve Thomas a few hours in a sound proof room, what I do know is there are just to many indications the situations were totally off the charts to only point towards John. The train was totally derailed, simple as it appears, I think the truth was complicated. :confused:

I have wondered the exact same thing (boldface above). I have also wondered if JonBenet may have acted defiantly about staying up a little longer to play since Burke was being allowed to do so. Maybe a family spat over her going to bed set the stage. Maybe there was pushing and shoving. Who knows. Regardless, it seems awfully far-fetched to believe an Intruder did this.

I think John Ramsey's behavior is consistent with someone who is expert at compartmentalizing. I'm also not satisfied JonBenet's death had anything to do with sexual molestation although it seems likely she was molested in some manner. I think Thomas's idea of corporal cleansing fits as well as digital penetration for sexual exploration or gratification, particularly if her mother inserted a douching tube.

[rashomon]

I have tossed that around for years, was Steve Thomas regarding JR as his main suspect? Therefore going through the back door trying to break Patsy. Only because I have personally heard accounts from what I consider to be impeccable sources, I have to say that those sources felt firmly that Steve Thomas at least appeared to consider Patsy as the main suspect or at the least that was how it appeared. That is not to say that John did not play any role in this. I think it'd be hard to deny he had a role in the staging. Dont we all wish we could be with Steve Thomas a few hours in a sound proof room, what I do know is there are just to many indications the situations were totally off the charts to only point towards John. The train was totally derailed, simple as it appears, I think the truth was complicated. :confused:
It is important to note that by the time Steve Thomas wrote his book, the underwear had not even been tested, therefore he could not have known that fibers from John's shirt had been found in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear. I'm convinced that, had ST been aware of this evidence, he would not have given John Ramsey a pass, but considered the possibility that he aided Patsy in staging the scene.
Imo ST, guided by the evidence (fibers, handwriting analysis), identified Patsy correctly as the MAIN stager of the scene, and imo it is logical to assume that the main stager of the scene was also involved in the killing.

[rashomon]

. The case never got off the ground, thanks to the DA. This case is often categorized as a miscarriage of justice.

It wasn't a miscarriage.

It was an ABORTION!
Excellent!!! Brilliantly worded, Dave. And so very true.


S. Thomas writes about one of the most unbelievable briefings of the case he sat through as Commander Beckner explained Hofstrom's grand jury parameters:
After a meeting with Hofstrom, Beckner told the BPD the DA's 'game plan':
ST, p. 276 (bold type mine):



- The grand jury might have the sole mission of helping to secure records, testimony,and evidence.
- It might not hear the entire case at all.
- It would not be used to obtain an indictment.
- And if a runaway grand jury somehow returned an indictment on its own, the DA would not be obliged to prosecute.

More info on the grand jury farce:

ST's book, hardcover ed. chapter 29, p. 275-281
chapter 31, p. 299, p. 301
chapter 36, p. 349-351

Hunter also once seems to have been involved in a deal where he secretly promised the defense attorney of Thayne Smika who had shot Sid Wells, the boyfriend of Robert Redford's daughter, that the 1983 grand jury would not indict Smika. (ST, p. 350).

What is to be expected form a DA like Hunter?

The grand jurors were probably fed case info heavily slanted toward IDI (for example, Lou Smit testified, but Steve Thomas wasn't called), and in the end coward Hunter got what he wanted: he could hide behind the grand jury's back.

jmo

[coloradokares]

Excellent!!! Brilliantly worded, Dave. And so very true.


S. Thomas writes about one of the most unbelievable briefings of the case he sat through as Commander Beckner explained Hofstrom's grand jury parameters:
After a meeting with Hofstrom, Beckner told the BPD the DA's 'game plan':
ST, p. 276 (bold type mine):



More info on the grand jury farce:

ST's book, hardcover ed. chapter 29, p. 275-281
chapter 31, p. 299, p. 301
chapter 36, p. 349-351

Hunter also once seems to have been involved in a deal where he secretly promised the defense attorney of Thayne Smika who had shot Sid Wells, the boyfriend of Robert Redford's daughter, that the 1983 grand jury would not indict Smika. (ST, p. 350).

What is to be expected form a DA like Hunter?

The grand jurors were probably fed case info heavily slanted toward IDI (for example, Lou Smit testified, but Steve Thomas wasn't called), and in the end coward Hunter got what he wanted: he could hide behind the grand jury's back.

jmo

Exactlly!

[Albert18]

The theory that Steve Thomas put forth is that something (a toileting issue) hacked Patsy off and JonBenet bore the brunt of it. What evidence doesn't support that?

Toileting issues were a major issue in JonBenet's life.

The reason the staging sucks is because you have a mom, it's the middle of the night, it's dark, she has to work by flashlight at times, she hasn't read Mind Hunter, she's working with her daughter, not a doll, and she's working alone.

The staging was said to be overdone and clumsy. Read the above paragraph again and you can see why.

[UKGuy]

Responses below in blue:

BOESP,
Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence. Could you be specific about what current forensic evidence you are referring to? Based on my knowledge of the case, Thomas's theory is consistent with all that is known to the public so I'd like to hear your opinion on what new evidence is against the bedwetting theory and why.

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor. Most dead people will evacuate the bladder and colon due to loss of muscle control but most bladders do not fully evacuate during natural urges. Some urine would likely remain in the bladder after normal evacuation and particularly if a bit of time passes between the discovered bed-wetting incident and the time of death. I can't discount the bedwetting theory based on the fact she was found in urine-soaked clothing. I'm not sure "soaked" is accurate either but maybe you could point to a source that indicates that. Also, could you source the info about her soiled pants being on her bathroom floor upstairs? TIA

Although other aspects of her staging were given attention e.g. garrote, wrist restraints, mouth gag, clean size-12 underwear, the one item pointing to a bedwetting was left ignored. It is possible postmortem urination could have gone unnoticed by whoever staged the scene. Hiding involuntary urination may not have been a concern of the stager but it is a possibility. If JonBenet was barely alive when taken to the basement, the staging could have been done perimortem with the stager, perhaps, thinking JonBenet was already clinically dead when in fact she was not. So, until a sequence is proved that she was dead before the staging was done I'm not comfortable saying postmortem evacuation means something that might discredit Thomas's theory.

Patently the stager did not consider her urine-soaked longjohns as important evidence? The stager may have thought she was dead when in fact she was not clinically dead (details, I hope, answered above ).

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy! Yes, Thomas was clear that his theory was not conclusive. He was making a theory based on what he knew but leaving open the possibility, if new evidence arose, that he could be incorrect. I didn't read anything into his statements that makes me think he was padding the book.


BOESP,

I can't discount the bedwetting theory based on the fact she was found in urine-soaked clothing. I'm not sure "soaked" is accurate either but maybe you could point to a source that indicates that.

JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Report:

There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red
and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over
the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath
the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the
words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine
stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas
of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.



Could you be specific about what current forensic evidence you are referring to?

I already did: The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor. When JonBenet was placed into the wine-cellar she was wrapped in the white blankets, if she was sexually assaulted either digitally or by the paintbrush, or her underwear was replaced by the size-12's, it would be obvious that her clothing was urine-soaked? This lack of attention to this staging detail contrasts with other items, not least the wiped clean flashlight. The reference to the soiled pants is in one of the interviews.


Hiding involuntary urination may not have been a concern of the stager but it is a possibility. If JonBenet was barely alive when taken to the basement, the staging could have been done perimortem with the stager, perhaps, thinking JonBenet was already clinically dead when in fact she was not. So, until a sequence is proved that she was dead before the staging was done I'm not comfortable saying postmortem evacuation means something that might discredit Thomas's theory.

If JonBenet had wet the bed there would be nothing left to contribute towards a postmortem release! That the crime-scene was staged, and the stager ignored elements of the alleged original motivating factors, e.g. either the urine soaked longjohns, or the soiled pants, both indicate a prior toileting incident. These are inconsistent with the stagers desire to remove incriminating forensic evidence ie were her size-6's removed because they were urine-soaked or soiled too?


Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy! Yes, Thomas was clear that his theory was not conclusive. He was making a theory based on what he knew but leaving open the possibility, if new evidence arose, that he could be incorrect. I didn't read anything into his statements that makes me think he was padding the book.

With the case still open and unresolved, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to work out that Steve Thomas is not going to tell the Ramsey's what his No. 1 theory is, so he simply iterates over theories already discussed and probably discounted, since none of the theories discussed are wholly supported by the forensic evidence, and as already mentioned his bedwetting theory as it stands is currently inconsistent.




.

[coloradokares]

BOESP,

JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Report:



I already did: The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor. When JonBenet was placed into the wine-cellar she was wrapped in the white blankets, if she was sexually assaulted either digitally or by the paintbrush, or her underwear was replaced by the size-12's, it would be obvious that her clothing was urine-soaked? This lack of attention to this staging detail contrasts with other items, not least the wiped clean flashlight. The reference to the soiled pants is in one of the interviews.


If JonBenet had wet the bed there would be nothing left to contribute towards a postmortem release! That the crime-scene was staged, and the stager ignored elements of the alleged original motivating factors, e.g. either the urine soaked longjohns, or the soiled pants, both indicate a prior toileting incident. These are inconsistent with the stagers desire to remove incriminating forensic evidence ie were her size-6's removed because they were urine-soaked or soiled too?


With the case still open and unresolved, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to work out that Steve Thomas is not going to tell the Ramsey's what his No. 1 theory is, so he simply iterates over theories already discussed and probably discounted, since none of the theories discussed are wholly supported by the forensic evidence, and as already mentioned his bedwetting theory as it stands is currently inconsistent.




.
There are times I wish I could say more, make a few introductions, however the Patsy lost it theory isnt dead , discarded or considered to be disproved at least not in Boulder.

[DeeDee249]

The soiled panties that were seen in a crime scene photo on the floor of JBR's room (or bathroom) were inside a pair of pants, which were also described as soiled. We haven't seen THAT photo, but there is reference to it in PR's interview where LE is showing her that photo and asking her about it. I do not recall if the pants were the black velvet pants she wore to the White's, but if they were, and if PR discovered them solied upon return from Christmas dinner, that would surely be a trigger for the events that followed.

As far as the post-mortem urine release, it is possible that it occured after she was wrapped in the blanket and left in the basement. Though this release occurs right after death at primary flaccidity, JBR may have been THOUGHT dead but not YET dead when she was left there. The stagers may not have known it happened. However I have not seen any mention of the white blanket having urine stains, so this has to be considered when exploring this theory. The autopsy report states the long johns were stained on the ANTERIOR (front) of the legs and crotch, so this means she was lying on her stomach when she voided. However, she was allegedly found on her BACK in the wineceller. If we had only JR as witness to this, it could be suspect, but FW was there too and saw the body in situ in the room. I think if she had been found otherwise, he would have said it, because he did tell LE he had looked in the room earlier and didn't see the body. Now, if JBR had been left dead on her stomach, livor mortis patterns would indicate that, as well as indicating if she'd been moved after death. The livor patterns were non-blanching (fixed) and so from that we can infer she either died on her back or was placed on her back within 30 minutes of death (when livor begins).
Urine STAINED (as the autopsy states) is not the same as urine SOAKED but we have to remember that the autopsy took place the morning of December 27th, well over 24 hours after death and certainly long enough for the garments to dry. When he first arrived to pronounce her dead, the coroner made no comment about the clothes being wet or dry.
As far as the release of the contents of the bowel, this occurs after death only when the fecal matter is ready to be excreted, and then is emptied when the sphincter muscle relaxes at death. In JBR's case, this did not happen, as the soft green fecal matter noted in the autopsy was found in her intestines. This represented whatever she ate at the White's and the previous meals Christmas Day. The pineapple, being the last thing she ate before death, was still in the small intestine and still partially identifiable.

[UKGuy]

The soiled panties that were seen in a crime scene photo on the floor of JBR's room (or bathroom) were inside a pair of pants, which were also described as soiled. We haven't seen THAT photo, but there is reference to it in PR's interview where LE is showing her that photo and asking her about it. I do not recall if the pants were the black velvet pants she wore to the White's, but if they were, and if PR discovered them solied upon return from Christmas dinner, that would surely be a trigger for the events that followed.

As far as the post-mortem urine release, it is possible that it occured after she was wrapped in the blanket and left in the basement. Though this release occurs right after death at primary flaccidity, JBR may have been THOUGHT dead but not YET dead when she was left there. The stagers may not have known it happened. However I have not seen any mention of the white blanket having urine stains, so this has to be considered when exploring this theory. The autopsy report states the long johns were stained on the ANTERIOR (front) of the legs and crotch, so this means she was lying on her stomach when she voided. However, she was allegedly found on her BACK in the wineceller. If we had only JR as witness to this, it could be suspect, but FW was there too and saw the body in situ in the room. I think if she had been found otherwise, he would have said it, because he did tell LE he had looked in the room earlier and didn't see the body. Now, if JBR had been left dead on her stomach, livor mortis patterns would indicate that, as well as indicating if she'd been moved after death. The livor patterns were non-blanching (fixed) and so from that we can infer she either died on her back or was placed on her back within 30 minutes of death (when livor begins).
Urine STAINED (as the autopsy states) is not the same as urine SOAKED but we have to remember that the autopsy took place the morning of December 27th, well over 24 hours after death and certainly long enough for the garments to dry. When he first arrived to pronounce her dead, the coroner made no comment about the clothes being wet or dry.
As far as the release of the contents of the bowel, this occurs after death only when the fecal matter is ready to be excreted, and then is emptied when the sphincter muscle relaxes at death. In JBR's case, this did not happen, as the soft green fecal matter noted in the autopsy was found in her intestines. This represented whatever she ate at the White's and the previous meals Christmas Day. The pineapple, being the last thing she ate before death, was still in the small intestine and still partially identifiable.

DeeDee249,
From memory her black velvet pants were in her bedroom.


if PR discovered them solied upon return from Christmas dinner, that would surely be a trigger for the events that followed.

So why was this evidence not removed like other items?


The autopsy report states the long johns were stained on the ANTERIOR (front) of the legs and crotch, so this means she was lying on her stomach when she voided. However, she was allegedly found on her BACK in the wineceller.

The size-12 underwear were also urine-stained, also it is possible that when JonBenet was redressed in the white longjohns that they were placed on her back to front?

It is more likely that not that the urine-staining represents a post-mortem release, so when was JonBenet redressed and does her acute sexual trauma indicate that to inflict this trauma that her then urine-soaked clothing was ignored, since if it was missed by the eye then the nose could not fail to notice?



.

[Albert18]

Dr. Wright said JonBenet's bladder appeared to be emptied beyond the point that it would empty at the time of death. I assume he is suggesting JonBenet didn't have any urine release at the time of the death but had emtied her bladder sometime before she died.

Water does transfer. If you wet your pants and then sit on a cloth chair, the cloth chair will have a urine stain. That doesn't mean you wet your pants while sitting in the chair.

It seems to me the staging only says two things. Somebody tried to create acts that could be blamed on an intruder and JonBenet was left in a condition that point towards a family member and not a cold blooded killer. I don't see anything to suggest the staging was done to hide anything.

[BOESP]

...

With the case still open and unresolved, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to work out that Steve Thomas is not going to tell the Ramsey's what his No. 1 theory is, so he simply iterates over theories already discussed and probably discounted, since none of the theories discussed are wholly supported by the forensic evidence, and as already mentioned his bedwetting theory as it stands is currently inconsistent.

I don't agree UKGuy since the autopsy does not indicate JonBenet was "soaked" as you say since, in my view, "urine stained" does not necessarily mean "soaked."

I am not a brain surgeon, however, unless Steve Thomas tells me otherwise, I have no reason to believe he's changed his mind about what he said in his book, particularly since his last public statement was he stands by what he said in the book. I don't see what you are seeing (or not seeing) since what is known publicly supports Thomas's theory.

Incidentally, brain surgeons don't necessarily make good detectives. :D

[BOESP]

The theory that Steve Thomas put forth is that something (a toileting issue) hacked Patsy off and JonBenet bore the brunt of it. What evidence doesn't support that?

Toileting issues were a major issue in JonBenet's life.

The reason the staging sucks is because you have a mom, it's the middle of the night, it's dark, she has to work by flashlight at times, she hasn't read Mind Hunter, she's working with her daughter, not a doll, and she's working alone.

The staging was said to be overdone and clumsy. Read the above paragraph again and you can see why.

I'd like an answer to the above question in bold too. UKGuy's answer just doesn't do it for me. I think perhaps the person who did read Mindhuter came by afterwards and helped rearrange the staging or maybe not.

[BOESP]

There are times I wish I could say more, make a few introductions, however the Patsy lost it theory isnt dead , discarded or considered to be disproved at least not in Boulder.

I don't discount it either and I've never been to Colorado, let alone Boulder. :D

[Ames]

The soiled panties that were seen in a crime scene photo on the floor of JBR's room (or bathroom) were inside a pair of pants, which were also described as soiled. We haven't seen THAT photo, but there is reference to it in PR's interview where LE is showing her that photo and asking her about it. I do not recall if the pants were the black velvet pants she wore to the White's, but if they were, and if PR discovered them solied upon return from Christmas dinner, that would surely be a trigger for the events that followed.

As far as the post-mortem urine release, it is possible that it occured after she was wrapped in the blanket and left in the basement. Though this release occurs right after death at primary flaccidity, JBR may have been THOUGHT dead but not YET dead when she was left there. The stagers may not have known it happened. However I have not seen any mention of the white blanket having urine stains, so this has to be considered when exploring this theory. The autopsy report states the long johns were stained on the ANTERIOR (front) of the legs and crotch, so this means she was lying on her stomach when she voided. However, she was allegedly found on her BACK in the wineceller. If we had only JR as witness to this, it could be suspect, but FW was there too and saw the body in situ in the room. I think if she had been found otherwise, he would have said it, because he did tell LE he had looked in the room earlier and didn't see the body. Now, if JBR had been left dead on her stomach, livor mortis patterns would indicate that, as well as indicating if she'd been moved after death. The livor patterns were non-blanching (fixed) and so from that we can infer she either died on her back or was placed on her back within 30 minutes of death (when livor begins).
Urine STAINED (as the autopsy states) is not the same as urine SOAKED but we have to remember that the autopsy took place the morning of December 27th, well over 24 hours after death and certainly long enough for the garments to dry. When he first arrived to pronounce her dead, the coroner made no comment about the clothes being wet or dry.
As far as the release of the contents of the bowel, this occurs after death only when the fecal matter is ready to be excreted, and then is emptied when the sphincter muscle relaxes at death. In JBR's case, this did not happen, as the soft green fecal matter noted in the autopsy was found in her intestines. This represented whatever she ate at the White's and the previous meals Christmas Day. The pineapple, being the last thing she ate before death, was still in the small intestine and still partially identifiable.

The pants that were found with the soiled panties, were the ones that she wore that day to play in, not the ones that she wore to the White's, and they were found on her bedroom floor.

[Ames]

I'd like an answer to the above question in bold too. UKGuy's answer just doesn't do it for me. I think perhaps the person who did read Mindhuter came by afterwards and helped rearrange the staging or maybe not.

I think that the person that read Mindhunter came by afterwards and helped arrange the staging....have you ever read any passages from Mindhunter? I posted some of them on a thread here, a few days ago...and its WAY to much of a coincidence that alot of the book was about staging, and that book was found on John's nightstand....and his daughter was found dead in the basement, and the crime scene had been staged. That is just way too much of a coincidence in my book. I don't know if he referred back to the book, of if he had just recently read it, and he remembered what it said. Regardless....it was HIS book, and it was on HIS nightstand, and it was about STAGING. There is no question in my mind that John was involved in the staging. None at all...

[BOESP]

I think that the person that read Mindhunter came by afterwards and helped arrange the staging....have you ever read any passages from Mindhunter? I posted some of them on a thread here, a few days ago...and its WAY to much of a coincidence that alot of the book was about staging, and that book was found on John's nightstand....and his daughter was found dead in the basement, and the crime scene had been staged. That is just way too much of a coincidence in my book. I don't know if he referred back to the book, of if he had just recently read it, and he remembered what it said. Regardless....it was HIS book, and it was on HIS nightstand, and it was about STAGING. There is no question in my mind that John was involved in the staging. None at all...

Yes, I've read Mindhunter.

The problem, as I see it, is there is no way to determine beyond a reasonable doubt which person was responsible for JonBenet's death. I do not think an Intruder did it. I think Steve Thomas presented the most accurate theory and certainly had more access to first-hand facts of the case.

[Ames]

Yes, I've read Mindhunter.

The problem, as I see it, is there is no way to determine beyond a reasonable doubt which person was responsible for JonBenet's death. I do not think an Intruder did it. I think Steve Thomas presented the most accurate theory and certainly had more access to first-hand facts of the case.

I agree. I think that Patsy delivered....accidently....the intitial blow to the head. I don't think that it was John that did it. But, I believe that he was in on the staging from the beginning...I think that it was him that carried her to the basement....Patsy was not a very big woman, and I just don't think that she would have had the strength...she had been fighting cancer, and even though she was in remission at the time, I just don't see her as gaining all of her strength back, and enough to carry JB all the way down to the basement, without both of them taking a tumble. THAT and the fact that John's shirt fibers were found on JB's crotch area.

[coloradokares]

I don't discount it either and I've never been to Colorado, let alone Boulder. :D

Well come on out. There is no way to describe the feeling of standing there wanting the house to cry out and give up any secrets it may hold. I remember driving by there as we have friends that live near there we have to drive by to go to their home. I saw Jon Benet just a few times we all knew her from the press shed get regarding the pagents or such and her Dad being the owner Access Graphics and Business man of the year etc. Tragic most tragic. Boulder iitself was outraged and stunned at the handling of the matter. .

[Squishified]

Well come on out. There is no way to describe the feeling of standing there wanting the house to cry out and give up any secrets it may hold. I remember driving by there as we have friends that live near there we have to drive by to go to their home. I saw Jon Benet just a few times we all knew her from the press shed get regarding the pagents or such and her Dad being the owner Access Graphics and Business man of the year etc. Tragic most tragic. Boulder iitself was outraged and stunned at the handling of the matter. .

ck,
Since the Karr fiasco, has there been any further investigation to finally solve this case? You'd think they'd want to redeem themselves after the John Karr thing. Curious if you've heard anything public from Mary Lacy and her team.
And thank you for all the information you've given us sleuthers. I have been reading here since the death of Patsy Ramsey (which is when I stumbled across Webslueths) and I have enjoyed all your posts.:blowkiss:

[Toltec]

The soiled pants found on the floor inside out belonged to JonBenet. I would assume those are the pants she wore during the day before being told to dress for the trip to the Whites.

According to LHP Patsy and the kids would leave their clothes where they took them off. So JonBenet was getting undressed in her bathroom and like all six-year-olds would place their hand on the bathroom counter and take their pants off using their feet, hence the pants being inside out. I would assume JonBenet, if left to her own devices would put on her black velvet pants without changing her panties. She wears soiled panties to the Whites.

At this point, JonBenet comes out of her bathroom and there is Mommy holding the red turtleneck. She puts it on JonBenet, A defiant JonBenet goes into her bathroom, removes the red turtleneck, balls it up and throws it on the counter. She then proceeds to put her white Gap top and black vest on.

My belief is that Patsy did not know JonBenet had soiled her panties until she took her to the toilet the night of her murder.

[coloradokares]

ck,
Since the Karr fiasco, has there been any further investigation to finally solve this case? You'd think they'd want to redeem themselves after the John Karr thing. Curious if you've heard anything public from Mary Lacy and her team.
And thank you for all the information you've given us sleuthers. I have been reading here since the death of Patsy Ramsey (which is when I stumbled across Webslueths) and I have enjoyed all your posts.:blowkiss:
Nothing out of the DA office that I am aware of but the one time interest immediately following the Karr thing that the Department of Homeland Security that seemed to have expressed interest in the release of Karr. I do not waste my time chasing Karr. This is only my opinion but after the anniversary of Jon Benets death we held out hope that our new Governor would do something. To date, this seems at least, on a low priority list. :( Dont think that Boulder citizens dont care. They claim the case is active. I am sure you would agree the activity on this case is astoundning. Well how do you locate phantom intruders, or for that matter DNA that appears to have been artifact, or unrelated. I hear occasionaly someone parade out that new andvances in DNA have produced more markers but I never see the evidence that is true or that it would change a thing 10 years and not a single hit . I am not holding my breath. I think this is solved not prosecuted. I wish I could say different. I think this case needs a clean sweep, a renewed priority for truth and a new Grand Jury. Id love to see this matter get moved to Denver or anywhere with orders to indict and bring to trial. JMHO

[Albert18]

Is it possible the original underwear JonBenet was wearing that night was rinsed out, dried, and put back in a drawer? Wasn't there a washer and a dryer in the basement? Maybe the "intruder" was doing laundry while writing the ransom note.

Is it possible the oversized underwear was purchased for wearing over a pullup/diaper or would they still be too big?

[Nuisanceposter]

It's possible the oversized underwear were meant to cover up pull-ups, but according to both Patsy and LHP, JonBenet was only dressed in pull-ups for bed, and there would be no point in covering up a pull-up with cotton unders if all she's doing is sleeping. You know? There's no reason to wear both when she's just going to be in bed - the sheets don't care. Again, according to Patsy and LHP (because imo Patsy alone is not credible), JB didn't use the pull-ups every night anyway, but they were being packed for use on the Disney cruise.

And I still think they'd've been too big to just be a pretty cover over a pull-up - they bagged down to her knees. Not just past her crotch a little, but down to her knees.

Even if they'd been purchased to cover pull-ups, the night JB was killed was the first night she ever wore a pair, and they weren't in her drawers with all of her other pairs of underwear. So who got them to put on her, and where was the rest of the package both before and after that one pair was put on her?

[UKGuy]

It's possible the oversized underwear were meant to cover up pull-ups, but according to both Patsy and LHP, JonBenet was only dressed in pull-ups for bed, and there would be no point in covering up a pull-up with cotton unders if all she's doing is sleeping. You know? There's no reason to wear both when she's just going to be in bed - the sheets don't care. Again, according to Patsy and LHP (because imo Patsy alone is not credible), JB didn't use the pull-ups every night anyway, but they were being packed for use on the Disney cruise.

And I still think they'd've been too big to just be a pretty cover over a pull-up - they bagged down to her knees. Not just past her crotch a little, but down to her knees.

Even if they'd been purchased to cover pull-ups, the night JB was killed was the first night she ever wore a pair, and they weren't in her drawers with all of her other pairs of underwear. So who got them to put on her, and where was the rest of the package both before and after that one pair was put on her?

Nuisanceposter,
Possibly more importantly just how does JonBenet being discovered wearing size-12 underwear square with the parents version that she was placed sleeping into bed, wearing the same underwear she wore to the White's?


.

[UKGuy]

Is it possible the original underwear JonBenet was wearing that night was rinsed out, dried, and put back in a drawer? Wasn't there a washer and a dryer in the basement? Maybe the "intruder" was doing laundry while writing the ransom note.

Is it possible the oversized underwear was purchased for wearing over a pullup/diaper or would they still be too big?

Albert18,

Is it possible the oversized underwear was purchased for wearing over a pullup/diaper or would they still be too big?
Nope Patsy is on record stating that they were purchased as a gift for a niece, a set of size-6 day-of-the-week underwear was purchased for JonBenet at the same time.

.

[UKGuy]

I don't agree UKGuy since the autopsy does not indicate JonBenet was "soaked" as you say since, in my view, "urine stained" does not necessarily mean "soaked."

I am not a brain surgeon, however, unless Steve Thomas tells me otherwise, I have no reason to believe he's changed his mind about what he said in his book, particularly since his last public statement was he stands by what he said in the book. I don't see what you are seeing (or not seeing) since what is known publicly supports Thomas's theory.

Incidentally, brain surgeons don't necessarily make good detectives. :D

BOESP,
We shall just have to agree to disagree then.

Urine-stained longjohns and underwear in my estimation add up to a postmortem urine release of some kind.

Why place clean size-12's on JonBenet and ignore the urine-stained longjohns?

If JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to being placed into the wine-cellar why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?

When JonBenet was wrapped in those white blankets why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?

When JonBenet was wiped down, why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?

Why were her size-6 underwear removed, and the flashlight wiped clean?

So a crime-scene was constructed removing evidence of a homicide yet her killer left evidence of the initiating factor on JonBenet in the form of urine-stained longjohns and underwear, and soiled pants upstairs in her bathroom. This is inconsistent with Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory.


.

[BOESP]

BOESP,
We shall just have to agree to disagree then.

Urine-stained longjohns and underwear in my estimation add up to a postmortem urine release of some kind.

Why place clean size-12's on JonBenet and ignore the urine-stained longjohns?

If JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to being placed into the wine-cellar why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?

When JonBenet was wrapped in those white blankets why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?

When JonBenet was wiped down, why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?



.

As I said, I don't equate the word "stained" as meaning "soaked" and if she was not clinically dead when wiped and when other staging was performed she would not have had postmortem release until she was clinically dead. Being dead and someone else thinking you are dead are two different matters, imo. I thought I explained this but guess I was not clear. We may not agree but it isn't because what I said in th earlier post was not correct. :innocent:

[rashomon]

BOESP,
We shall just have to agree to disagree then.

Urine-stained longjohns and underwear in my estimation add up to a postmortem urine release of some kind.

Why place clean size-12's on JonBenet and ignore the urine-stained longjohns?

If JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to being placed into the wine-cellar why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?

When JonBenet was wrapped in those white blankets why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?

When JonBenet was wiped down, why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored?


Imo the longjohns were put on her together with the oversized Bloomies.

[UKGuy]

As I said, I don't equate the word "stained" as meaning "soaked" and if she was not clinically dead when wiped and when other staging was performed she would not have had postmortem release until she was clinically dead. Being dead and someone else thinking you are dead are two different matters, imo. I thought I explained this but guess I was not clear. We may not agree but it isn't because what I said in th earlier post was not correct. :innocent:

BOESP,

Sure, but you fail to address the main issue, why in the context of a Toilet Rage incident, does the killer leave JonBenet wearing urine-stained clothing?

The whole point of the staging was to avoid detection and to deflect attention away from the initial cause.

This was not done, and conflicts with the asumption that a toileting incident was the causal factor.


.

[UKGuy]

Imo the longjohns were put on her together with the oversized Bloomies.

rashomon,

You may be correct, particularly if it can be shown that the size-12's were not stained by osmosis?

Given Patsy's explanation regarding JonBenet and the size-12's I suspect it was her that placed them upon her?

Remember that stuff about the blood stains not matching to her underwear?

Was a prior sexual assault being cleaned up here?

.

[BOESP]

BOESP,

Sure, but you fail to address the main issue, why in the context of a Toilet Rage incident, does the killer leave JonBenet wearing urine-stained clothing?

The whole point of the staging was to avoid detection and to deflect attention away from the initial cause.

This was not done, and conflicts with the asumption that a toileting incident was the causal factor.


.

I have already answered twice. I agree with Steve Thomas - the evidence as known to the public does not discount a bedwetting rage. The postmortem release is an entirely separate incident, in my opinion. It is likely the killer thought she was dead and she was not. I'm not spending more time explaining something that I think many of the posters here already understand. We'll just agree to disagree. :dance:

[Ames]

The soiled pants found on the floor inside out belonged to JonBenet. I would assume those are the pants she wore during the day before being told to dress for the trip to the Whites.

According to LHP Patsy and the kids would leave their clothes where they took them off. So JonBenet was getting undressed in her bathroom and like all six-year-olds would place their hand on the bathroom counter and take their pants off using their feet, hence the pants being inside out. I would assume JonBenet, if left to her own devices would put on her black velvet pants without changing her panties. She wears soiled panties to the Whites.

At this point, JonBenet comes out of her bathroom and there is Mommy holding the red turtleneck. She puts it on JonBenet, A defiant JonBenet goes into her bathroom, removes the red turtleneck, balls it up and throws it on the counter. She then proceeds to put her white Gap top and black vest on.

My belief is that Patsy did not know JonBenet had soiled her panties until she took her to the toilet the night of her murder.

The soiled pants and panties found on JB's floor are ones that she had wore Christmas day, to play in....according to Patsy.

[Ames]

Is it possible the original underwear JonBenet was wearing that night was rinsed out, dried, and put back in a drawer? Wasn't there a washer and a dryer in the basement? Maybe the "intruder" was doing laundry while writing the ransom note.

Is it possible the oversized underwear was purchased for wearing over a pullup/diaper or would they still be too big?

Yes, there was a washer and dryer in the basement, and I believe that's where the white blanket, that she was found wrapped in, was. And I also believe that the nightgown that was found beside of her, had also been in the dryer, and came out with the blanket, either by static cling, or was balled up inside the blanket...that happens to me all the time, when I wash a blanket or sheets, there is ALWAYS something balled up inside of it, when I take it out of the dryer. And yes, that is possible that the original panties were being washed and dried and put up.

[Ames]

As I said, I don't equate the word "stained" as meaning "soaked" and if she was not clinically dead when wiped and when other staging was performed she would not have had postmortem release until she was clinically dead. Being dead and someone else thinking you are dead are two different matters, imo. I thought I explained this but guess I was not clear. We may not agree but it isn't because what I said in th earlier post was not correct. :innocent:

I agree. She could have still been alive, but unconscious when she was wiped down and the clean undies were put on her. At that point, all they had on their minds, was removing evidence. I believe that she was obviously still alive, although I don't believe that her parents thought so, when the paintbrush was inserted. She bled, they had second thoughts, so the cleaned her up and placed the clean undies on her. AFTER that, IMO...came the garotting, which finished her off..so to speak. And THAT is when the postmortem release happened. That's why the long johns were overlooked...there was no urine on them at the time of the wiping down. I believe that they were so concerned with removing evidence that would point to them, fingerprints..etc...that they forgot the soiled pants in JB's bedroom. They probably didn't even go back into her room, after taking her down to the basement....they were too concerned with wiping her down, and wiping the flashlight down, and writing a RN. They probably didn't give those pants on the floor of her room, a second thought, because actually even though it had to do with soiling....it had nothing to do with Steve Thomas' theory. Bedwetting, and soiling the pants during the day, are two different things. Patsy got angry because she was tired, had to get up early the next morning, and JB WET THE BED....AGAIN. That wouldn't have anything to do with soiled pants on the bedroom floor...IMO..and thats why they weren't even given a second thought. And they could have been soiled not because she pooped in them, but..because she just didn't know how to wipe very well. And besides, they thought that they had their tracks covered, so why would would anyone have even suspected a bedwetting incident causing Patsy's rage that killed JB....when they had a RN, saying that an intruder did it?

[Ames]

Imo the longjohns were put on her together with the oversized Bloomies.

HMMMM...now there is a thought, good point. I know that in Patsy's interview, the interviewer (I can't remember who asked the question)....asked her WHY she chose long johns to put on her to sleep in, he apparently thought it was odd too. And Patsy's reply was that she was looking for pajama bottoms, but that was all that she could find. I have ALWAYS thought that it was weird that she would have chose long johns...to place on a sleeping child, that she didn't want to wake up...those things are like trying to put on pantyhose, they are so tight. So, what you are saying makes sense to me.

[DeeDee249]

I don't know if there is a way to tell if the panties were urine-stained by osmosis (being put on her to replace possible blood-stained and urine-soaked size 6 panties, and then having the still-wet long johns pulled up over the clean panties) OR if they were wet at the same time. We already know that the autopsy showed residue of blood on her thighs, in sufficient quantity to require wiping down of the area, which the autopsy indicated had been done because fibers were found on her pubic area. I believe that the size 12s were put on her after the sexual assault and the wiping of her pubic and thigh area, then the long johns, which at that point were clean. Then the rest of the staging was completed, she was left wrapped in the white blanket, and then after she was left for dead, she then DID finally die and the post-mortem urine release occured, unbeknownst to anyone. The basement activities were done in the dark, with a flashlight. The pink nightgown wouldn't have been noticed.
Does anyone know if any mention was ever made about the white blanket having urine on it? JBR was brought up from the basement without it, and I don't believe it went to the morgue with her.

[Ames]

I don't know if there is a way to tell if the panties were urine-stained by osmosis (being put on her to replace possible blood-stained and urine-soaked size 6 panties, and then having the still-wet long johns pulled up over the clean panties) OR if they were wet at the same time. We already know that the autopsy showed residue of blood on her thighs, in sufficient quantity to require wiping down of the area, which the autposy also indicated was done because fibers were found. I believe that the size 12s were put on her after the sexual assault and the wiping of her pubic and thigh area, then the long johns, which at that point were clean. Then the rest of the staging was completed, she was left wrapped in the white blanket, and then after she was left for dead, she then DID finally die and the post-mortem urine release occured, unbeknownst to anyone. The basement activities were done in the dark, with a flashlight. The pink nightgown wouldn't have been noticed.
Does anyone know if any mention was ever made about the white blanket having urine on it? JBR was brought up from the basement without it, and I don't believe it went to the morgue with her.

I have never read before, that the blanket had urine on it. I did a search, and I came up with nothing. So, to my knowledge, the blanket did NOT have urine on it. Now how urine could get on her long johns, but not on the blanket, I have no clue. I have read that it wasn't much urine....and I also read that the reason for this was probably because she had already emptied her bladder, beforehand....(this could possibly be when she wet the bed?)....so, if it wasn't much, then it was just enough to wet the longjohns, but not enough to soak through to the blanket.

I want to add that....JB was a bedwetter....that's a known fact. John supposedly brought a sleeping JB upstairs and placed her in the bed, Patsy changed her clothes....and she was never awaken that night, to be taken to use the bathroom. So, it stands to reason...that because of this...she wet the bed that night. (And if she was ZONKED OUT...as Patsy describes her, when she was put into bed, then you know that she isn't going to wake up on her own, and go to the bathroom during the night). AND THAT is the reason that I believe that the blanket did not get wet from urine....she had emptied her bladder when she wet the bed, so...when she had her post mortem release, there wasn't much in there to be released...just enough to wet her long johns...I don't believe that they were soaked through...or else the blanket would have gotten wet too.

[DeeDee249]

The pants that were found with the soiled panties, were the ones that she wore that day to play in, not the ones that she wore to the White's, and they were found on her bedroom floor.


Thanks, Ames- I hadn't remembered that.
As far as the long johns being put on her back to front, I think the coroner would have mentioned that, BUT IF he were unfamiliar with little girl's long johns, (as opposed to boys' which have a fly front and therefore easy to tell back from front) he may not have noticed it.
Although, my daughter had thermal underwear like that, and it was pretty form-fitting. There was a definite "bump" for the derriere, and if they were on backwards, they would pull at the rear and sag at the front.

[UKGuy]

HMMMM...now there is a thought, good point. I know that in Patsy's interview, the interviewer (I can't remember who asked the question)....asked her WHY she chose long johns to put on her to sleep in, he apparently thought it was odd too. And Patsy's reply was that she was looking for pajama bottoms, but that was all that she could find. I have ALWAYS thought that it was weird that she would have chose long johns...to place on a sleeping child, that she didn't want to wake up...those things are like trying to put on pantyhose, they are so tight. So, what you are saying makes sense to me.

Ames,

Yes it is one of those subtle aspects of the case, that until you accept that the parents accounts were inconsistent and at times contradictory, that does all that rhetoric about not being able to find her pajama bottoms, which were under her pillow all the time, make sense.

One implication is was JonBenet wearing her black velvet pants when killed, and were these then removed?

Is it possible that matters are actually reversed, that JonBenet dressed in her barbie-gown, size-6 underwear and no socks, was the victim of a sexual assault?

So what's the big deal regarding her size-6's that they have to vanish? It cannot be a toilet incident since her longjohns and size-12's are urine-stained, and there is those soiled pants lying on her bathroom floor, items you may wish to also be excluded so to hide any consideration of a toilet incident, also why highlight this as an issue by redressing her in longjohns, why not simply redress her in her barbie-gown or pajamas from the outset?

This whole Toilet Incident theory is I reckon, a red herring, its like the intruder theory, sounds good, and seems to explain much, but on closer examination, it really does not match up with the forensic evidence.

It looks to me as if JonBenet was being sexually assaulted, then semi-asphyxiated, then whacked on the head, then cleaned up, then redressed.

imo the longjohns, the size-12's, and the white blankets were deliberately added to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted, otherwise just what is the rationale for redressing her in longjohns?


.

[UKGuy]

I have never read before, that the blanket had urine on it. I did a search, and I came up with nothing. So, to my knowledge, the blanket did NOT have urine on it. Now how urine could get on her long johns, but not on the blanket, I have no clue. I have read that it wasn't much urine....and I also read that the reason for this was probably because she had already emptied her bladder, beforehand....(this could possibly be when she wet the bed?)....so, if it wasn't much, then it was just enough to wet the longjohns, but not enough to soak through to the blanket.

I want to add that....JB was a bedwetter....that's a known fact. John supposedly brought a sleeping JB upstairs and placed her in the bed, Patsy changed her clothes....and she was never awaken that night, to be taken to use the bathroom. So, it stands to reason...that because of this...she wet the bed that night. (And if she was ZONKED OUT...as Patsy describes her, when she was put into bed, then you know that she isn't going to wake up on her own, and go to the bathroom during the night). AND THAT is the reason that I believe that the blanket did not get wet from urine....she had emptied her bladder when she wet the bed, so...when she had her post mortem release, there wasn't much in there to be released...just enough to wet her long johns...I don't believe that they were soaked through...or else the blanket would have gotten wet too.

Ames,

Patsy changed her clothes....and she was never awaken that night, to be taken to use the bathroom. So, it stands to reason...that because of this...she wet the bed that night. (And if she was ZONKED OUT...as Patsy describes her, when she was put into bed, then you know that she isn't going to wake up on her own, and go to the bathroom during the night).

This would be demolished in court: pineapple residue was discovered in JonBenet's digestive tract, so she was awake at some point after arriving home from the White's, so she may have visited the toilet? If Patsy changed her clothes who changed her into the size-12's?

The longjohns may have been soaked through though, as may her size-12 underwear have been, to pass enough urine to soak both garments suggests a substantial quantity of urine was discharged e.g. a postmortem urine-release probably incorporating the fluid from her pineapple snack.

There is no record of the white blankets being stained/wet with urine, you should expect this from a postmortem release whilst wrapped in them. The simple conclusion is that the postmortem release occurred elsewhere, e.g. the size-12's are stained on the front, she was discovered lying on her back, and that her killer/stager was fully aware that this had taken place, but did not consider it significant?

[UKGuy]

I don't know if there is a way to tell if the panties were urine-stained by osmosis (being put on her to replace possible blood-stained and urine-soaked size 6 panties, and then having the still-wet long johns pulled up over the clean panties) OR if they were wet at the same time. We already know that the autopsy showed residue of blood on her thighs, in sufficient quantity to require wiping down of the area, which the autopsy indicated had been done because fibers were found on her pubic area. I believe that the size 12s were put on her after the sexual assault and the wiping of her pubic and thigh area, then the long johns, which at that point were clean. Then the rest of the staging was completed, she was left wrapped in the white blanket, and then after she was left for dead, she then DID finally die and the post-mortem urine release occured, unbeknownst to anyone. The basement activities were done in the dark, with a flashlight. The pink nightgown wouldn't have been noticed.
Does anyone know if any mention was ever made about the white blanket having urine on it? JBR was brought up from the basement without it, and I don't believe it went to the morgue with her.

DeeDee249,

There is no record of dampness or urine-staining on the white blankets, Fleet White even returned to the wine-cellar for a second look, so I'm sure he would have commented if there were?

imo the blankets, longjohns, and size-12 underwear are simply there to mask/hide her original sexual assault, and the ransom note offers a ridiculous explanation why she is not in her bed, but down in the basement.

If this was a toileting incident, and you are Patsy, why do you decide to draw attention to JonBenet's potential for bedwetting by redressing her in longjohns, what is that all about, and just for good measure lets fling in a pair of clean size-12's, that will make any detective think this looks normal to me? Duh!

.

[Ames]

Ames,

Yes it is one of those subtle aspects of the case, that until you accept that the parents accounts were inconsistent and at times contradictory, that does all that rhetoric about not being able to find her pajama bottoms, which were under her pillow all the time, make sense.

OMG, I didn't realize that the pj bottoms were under her pillow!!!!!!! I thought that it was just a gown or something. HMMM...now that IS strange. She said that she couldn't find any to put on her...duhhhh..and you know that she probably had more than one pair.

One implication is was JonBenet wearing her black velvet pants when killed, and were these then removed?

You know, I have often wondered that myself. And what doesn't make sense...I mean...ANOTHER thing that doesn't make sense, is....IF Patsy actually DID change her into long johns, then why didn't she change her shirt too? They both acted like they just didn't want to wake her up, well...then...why change anything at all? Just let her sleep in the clothes that she wore to the Whites. Why put on those skin tight long johns, and not change the shirt too? (I mean IF she ever went to bed that night)..

Is it possible that matters are actually reversed, that JonBenet dressed in her barbie-gown, size-6 underwear and no socks, was the victim of a sexual assault?

So what's the big deal regarding her size-6's that they have to vanish? It cannot be a toilet incident since her longjohns and size-12's are urine-stained, and there is those soiled pants lying on her bathroom floor, items you may wish to also be excluded so to hide any consideration of a toilet incident, also why highlight this as an issue by redressing her in longjohns, why not simply redress her in her barbie-gown or pajamas from the outset?

This whole Toilet Incident theory is I reckon, a red herring, its like the intruder theory, sounds good, and seems to explain much, but on closer examination, it really does not match up with the forensic evidence.

It looks to me as if JonBenet was being sexually assaulted, then semi-asphyxiated, then whacked on the head, then cleaned up, then redressed.

imo the longjohns, the size-12's, and the white blankets were deliberately added to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted, otherwise just what is the rationale for redressing her in longjohns?


.

As far as I can tell...and I have done a search on the internet, and came up with nothing...that tells me if the blanket had urine on it too. I have read alot of articles, and interviews...and urine on the blanket is never mentioned. SO, how ..in YOUR opinion...did the urine end up on the panties and the long johns, but not on the blanket? That's what I can't figure out, unless....she had the post mortem release of urine, but it wasn't alot (I have read somewhere, that the reason that it wasn't alot, is because she had possibly emptied her bladder, while she was alive, a few hours before)....it went un-noticed for whatever reason, and then they wrapped her in the blanket. Maybe the wrapping in the blanket came last, after the post-mortem release, and thats why there isn't any on the blanket. What is your opinion??

[Toltec]

BOESP,
We shall just have to agree to disagree then.

Urine-stained longjohns and underwear in my estimation add up to a postmortem urine release of some kind. I agree.

Why place clean size-12's on JonBenet and ignore the urine-stained longjohns? Because they were both placed during the staging process.

If JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to being placed into the wine-cellar why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored? see above

When JonBenet was wrapped in those white blankets why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored? She was wrapped after she died.

When JonBenet was wiped down, why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored? Longjohns put on during staging process.

Why were her size-6 underwear removed, and the flashlight wiped clean? Flashlight wiped down because the Ramseys wanted LE to believe the intruder brought it in. The size 6 soiled underwear and the remaining duct-tape went into Patsy's fur boots, as in out the door.

So a crime-scene was constructed removing evidence of a homicide yet her killer left evidence of the initiating factor on JonBenet in the form of urine-stained longjohns and underwear, and soiled pants upstairs in her bathroom. This is inconsistent with Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory.
The urine stained longjohns and size 12 underwear were there because after being strangled to death, the urine was released from JB's body.

.

My belief is that Patsy hit JonBenet over the head in JonBenet's bathroom. Patsy had discovered that JonBenet soiled herself and her size 6 panties were also soiled. She had JonBenet remove her clothes so that she could give her a quick bath. JonBenet was not about to get in the tub and a struggle ensued whereas Patsy lost it..

This is but one of two scenarios I play around with.

[DeeDee249]

I think the main reason for replacement of the size- 6 panties was blood, not urine. There was evidence of wiped-off blood on her thighs at the autopsy, and then there is also the small drops of blood that seeped out unnoticed onto the size-12s after she was dead, of which the stagers were unaware.
The post-mortem release would have had to occur before she was wrapped in the blanket, or it, too, would have urine on it. But I must say that things were so sloppily done after LE and the coroner arrived that the blanket may never have even been tested for urine. After all, the spoon in the bowl od pineapple was allegedly never tested for DNA from saliva to see who had it in their mouth that night.
Now the blanket was taken for some testing because the mysterious pubic hair that wasn't (it was actually PR's arm hair - ancillary hair, and NOT an underarm hair - axillary hair) so hopefully it was tested for urine and blood as well.

[rashomon]

My belief is that Patsy hit JonBenet over the head in JonBenet's bathroom. Patsy had discovered that JonBenet soiled herself and her size 6 panties were also soiled. She had JonBenet remove her clothes so that she could give her a quick bath. JonBenet was not about to get in the tub and a struggle ensued whereas Patsy lost it..

This is but one of two scenarios I play around with.
This is one of my scenarios too. It would explain why her underwear was changed. Only if it was like that, then Patsy must have cleaned up JonBenet very thoroughly afterward, for otherwise rests of of feces would probably have been found on the dead body.

I don't think JonBenet ever went to bed on that night. Her pj bottoms which were found under her pillow point in that direction too.

jmo

[rashomon]

If this was a toileting incident, and you are Patsy, why do you decide to draw attention to JonBenet's potential for bedwetting by redressing her in longjohns, what is that all about, and just for good measure lets fling in a pair of clean size-12's, that will make any detective think this looks normal to me? Duh!

The urine on the longjohns and her underwear was probably released after death without the Ramseys being aware of it.

Suppose JonBenet soiled her size 4-6 Wednesday Bloomies, which resulted in Patsy's rage attack on her. The incriminating size 4-6 Bloomies are later removed, and Patsy remembers the other set of size 12-14 Bloomies she bought and puts them on her. In her panic, she many not even have realized how big they were - just grabbed that 'Wednesday pair' and put it on her.
Remember that despite Patsy's claims that the size 12s were kept in the bathroom, the police could NOT find the rest of the set, so Patsy probably hid it.

[UKGuy]

The urine on the longjohns and her underwear was probably released after death without the Ramseys being aware of it.

Suppose JonBenet soiled her size 4-6 Wednesday Bloomies, which resulted in Patsy's rage attack on her. The incriminating size 4-6 Bloomies are later removed, and Patsy remembers the other set of size 12-14 Bloomies she bought and puts them on her. In her panic, she many not even have realized how big they were - just grabbed that 'Wednesday pair' and put it on her.
Remember that despite Patsy's claims that the size 12s were kept in the bathroom, the police could NOT find the rest of the set, so Patsy probably hid it.

rashomon,

mmm, this is the Patsy is confused and panicking defense. If the toileting incident is over the discovery of the soiled size-6's, then why bother cleaning JonBenet up, and redressing her in those outrageous size-12's, both draw attention immediately to the toileting aspect?

e.g. so JonBenet is clean but her soiled underwear is left lying on the bathroom floor, why do that, why leave direct evidence lying about?

There were no size-12's recovered from the bathroom drawer.

The size-12's were not kept in the bathroom, Patsy alleged she thought thats where they were, but were allegedly in JonBenet's bedroom dresser drawer, placed there by Patsy on a request from JonBenet?

None of which I accept, the explanations are simply more Patsy spin and fabrication, and of course, how come the Ramseys later handed in a pack size-12's allegedly discovered in a packing crate?

What the forensic evidence suggests is that it was not urine or soiled underwear that JonBenet's killer deliberately removed, but blood or semen?

In two separate independent examples, but both critical to a toileting incident, urine and soiled underwear were simply ignored, not so the blood and semen/blood stained size-6's, or her blood smeared crotch and thighs?

This suggests it is a sexual assault that is being hidden not a toilet incident?


.

[UKGuy]

OMG, I didn't realize that the pj bottoms were under her pillow!!!!!!! I thought that it was just a gown or something. HMMM...now that IS strange. She said that she couldn't find any to put on her...duhhhh..and you know that she probably had more than one pair.



You know, I have often wondered that myself. And what doesn't make sense...I mean...ANOTHER thing that doesn't make sense, is....IF Patsy actually DID change her into long johns, then why didn't she change her shirt too? They both acted like they just didn't want to wake her up, well...then...why change anything at all? Just let her sleep in the clothes that she wore to the Whites. Why put on those skin tight long johns, and not change the shirt too? (I mean IF she ever went to bed that night)..



As far as I can tell...and I have done a search on the internet, and came up with nothing...that tells me if the blanket had urine on it too. I have read alot of articles, and interviews...and urine on the blanket is never mentioned. SO, how ..in YOUR opinion...did the urine end up on the panties and the long johns, but not on the blanket? That's what I can't figure out, unless....she had the post mortem release of urine, but it wasn't alot (I have read somewhere, that the reason that it wasn't alot, is because she had possibly emptied her bladder, while she was alive, a few hours before)....it went un-noticed for whatever reason, and then they wrapped her in the blanket. Maybe the wrapping in the blanket came last, after the post-mortem release, and thats why there isn't any on the blanket. What is your opinion??

Ames,

SO, how ..in YOUR opinion...did the urine end up on the panties and the long johns, but not on the blanket?

Simply because there was a time lapse between her postmortem release and JonBenet being wrapped in the blankets.

Which suggests JonBenet was left lying somewhere else prior to being taken down to the basement.

When someone broke the paintbrush handle and constructed the garrote, then placed it around her neck etc, all of this means JonBenet's body would have to be handled in some manner, particularly if also at this point the birefringement material is inserted inside JonBenet, so the blankets, if they were around her at this point would be unwrapped to to allow access, thus exposing the urine-stained/soaked longjohns and size-12's, even the smell would indicate the latter staining, again this is all simply ignored by the stager, who according to some is attempting to hide signs of a toileting incident, yet leaves the originating cause lying upstairs on the bathroom floor?

It does not add up for me.


.

[UKGuy]

My belief is that Patsy hit JonBenet over the head in JonBenet's bathroom. Patsy had discovered that JonBenet soiled herself and her size 6 panties were also soiled. She had JonBenet remove her clothes so that she could give her a quick bath. JonBenet was not about to get in the tub and a struggle ensued whereas Patsy lost it..

This is but one of two scenarios I play around with.

Toltec,
Who dressed JonBenet for the plane flight? Why was she not bathed first and dressed last?

Why did Patsy leave the incriminating evidence lying in full view on the bathroom floor?


.

[JMO8778]

The soiled pants found on the floor inside out belonged to JonBenet. I would assume those are the pants she wore during the day before being told to dress for the trip to the Whites.

According to LHP Patsy and the kids would leave their clothes where they took them off. So JonBenet was getting undressed in her bathroom and like all six-year-olds would place their hand on the bathroom counter and take their pants off using their feet, hence the pants being inside out. I would assume JonBenet, if left to her own devices would put on her black velvet pants without changing her panties. She wears soiled panties to the Whites.

At this point, JonBenet comes out of her bathroom and there is Mommy holding the red turtleneck. She puts it on JonBenet, A defiant JonBenet goes into her bathroom, removes the red turtleneck, balls it up and throws it on the counter. She then proceeds to put her white Gap top and black vest on.

My belief is that Patsy did not know JonBenet had soiled her panties until she took her to the toilet the night of her murder.

and perhaps that was the catalyst that started it all...

[JMO8778]

It's possible the oversized underwear were meant to cover up pull-ups, but according to both Patsy and LHP, JonBenet was only dressed in pull-ups for bed, and there would be no point in covering up a pull-up with cotton unders if all she's doing is sleeping. You know? There's no reason to wear both when she's just going to be in bed - the sheets don't care. Again, according to Patsy and LHP (because imo Patsy alone is not credible), JB didn't use the pull-ups every night anyway, but they were being packed for use on the Disney cruise.

And I still think they'd've been too big to just be a pretty cover over a pull-up - they bagged down to her knees. Not just past her crotch a little, but down to her knees.

Even if they'd been purchased to cover pull-ups, the night JB was killed was the first night she ever wore a pair, and they weren't in her drawers with all of her other pairs of underwear. So who got them to put on her, and where was the rest of the package both before and after that one pair was put on her?

seems they were in one of the 1/2 wrapped packages and Patsy lied bc she didn't want anyone to know that...so she said they were for someone else,but JB wanted them,so she kept them aside for her till she got older.

[JMO8778]

rashomon,

You may be correct, particularly if it can be shown that the size-12's were not stained by osmosis?

Given Patsy's explanation regarding JonBenet and the size-12's I suspect it was her that placed them upon her?

Remember that stuff about the blood stains not matching to her underwear?

Was a prior sexual assault being cleaned up here?

.

UK,why would you think that? It was JR's shirt fibers found in that area,and he would be more likely to have put the oversized underwear on her.But perhaps those fibers got there as her carried her to the basement,if she was not fully dressed at that time?? I kind of doubt that though..I think the most important factors here are that 1- JR's fibers are found in that region and 2-she was WIPED down (to remove dna evidence,IMO) and 3-CLEAN underwear replaced her MISSING size 6's,saying Wed. at that.That further removes any dna evidence of his.But IMO,that does not mean that JR killed her,but it implies a sexual assault on her by him sometime prior to her death that night.It could have been bf he went to bed,then he goes on up to bed,and Patsy comes in sometime later and something occurs then.Later he wipes her down and changes her underwear, to remove any trace of his prior assault.

[JMO8778]

I agree. She could have still been alive, but unconscious when she was wiped down and the clean undies were put on her. At that point, all they had on their minds, was removing evidence. I believe that she was obviously still alive, although I don't believe that her parents thought so, when the paintbrush was inserted. She bled, they had second thoughts, so the cleaned her up and placed the clean undies on her. AFTER that, IMO...came the garotting, which finished her off..so to speak. And THAT is when the postmortem release happened. That's why the long johns were overlooked...there was no urine on them at the time of the wiping down. I believe that they were so concerned with removing evidence that would point to them, fingerprints..etc...that they forgot the soiled pants in JB's bedroom. They probably didn't even go back into her room, after taking her down to the basement....they were too concerned with wiping her down, and wiping the flashlight down, and writing a RN. They probably didn't give those pants on the floor of her room, a second thought, because actually even though it had to do with soiling....it had nothing to do with Steve Thomas' theory. Bedwetting, and soiling the pants during the day, are two different things. Patsy got angry because she was tired, had to get up early the next morning, and JB WET THE BED....AGAIN. That wouldn't have anything to do with soiled pants on the bedroom floor...IMO..and thats why they weren't even given a second thought. And they could have been soiled not because she pooped in them, but..because she just didn't know how to wipe very well. And besides, they thought that they had their tracks covered, so why would would anyone have even suspected a bedwetting incident causing Patsy's rage that killed JB....when they had a RN, saying that an intruder did it?

I think they didn't give her room a second thought either.They said it was a bedtime abduction,yet her bed was not arranged as if she'd been sleeping in it.her pillow was at the other end of her bed.it doesn't appear she even made it to bed,although maybe she did and her sheets were washed and changed later.I think beyond that,her room wasn't given a second thought.

[Nuisanceposter]

seems they were in one of the 1/2 wrapped packages and Patsy lied bc she didn't want anyone to know that...so she said they were for someone else,but JB wanted them,so she kept them aside for her till she got older.

I agree 100%. I think those bigger undies were wrapped, and Patsy (or JR) fished them out to dress JB in and then lied, lied, lied when questioned about it. It's easy to lie when the person who would know you're lying is dead and can't contradict you.

[JMO8778]

Ames,

Yes it is one of those subtle aspects of the case, that until you accept that the parents accounts were inconsistent and at times contradictory, that does all that rhetoric about not being able to find her pajama bottoms, which were under her pillow all the time, make sense.

One implication is was JonBenet wearing her black velvet pants when killed, and were these then removed?

Is it possible that matters are actually reversed, that JonBenet dressed in her barbie-gown, size-6 underwear and no socks, was the victim of a sexual assault?

So what's the big deal regarding her size-6's that they have to vanish? It cannot be a toilet incident since her longjohns and size-12's are urine-stained, and there is those soiled pants lying on her bathroom floor, items you may wish to also be excluded so to hide any consideration of a toilet incident, also why highlight this as an issue by redressing her in longjohns, why not simply redress her in her barbie-gown or pajamas from the outset?

This whole Toilet Incident theory is I reckon, a red herring, its like the intruder theory, sounds good, and seems to explain much, but on closer examination, it really does not match up with the forensic evidence.

It looks to me as if JonBenet was being sexually assaulted, then semi-asphyxiated, then whacked on the head, then cleaned up, then redressed.

imo the longjohns, the size-12's, and the white blankets were deliberately added to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted, otherwise just what is the rationale for redressing her in longjohns?


.

good points UK,and I think it was Dee who also made a good point...they were CLEAN.that was the key to it...perhaps even all of these items had been washed that night,prior to placing them on her so that no R dna would be found on her.Now,while they are waiting on them to get washed and dried,JB goes into rigor and her arms are unable to be placed anywhere other than where they were when death occured,so they had to be tied above her,just where they were when JR 'found' her at 1pm.

[JMO8778]

OMG, I didn't realize that the pj bottoms were under her pillow!!!!!!! I thought that it was just a gown or something. HMMM...now that IS strange. She said that she couldn't find any to put on her...duhhhh..and you know that she probably had more than one pair.


I think the longjohn's were clean,straight from the dryer(along with the blanket and barbie gown, which stuck to the blanket,and all were likely washed at the same time),and were placed on her instead of the pj bottoms so as to hide any R's dna evidence that might be on them.

You know, I have often wondered that myself. And what doesn't make sense...I mean...ANOTHER thing that doesn't make sense, is....IF Patsy actually DID change her into long johns, then why didn't she change her shirt too? They both acted like they just didn't want to wake her up, well...then...why change anything at all? Just let her sleep in the clothes that she wore to the Whites. Why put on those skin tight long johns, and not change the shirt too? (I mean IF she ever went to bed that night)..
this is where I have to agree w/ UK in that there was a sexual assault...her top was ignored,but her bottom area was wiped down and redressed only in CLEAN (and NEW) items,so as to rid of any R DNA.perhaps since she wore the top to the White's,that was left on her in order to point to anyone whom she may have came into contact with there,even if it was innocent contact?

[rashomon]

rashomon,

mmm, this is the Patsy is confused and panicking defense. If the toileting incident is over the discovery of the soiled size-6's, then why bother cleaning JonBenet up, and redressing her in those outrageous size-12's, both draw attention immediately to the toileting aspect?

UKGuy,

I don't see your point. If JonBenet was cleaned up after the soiling incident and put in clean underwear, then this directs attention away from a toileting incident. And if JonBenet was lying on the floor or bed when the oversized Bloomies were put on her, Patsy may not have realized how large they were since JonBenet was not standing.


e.g. so JonBenet is clean but her soiled underwear is left lying on the bathroom floor, why do that, why leave direct evidence lying about?

I don't think what was found on the bathroom floor was the underwear fromm the soiling incident on that fatal night.
It was underwear in a pair of jeans turned inside out, so JB probably left them on the floor before getting dressed to the Whites' party. The underwear was also not fully soiled, only showed some signs of JonBenet not having done a god job after wiping herself.
There were no size-12's recovered from the bathroom drawer.

And that's pretty significant, isn't it? Where was the rest of the size 12-14 set? The police could not find it in their house search. Imo Patsy hid it. I think she clandestinely wanted to exchange the soiled size 4-6 Wednesday panties with this other Wednesday pair.


In two separate independent examples, but both critical to a toileting incident, urine and soiled underwear were simply ignored, not so the blood and semen/blood stained size-6's, or her blood smeared crotch and thighs?

This suggests it is a sexual assault that is being hidden not a toilet incident?
It has been brought up countless times here that the urine both on the underwear and on the longjohns was probably from post-mortem release.
I believe that Patsy originally did want to stage a sexual scene but could not bring herself to inflict more than one small wound. She also could not bring herself to display the body like in a realistic sexual predator scenario, which is why JB was later redressed.

jmo

[Albert18]

I don't see any need to remove JonBenet's original underwear from the house. The only things that would be on the underwear are urine, feces, and/or JonBenet's blood. Urine and blood are on the next pair so they sure weren't a problem. And JonBenet's urine and blood on her underwear aren't a problem, just like the stager thought. I assume feces were a problem though. I assume the cleaning of JonBenet was done because of the "undoing" Solace posted about. Patsy didn't want her beauty queen found in a soiled condition.

What baffles me is the oversized replacement underwear. Patsy did that for some reason. I think we have trouble rationalizing her decision because she made a mistake. The mistake was so big, we can't follow her thought process.

She could have used the large underwear because she thought if an intruder put clean underwear on JonBenet, it would look odd if the intruder used underwear knowingly belonging to JonBenet. The large underwear was the only new underwear in the house. Maybe she was trying to imply the intruder brought new underwear to the crime(This happens a lot???). Is that why the rest of the package disappeared? But an intruder puts on a Wednesday pair? Maybe this is the third item of the staging that they tried to undo(the basement window, the hand ties, and the oversized underwear).

[Albert18]

Before anybody mentions semen might have been on the underwear, that possibility has a big problem. You need a male present to have semen. That would mean an intruder or John.

I hope nobody is suggesting an intruder and Patsy worked together.

As for John, I don't care if half of his wardrobe was found in JonBenet's crotch, look at the rest of the crime.

If this started before John went to bed and he was still wearing THAT shirt then that means he had 6 plus hours and Patsy had 6 plus hours to do the staging. Look at the results. This possibility is just as implausible as the intruder.

[Nuisanceposter]

<snip>

She could have used the large underwear because she thought if an intruder put clean underwear on JonBenet, it would look odd if the intruder used underwear knowingly belonging to JonBenet. The large underwear was the only new underwear in the house. Maybe she was trying to imply the intruder brought new underwear to the crime(This happens a lot???). Is that why the rest of the package disappeared? But an intruder puts on a Wednesday pair? Maybe this is the third item of the staging that they tried to undo(the basement window, the hand ties, and the oversized underwear).

If I may add to your thinking...

I think Patsy and not John put the huge undies on JonBenet because A.) Patsy would have known where they were and exactly which ones they were, B.) Patsy handled that aspect of their style of parenting - the dressing/grooming of the children, and C.) they said Wednesday, and Christmas was a Wednesday. I think that last one would only have been important to Patsy, and wonder why they chose the 25th as the date on JB's stone.

I don't think they intended to indicate an intruder brought the undies in with them because their original target for blame seems to have been someone who knew them personally, and they didn't fully get on board the Intruder Train until Smit guided them to it. I also don't think they'd have turned over the rest of the package if they meant for it to have been brought by an intruder.

I think the huge undies were chosen because they were brand new, with no forensic evidence of any Ramseys on them, they were most likely already in the basement where it appears the staging took place, and because Patsy didn't realize that they were going to be as obviously out of place as they were. She messed up.

I have no idea why there was even a need to replace JonBenet's undies at all, unless they were wet/soiled with any of four body secretions - urine, blood, semen, or feces. I subscribe to the "undies/long johns were wet from unnoticed post-mortem release" theory, so that sounds most plausible to me. JMO.

[Albert18]

If I may add to your thinking...

I think Patsy and not John put the huge undies on JonBenet because A.) Patsy would have known where they were and exactly which ones they were, B.) Patsy handled that aspect of their style of parenting - the dressing/grooming of the children, and C.) they said Wednesday, and Christmas was a Wednesday. I think that last one would only have been important to Patsy, and wonder why they chose the 25th as the date on JB's stone.

I don't think they intended to indicate an intruder brought the undies in with them because their original target for blame seems to have been someone who knew them personally, and they didn't fully get on board the Intruder Train until Smit guided them to it. I also don't think they'd have turned over the rest of the package if they meant for it to have been brought by an intruder.

I think the huge undies were chosen because they were brand new, with no forensic evidence of any Ramseys on them, they were most likely already in the basement where it appears the staging took place, and because Patsy didn't realize that they were going to be as obviously out of place as they were. She messed up.

I have no idea why there was even a need to replace JonBenet's undies at all, unless they were wet/soiled with any of four body secretions - urine, blood, semen, or feces. I subscribe to the "undies/long johns were wet from unnoticed post-mortem release" theory, so that sounds most plausible to me. JMO.

I'm with you to the bank on this.

I can see why Patsy would not want JonBenet to be found not wearing anything on the bottom, but she had the long underwear so I don't understand why that wasn't enough.

I'm not sure Patsy was originally trying to point to an insider. John may have started that later in the day. My thought was that they realized in the months that followed how unusual it would be for an intruder to bring Wednesday underwear with him to a crime. Does this qualify as an understatement? It was then necessary to find the rest of the package in a crate. Of course they couldn't and didn't touch the question of how or why those oversized underwear were on JonBenet.

Yesterday, I was reading the questioning of Patsy about the oversized underwear and you can tell she is caught with her own underwear down and she knows it.

I wonder how they discussed the questioning with their lawyers? Wouldn't it have been impossible for them to express to the lawyers how vulnerable they were without telling the lawyers what really happened?

[Albert18]

Since we are talking about rinsing out things.

One of my favorite Bugs Bunny episodes is where he is being chased around by a witch who wants to boil him in her stew. Finally he stops running and asks her if she doesn't have anything else she could be doing. The witch thinks for a minute and then says, "Well, I could be rinsing out some things."

[DeeDee249]

I also believe the larger panties were wrapped as a gift, and unwrapped that night by PR or JR at her instruction. Let's be realistic- the only reason the panties were changed is because they had blood on them. Urine and feces on the panties/pants of a child well-known to both wet and soil them would not be suspicious, per se. But blood...in the vaginal area of a 6-year old is suspicious by any standards. It is public knowlege the autopsy showed blood in the vaginal vault and on the forchette. There was also blood discovered in the flourescence test on her thighs. While semen was originally suspected, there turned out ot be no semen present. For this reason, I doubt there was semen on the size-6 panties. If she had been ejaculated IN, semen would have been found at the autopsy in the vagina. If she had been ejaculated ON, there would have been semen on her thigh and/or the external pubic area. We know this was not the case. While there was definitely sexual molestation, I don't think ejaculation took place, at least not in contact with JBR. Now...there WAS semen belonging to JAR on the blanket that was stuffed in the suitcase. Could it have been quickly stuffed in there to hide it? With a washer and dryer right there in the basement, why not wash away the evidence? Or, as I have seen posted here long ago, did someone originally try to hide JBR IN the suitcase? It is not unusual to find semen on a blanket belonging to a college boy, but in a suitcase with a children's book is suspect to me, whether he had anything to do with this night or not. Unfortunately, semen, like fingerprints or fiber and hairs, cannot be "dated" to indicate exactly when they were left at the crime scene.
Now, those pink pajamas that JBR is seen wearing Christmas morning...there is a photo showing something on her bed that looks like those pajamas. I recall an interview where PR is asked about that photo, and she says that it looked like the pink TOP. She also said in that same interview that she could not find the pink bottoms when they came in from the White's, so she grabbed the long johns and put those on a "sleeping" JBR. Now, it could be that it was the pink bottoms that JBR soiled, maybe as soon as she was dressed in them, provoking the rage. Or possibly they also had blood on them from the sexual assault, and that's why they weren't there. Has anyone ever seen those bottoms mentioned again? Or did they "walk out" the door that night with the unsearched Rs or later with Aunt P? They seemed to have disappeared. If I were LE, I'd have wanted those to be tested as well. Unfortunately, along with the clothes the Rs wore that day, which took over a YEAR to be turned over to LE, there was ample time to wash/clean/replace them before being turned over. LE reported that some of the clothing the Rs turned over seemed brand new and never worn.

[JMO8778]

right,I'm not saying it was semen,we know that it wasn't,perhaps dna from digital penetration,or saliva,was wiped away?whatever it was,it appears to me that it was important for her to be not only wiped down,but redressed in NEW underwear.why must it be new underwear? I think it was b/c the person who did it didn't want any of their dna to show up in that area.
why bother with new underwear if the only reason the others disappeared was b/c they had blood or urine or feces on them? the person who dressed her in them could have just went and gotten another pair of her old ones,correct size at that.but considering she was wiped down and redressed in a brand new pair (and I bet the barbie gown,sheets from her bed,and longjohns were all washed after her head injury/death,with the longjohns/large underwear placed on her after death,of course).the underwear was NEW,and the longjohns were CLEAN...no R dna on them.that's why she wasn't dressed in the pj's.they'd been worn.and perhaps she wasn't even dressed in the barbie gown b/c of the underwear being so large...if they say JB dressed herself in those huge underwear,then the longjohns would have been tight enough to hold them up.not so w the barbie gown.

In DOI,JR made a reference to JB not being able to read yet.I guess he was implying JB couldn't read the package and therefore dressed herself in the too large underwear? (like she wouldn't have noticed they were too big(?),but I digress.the R's give some weird answers sometimes.and they expect everyone to believe them).

[UKGuy]

UK,why would you think that? It was JR's shirt fibers found in that area,and he would be more likely to have put the oversized underwear on her.But perhaps those fibers got there as her carried her to the basement,if she was not fully dressed at that time?? I kind of doubt that though..I think the most important factors here are that 1- JR's fibers are found in that region and 2-she was WIPED down (to remove dna evidence,IMO) and 3-CLEAN underwear replaced her MISSING size 6's,saying Wed. at that.That further removes any dna evidence of his.But IMO,that does not mean that JR killed her,but it implies a sexual assault on her by him sometime prior to her death that night.It could have been bf he went to bed,then he goes on up to bed,and Patsy comes in sometime later and something occurs then.Later he wipes her down and changes her underwear, to remove any trace of his prior assault.

JMO8778,

Because Patsy spends so much time fabricating excuses for the size-12's, and it is herself she is attempting to extricate from being linked to the size-12's on JonBenet.



It was JR's shirt fibers found in that area,and he would be more likely to have put the oversized underwear on her.But perhaps those fibers got there as her carried her to the basement,if she was not fully dressed at that time??

Sure, but that is a separate issue from the size-12's, and if you can link Patsy directly to the wine-cellar staging, and its possible that her size-12's were put on her down there?

It may be helpful to split JonBenet's homicide into two minimal phases, e.g. non-staged, and staged. During the non-staged phase there might be a degree of panic, non-rational thinking etc, so its here for example JonBenet may have suffered her head blow, or that John would have wiped JonBenet down whether to remove blood or semen?

Later a plan was devised that incorporated the wine-cellar and a redressing which becomes the staged phase.

You seem to be suggesting that John covertly sexually assaulted JonBenet, then Patsy killed JonBenet, then again John covertly cleans up JonBenet, then somehow assists Patsy in her staging, all without Patsy's knowledge?

Whilst not impossible, this seems improbable to me, kiss, and occam principles always help.

If Patsy was the only person to deal with JonBenet's toileting and hygiene issues, then she could not miss the signs of prior abuse, and of course JonBenet would have told her. In other words, Patsy either by negelect and ommission, allowed JonBenet to be molested, or it occurred with her full knowledge?

Just think Patsy allowing a 6-year to wear makeup like a teenager, never mind an adult woman, paying for her to learn all those sexualised pageant dances and routines, encouraging her to wear revealing clothes, whats all that about?

.

[UKGuy]

I don't see any need to remove JonBenet's original underwear from the house. The only things that would be on the underwear are urine, feces, and/or JonBenet's blood. Urine and blood are on the next pair so they sure weren't a problem. And JonBenet's urine and blood on her underwear aren't a problem, just like the stager thought. I assume feces were a problem though. I assume the cleaning of JonBenet was done because of the "undoing" Solace posted about. Patsy didn't want her beauty queen found in a soiled condition.

What baffles me is the oversized replacement underwear. Patsy did that for some reason. I think we have trouble rationalizing her decision because she made a mistake. The mistake was so big, we can't follow her thought process.

She could have used the large underwear because she thought if an intruder put clean underwear on JonBenet, it would look odd if the intruder used underwear knowingly belonging to JonBenet. The large underwear was the only new underwear in the house. Maybe she was trying to imply the intruder brought new underwear to the crime(This happens a lot???). Is that why the rest of the package disappeared? But an intruder puts on a Wednesday pair? Maybe this is the third item of the staging that they tried to undo(the basement window, the hand ties, and the oversized underwear).

Albert18,
Essentially only Patsy knew about the size-12 underwear, it was her that purchased them from Bloomingdales along with a pack of size-6's for JonBenet.

It is likely that there was blood on the size-6's, or dna in the form of skin debri, or saliva, the size-6's were quite simply incriminating evidence, a smoking gun!

Does this mean JonBenet was wearing those size-6's when she was sexually assaulted, or were they used to clean her up? She was certainly not wearing the black velvet pants since there is no record of any evidence being itemised.

Also JonBenet was left wearing urine-stained, longjohns and underwear which was also blood stained, some of these stains did not match any part of her genitals, so patently the urine-stains were not an issue.

I reckon the person who placed those size-12's onto JonBenet simply wanted a clean pair of pants to cover her crotch area, but a Wednesday pair were available so these were chosen.

When interviewed about placing JonBenet sleeping into bed, neither John or Patsy could recollect if JonBenet was wearing any underwear, only that they would have noticed its absence, So they both knew that this was an issue, and the big question is why would an intruder redress JonBenet in size-12 underwear, particularly when the intruder never purchased it, or knew where it was stored?

The latter point tells you that this was a staging mistake, they eventually recognized that this was so serious that they discovered some size-12's in a packing crate.

The size-12's are like the pineapple residue, they contradict the Ramsey version of events.


.

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Because Patsy spends so much time fabricating excuses for the size-12's, and it is herself she is attempting to extricate from being linked to the size-12's on JonBenet.

but that doesn't mean she's the one who put them on her...



Sure, but that is a separate issue from the size-12's, and if you can link Patsy directly to the wine-cellar staging, and its possible that her size-12's were put on her down there?I'm not sure it matters where or when they were put on her,but don't forget that JR is also linked to the WC staging.


It may be helpful to split JonBenet's homicide into two minimal phases, e.g. non-staged, and staged. During the non-staged phase there might be a degree of panic, non-rational thinking etc, so its here for example JonBenet may have suffered her head blow, or that John would have wiped JonBenet down whether to remove blood or semen?yes,of course.I think some pretty irrational things were done under pressure,and staged and restaged,that's why it's hard to sort out who did what,where did it occur,and why.



Later a plan was devised that incorporated the wine-cellar and a redressing which becomes the staged phase.makes sense to me.

You seem to be suggesting that John covertly sexually assaulted JonBenet, then Patsy killed JonBenet, then again John covertly cleans up JonBenet, then somehow assists Patsy in her staging, all without Patsy's knowledge?no,I think Patsy most likely knew that JB was being molested.I'm saying that she might have been molested bf she went to bed,and later something happens between JB and Patsy,and JB is killed during that time.JR helps w/ the staging,being sure to remove his dna evidence from her.


Whilst not impossible, this seems improbable to me, kiss, and occam principles always help. I know,I thought about that,too.So most likely he was THERE when she was killed.

If Patsy was the only person to deal with JonBenet's toileting and hygiene issues, then she could not miss the signs of prior abuse, and of course JonBenet would have told her. In other words, Patsy either by negelect and ommission, allowed JonBenet to be molested, or it occurred with her full knowledge?sounds that way,doesn't it.

Just think Patsy allowing a 6-year to wear makeup like a teenager, never mind an adult woman, paying for her to learn all those sexualised pageant dances and routines, encouraging her to wear revealing clothes, whats all that about?

.maybe she was trying to keep JR 'at home',so to speak,and away from the blond B**** down the street,if she herself had no interest in him anymore,due to cancer,her hysterectomy,etc.

[DeeDee249]

I don't see any need to remove JonBenet's original underwear from the house. The only things that would be on the underwear are urine, feces, and/or JonBenet's blood. Urine and blood are on the next pair so they sure weren't a problem. And JonBenet's urine and blood on her underwear aren't a problem, just like the stager thought. I assume feces were a problem though. I assume the cleaning of JonBenet was done because of the "undoing" Solace posted about. Patsy didn't want her beauty queen found in a soiled condition.

What baffles me is the oversized replacement underwear. Patsy did that for some reason. I think we have trouble rationalizing her decision because she made a mistake. The mistake was so big, we can't follow her thought process.

She could have used the large underwear because she thought if an intruder put clean underwear on JonBenet, it would look odd if the intruder used underwear knowingly belonging to JonBenet. The large underwear was the only new underwear in the house. Maybe she was trying to imply the intruder brought new underwear to the crime(This happens a lot???). Is that why the rest of the package disappeared? But an intruder puts on a Wednesday pair? Maybe this is the third item of the staging that they tried to undo(the basement window, the hand ties, and the oversized underwear).

But the blood on the original panties WAS a problem. For one thing, there was a lot of it, enough for her thighs to have had to be wiped down.
The replacement panties had only drops of blood, and there was NO blood on the long johns, so whoever redressed the body would not have known the blood was there. That's why those original panties had to be removed from the house.

The urine was less of a problem. JBR wet the bed all the time and everybody knew it. Whether it was truly from bedwetting, or a fear release, or post-mortem release, the Rs never though it would be an issue (like the pineapple- they had no idea that it would show up as identifiable matter in the digestive system).