Size 12/14 Bloomies

[Jayelles]

Here's something new and factual. There has been much speculation about the size 12/14 panties that Jonbenet was wearing. Patsy had been in new York and had visited the department store Bloomingdales there. She bought some of Bloomingdales' day of the week knickers there in size 4/6 for Jonbenet and size 12/14 for her niece. Somehow along the line, Jonbenet ended up wearing the size 12/14 knickers when she died and investigators asked numerous questions about this.

Well I have purchased the exact same Bloomies in size 4/6 and size 12/14 and here is a comparison of the two for size.

My youngest daughter is six and a half years and she is almost exactly the same weight and height as Jonbenet was when she died. The Bloomies are generously cut and the size 4/6 didn't fit her until this year.

Here are the dimensions of the knickers:-

Size 4/6 - 8.5 inches from waistband to bottom of crotch and waistband measures 17 inches unstretched.

Size 12/14 - 12 inches from waistband to crotch and waistband measures 22 inches unstretched.

The most noticeable difference in size to my mind is the leg openings. The height of the leg openeing in the larger knickers is almost as big as the entire smaller knickers. When I tried to imagine Jonbenet wearing the larger knickers, I had always thought of them slipping down off her waist. In fact, what is more likely is that the crotch would have been very "gapey" and the crotch would have hung down practically to her knees. The legs of the knickers are so wide that her crotch would have been very exposed IMO

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1921&stc=1

[UKGuy]

Jayelles,

Thanks for that, not exactly a fitting that you can imagine JonBenet wanting.

Particularly when she has a drawer full of size-6 underwear.


.

[SuperDave]

Jayelles, Camper is very interested in knowing how a child that size sitting on the toilet would look in terms of how would their clothing touch the toilet itself. You might be onto something.

[Paradox]

Wednesday.

[Britt]

Wednesday.
Exactly.

[Jayelles]

What about Wednesday? Did I miss something?

[Britt]

What about Wednesday? Did I miss something?
Hi Jayelles. We were discussing this on the Eighth Pair of Underwear thread...

What's important about the panties is that they were Wednesday panties...

Wednesday -- to match the panties JonBenét had been wearing (smaller size), which had to be replaced because they were soiled.

As I said on the other thread, I think the stager replaced the panties with the only available identical pair, focusing more on the superficial staging than on whether the panties fit correctly.

The Wednesday panties may've been important in case anyone else had seen JB's underwear that night or knew which ones she was wearing. A witness who knew the underwear had been changed would screw up the staged scenario of JB coming home asleep and being snatched from bed by a kidnapper.

[Jayelles]

Hi Jayelles. We were discussing this on the Eighth Pair of Underwear thread...

What's important about the panties is that they were Wednesday panties...

Wednesday -- to match the panties JonBenét had been wearing (smaller size), which had to be replaced because they were soiled.

As I said on the other thread, I think the stager replaced the panties with the only available identical pair, focusing more on the superficial staging than on whether the panties fit correctly.

The Wednesday panties may've been important in case anyone else had seen JB's underwear that night or knew which ones she was wearing. A witness who knew the underwear had been changed would screw up the staged scenario of JB coming home asleep and being snatched from bed by a kidnapper.
I SEE (my Goodness!) I never considered that before. The larger size are identical to the smaller size with regard to pattern. Only question I would have is - why replace the smaller Wednesday pants with larger ones? Why not just replace them with smaller non-day-of-the-week ones? My little girl has her Bloomies which she loves, but she has Disney Princess knickers and Kitty ones too. If she wears the Bloomies, it has to be the right day of the week. If it was a Thursday and her Thursday knickers weren't in the drawer, she'd opt for different knickers before she'd wear the wrong day.

[mjak]

What pops into my mind is a child who is frantic after dirting her underwear might try and replace it with the same exact panties. A 6 year old might be unaware of size differences. The question is why would a child be frantic about a solied pair of underpants? Prehaps if that child's parents would react very negativly if it was discovered the child soiled herself. Just thoughts on my part.

mjak

[tumble]

mjak:
That is a good thought.

[Becba]

No little girl ever wants to wear the wrong day of the week undies. It has always been a joke if you had say, Tuesdays on on a Friday then you had not changed them since Tuesday.

Jon Benet was fussy enough about her clothes that she would have opened the larger pak if she soiled the size 6 just to get the right days undies.
On the other hand an adult who wanted to stage the scene would find the day of the week more important than size. But only if they knew there was a spare pair of Wednesday.

[Jayelles]

Well I just did a little experiment. I offered the larger size knickers to my daughter and she exclaimed "Mummy! These are too big! More like YOUR size". So there is no way she would mistake them for her own. Then I got her to try them on and they are simply huge on her. They wouldn't fall down round her ankles necessarily - not past her hip bones anyway, but they would certainly slip down as far as her hipbones - at which point the crotch is level with her knees. They are also incredibly baggy. Every heard the expression "droopy drawers"? They bag out at the back and form a little tunnel from one side to the next.

They would be extremely uncomfortable to wear and I quite frankly cannot imagine any child being happy to do so.

Another poster mentioned the possibility of them being worn over pullups and they would certainly accomodate rather large pullups with PLENTY of room to spare.

[LinasK]

They don't make pullups big enough for 6 year olds unless you're talking about the Good Nights Brand, which is marketing for nighttime bedwetting.

[LinasK]

Hi Jayelles. We were discussing this on the Eighth Pair of Underwear thread...

What's important about the panties is that they were Wednesday panties...

Wednesday -- to match the panties JonBenét had been wearing (smaller size), which had to be replaced because they were soiled.

As I said on the other thread, I think the stager replaced the panties with the only available identical pair, focusing more on the superficial staging than on whether the panties fit correctly.

The Wednesday panties may've been important in case anyone else had seen JB's underwear that night or knew which ones she was wearing. A witness who knew the underwear had been changed would screw up the staged scenario of JB coming home asleep and being snatched from bed by a kidnapper.
Excellent catch, Britt. Even I hadn't thought of this...

[Paradox]

I think the Wednesday panties were an attempt at conflict resolution.

I think the deed was supposed to be done on Christmas, Wednesday the 25th.

TOD has been estimated at 1 am. Thursday the 26th.

The tombstone reads the 25th.

In this case, size doesn't matter. I think the Wednesday tag is what mattered.

This is one major reason why I think the "staging" that was supposedly done for police was actually done for the perp; Patsy.

The deed wasn't done on the 25th, as it should have been, it was done on the 26th. But Patsy realigned the events in her mind by using the Wednesday panties and the 25th inscription on the tombstone.

[trixie]

So is this where you've been to lately? I had noticed you haven't been posting. You were missed.

Someone needs to refresh my memory, but didn't I read somewhere that the blood spots on Jonbenet's panties did not corrospond with her anatomy? Sounds to me like these were put on her "after the fact" instead of she possibly putting them on herself and wearing them to the Whites.
THanks for the info!

P.S. Your daughter sounds adorable!

[tumble]

I think the Wednesday panties were an attempt at conflict resolution.

I think the deed was supposed to be done on Christmas, Wednesday the 25th.

TOD has been estimated at 1 am. Thursday the 26th.

The tombstone reads the 25th.

In this case, size doesn't matter. I think the Wednesday tag is what mattered.

This is one major reason why I think the "staging" that was supposedly done for police was actually done for the perp; Patsy.

The deed wasn't done on the 25th, as it should have been, it was done on the 26th. But Patsy realigned the events in her mind by using the Wednesday panties and the 25th inscription on the tombstone.
Do you have any idea why the 25th was important for the perp.
It seems you are suggesting that the crime was actuallt planned for the 25th, have I understood correctly?

[SuperDave]

"What pops into my mind is a child who is frantic after dirting her underwear might try and replace it with the same exact panties. A 6 year old might be unaware of size differences. The question is why would a child be frantic about a solied pair of underpants? Prehaps if that child's parents would react very negativly if it was discovered the child soiled herself. Just thoughts on my part."

Maybe not for that reason; maybe she was just quirky that way. Kids are funny creatures you know.

[Cranberry]

I think the Wednesday panties were an attempt at conflict resolution.

I think the deed was supposed to be done on Christmas, Wednesday the 25th.

TOD has been estimated at 1 am. Thursday the 26th.

The tombstone reads the 25th.

In this case, size doesn't matter. I think the Wednesday tag is what mattered.

This is one major reason why I think the "staging" that was supposedly done for police was actually done for the perp; Patsy.

The deed wasn't done on the 25th, as it should have been, it was done on the 26th. But Patsy realigned the events in her mind by using the Wednesday panties and the 25th inscription on the tombstone.
I agree, the "call you tomorrow" in the RN would tie in with that too.

[Eagle1]

I agree that JonBenet probably wouldn't have put the big panties on herself. That someone could have gone to her chest of drawers to just scrounge around, not knowing there were some larger ones, and just happened to see the days of the week which might make it look like Pagans had done it because of Christmas Day.

Paradox beat me to what I was going to say.

And someone pointed out that the horrible deed wasn't finished until at least 1 AM on Thursday the 26th, but for some reason they needed it to look like a Christmas Day thing. Staging was to point in all directions except to actual killers, imho, to assert right away that there were lots of possibilities, to confuse the issue.

Glad we've had some parents of 6-yr olds who can show us what they're usually like. It's very helpful. One guy tried putting his little daughter into a suitcase, several years ago.

[tumble]

I agree that JonBenet probably wouldn't have put the big panties on herself. That someone could have gone to her chest of drawers to just scrounge around

I might be wrong but wasn't it so that the size 12 pack was not opened. They were supposed to be a gift to a cousin or something. The hadn't actually passed on the gift yet as JB supposedly wanted to keep them for herself(she probably could not imagine the size of them ;)).

Could be a curiosity thing to open the pack and try them on. Maybe something like this could spark of a PR rage, JSB.

[Jayelles]

I have seen for myself how baggy the larger Bloomies are on my daughter and I would like everyone else to see this for themselves. However, I wouldn't take photos of her because I think it would be demeaning and just wrong so, I have purchased the materials to make a model of my daughter. I've done adult models in the past for theatre so it won't take me too long. I only need to do her torso and upper legs. When the model is set and painted, I shall take photos of the 4/6 Bloomies on it and then the 12/14 Bloomies on it. Then everyone will be able to see just how ill-fitting the larger size undies are. It will be a good experiment as my daughter is almost exactly the same height and weight as Jonbenet was when she died. The model will however be very slightly larger than the live model!

A further point:- The packet is secured with a nylon tie which cannot be broken. A child would find it very difficult to open with packet. The nylon tie needs to be cut.

[SuperDave]

"I agree that JonBenet probably wouldn't have put the big panties on herself. That someone could have gone to her chest of drawers to just scrounge around, not knowing there were some larger ones, and just happened to see the days of the week which might make it look like Pagans had done it because of Christmas Day."

Well, Wednesday is named for Odin, the king of the Norse gods. (Hail the Allfather!) And, during the days when he was widely worshipped, it was common to honor him with human sacrifice. Not only that, but Santa Claus borrows strongly from him (Later on that story!).

"One guy tried putting his little daughter into a suitcase, several years ago."

That was Ned, I think! (Wish he were here now)

"A further point:- The packet is secured with a nylon tie which cannot be broken. A child would find it very difficult to open with packet. The nylon tie needs to be cut."

Hmm. Let me think on this.

[tumble]

Hmm. Let me think on this.

Yes, I know. Nylon cord, where have I heard that before...

[SuperDave]

Yeah, I think you and I are headed for the same place!

[trixie]

I want to bump this because I don't want this thread to die, it's too important and informative. Waiting for photos of "knickers" on a stationary dress model, right? BTW Jayelles, the first time I heard the word "knickers" was when one of the Prince Charles/Camilla Parker Bowles scandals hit regarding the intercepted cell phone call where he said he wanted to be in her knickers or something. I didn't know what they were but it wasn't hard to figure it out! lol!

[SuperDave]

Glad you revived it. There was somethig else about the oversized underwear.

This is an excerpt from one of Patsy's interviews:

21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to

22 understand is whether -- we are trying to

23 understand why she is wearing such a large

24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can

25 help us if you have a recollection of it.

0084

1 A. I am sure that I put the package

2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened

3 them and put them on.

Okay, she says very clearly that she put them in JB's bathroom and that JB put them on.
It goes on:

4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought

5 these sometime in mid to early December, is

6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,

7 you bought them in November?

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing

10 these? And I don't mean this specific day

11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you

12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in

13 this package of underpants and had been

14 wearing them since the trip to New York in

15 November?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the

18 laundry for the family, that is part of her

19 duties; is that correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash

22 clothes on occasion?

23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.

24 Q. Do you have any recollection of

25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

0085

1 A. Not specifically.

2 Q. Was it something that, the fact

3 that she is wearing these underpants designed

4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and

5 I will give you a minute to think about it

6 because I know it is tough to try to pin

7 down a couple of months of casual

8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any

9 conversations with her concerning the fact

10 that she is wearing underwear that is just

11 too large for her?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it

14 was, if it had caught your attention or came

15 to your attention, do you think you might

16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't

17 fit, put something on that fits, that is

18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,

19 had come to your attention --

20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the

21 package had been opened, we made the

22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and

23 use them because, you know, we weren't going

24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,

25 so.

0086

1 I mean, if you have ever seen

2 these little panties, there is not too much

3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm

4 sure even if they were a little bit big,

5 they were special because we got them up

6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they

7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was

8 fine with me.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see

10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?

11 THE WITNESS: No.

The question was, if Patsy knew about them and knew that JB had them on, would she have told JB NOT to wear them. Patsy CHANGES her story to say that they really weren't that much different.

Det. Harmer jumps right on that:

12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically

13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?

14 And I am not saying --

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in

16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I

17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all

18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can

19 help herself to whatever is in there.

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not

21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to

22 Jenny.

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in

25 JonBenet's bathroom?

0087

1 A. Right.

2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm

3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then

4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet

5 express an interest in them; therefore, you

6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --

7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I

8 think I bought them with the intention of

9 sending them in a package of Christmas things

10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that

11 together, so I just put them in her, her

12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

She changes from "I'm sure" to "maybe" and "we decided," and "I never saw them on her," and this and that.

But it gets more interesting from there!

The story is that the Ramsey PI's took the pack with the size 12's and that they kept them until the DA took over in 2002.

WHAT?! They had to know how important these panites were. They know that the BPD's claim that the DNA came from the manufacturer could be proven or disproven by testing them. The Ramseys SAY they want all irrelevant evidence cleared up so LE can move on, then they pull a stunt like this?! This is what they call "cooperation?!" Isn't that WITHOLDING EVIDENCE? Isn't that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

[tumble]

Yes, that size 12 staging went pretty wrong. Good post SD, very informative.

[SuperDave]

Yes, that size 12 staging went pretty wrong. Good post SD, very informative.

I can't take credit for it. I was inspired elsewhere.

[tumble]

Very well then, credit were credit is due,

[SuperDave]

Indeed. Can we get back to the main business?

[UKGuy]

12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically

13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?

14 And I am not saying --

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in

16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I

17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all

18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can

19 help herself to whatever is in there.

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not

21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to

22 Jenny.

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in

25 JonBenet's bathroom?

0087

1 A. Right.

2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm

3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then

4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet

5 express an interest in them; therefore, you

6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --

7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I

8 think I bought them with the intention of

9 sending them in a package of Christmas things

10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that

11 together, so I just put them in her, her

12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

She changes from "I'm sure" to "maybe" and "we decided," and "I never saw them on her," and this and that.


Twice Patsy states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer, but from memory there were no size-12's recovered from her panty drawer, they are listed on the search-warrants!



But it gets more interesting from there!

The story is that the Ramsey PI's took the pack with the size 12's and that they kept them until the DA took over in 2002.

WHAT?! They had to know how important these panites were. They know that the BPD's claim that the DNA came from the manufacturer could be proven or disproven by testing them. The Ramseys SAY they want all irrelevant evidence cleared up so LE can move on, then they pull a stunt like this?! This is what they call "cooperation?!" Isn't that WITHOLDING EVIDENCE? Isn't that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?


Also given the latter detail regarding the Ramsey PI's then if they had the remainder of the pack of size-12's, I assume they were not in her panty drawer?

From memory again either LHP or Patsy stated the size-12's were placed in the dresser in the bedroom?

[tumble]

1 A. I am sure that I put the package

2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened

3 them and put them on.

From Jayelle we know that opening this box would be very hard for a child.
This statement is probably not true.

[Jayelles]

1 A. I am sure that I put the package

2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened

3 them and put them on.

From Jayelle we know that opening this box would be very hard for a child.
This statement is probably not true.Well I know that my Tootsie can't open these ties. She's not allowed to use our scissors. She has her own little plastic craft scissors, but they wouldn't cut through this nylon tie - they would just "chew" it.

That's not to say that the Ramseys didn't allow JonBenet to use real scissors.

I just don't believe that:-

a) JonBenet would have wanted to wear these outsized knickers which would have slid down so that the crotch was swinging around her knees or that

b) Patsy would have allowed her to wear them.

I don't know about anyone else, but there has always been a "pride" thing in our family about having decent underwear in case one should be in an accident!

I cannot believe for one minute that a 6 year old little girl who is used to being dressed up in costom made clothes would either want to or be allowed to wear a pair of knickers that look like they belong to her mother. Elsewhere, a poster has suggested that the larger size might actually have been for Patsy herself. I don't know if they would quite have fitted Patsy. They will stetch to 38 inches.

To those awaiting the model - it is made. I made it on Friday but it collapsed slightly when I moved it to our utility room to hang up to dry. I never made a model with legs before! It had to dry for 24 hours but I've been away over the weekend. Should be rock-solid now. I'll check it tomorrow to see if I can use it. I also need to measure it because the modelling material is quite thick and it might be bigger than our Tootsie.

If it's too big or otherwise unusable, I'll try again.

[Eagle1]

You're certainly energetic going to all the trouble of making a model. We appreciate it.

Do any of us mothers remember whether we had to still dress our six year olds? I can't for the life of me recall. (Mine are in 30's and 40's now.)

I'm pretty sure I didn't check their underpants, right? Or did I? Whatever was normally being done at the time, I did it. Some of everything.

And was a one-woman car pool for activities for my five kids' and their pals whose mothers were alway " too busy" and trusted me. I bought clothes at the best stores, though all of us do some bargain shopping too, a game. Hm..... did I inspect underpants? lol

[Toltec]

You're certainly energetic going to all the trouble of making a model. We appreciate it.

Do any of us mothers remember whether we had to still dress our six year olds? I can't for the life of me recall. (Mine are in 30's and 40's now.)

I'm pretty sure I didn't check their underpants, right? Or did I? Whatever was normally being done at the time, I did it. Some of everything.

And was a one-woman car pool for activities for my five kids' and their pals whose mothers were alway " too busy" and trusted me. I bought clothes at the best stores, though all of us do some bargain shopping too, a game. Hm..... did I inspect underpants? lol

It is fact that Patsy was in JonBenet's bathroom Christmas day. She and JonBenet had a tiff over the red turtleneck. The turtleneck ended up balled up in JonBenet's bathroom. Who balled it up? Anyhoo...

If I were to go to a Christmas dinner, I would have bathed my six-year-old daughter. And this is very important:

JonBenet wore leotards under her black velvet pants. Anyone who has had a six-year-old girl would know that she would need help getting them on. And while getting them on, you would notice what type of underwear she would be wearing.

The "Wednesday" panties did not have black fibers from the black velvet pants. Furthermore, if JonBenet did wear the size 12 panties under her leotards, the panties would have been wrinkled due to the size.

So folks, if there were no black fibers, no wrinkles, no skid marks...then the answer would be NO...she did not wear those sz 12 panties to the Whites.

[Bev]

I read it pretty fast, so I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by not giving credit but some important points were made in this thread.
!. "the panties had to say wednesday" sounds very real to me. In fact, it sounds like one of those panic decisions - "oh my God, what if someone saw her in those" type of thing that afterward looks completely irrational.
2. What do you suppose PR meant when she said she hadn't gotten it together to send them to Atlanta? Do you think she meant she hadn't mailed any xmas presents yet, or just forgot the underwear gift?
3. you would have to pin a size 12 on a little girl like that - as someone commented, they'd be falling off of her.

[tumble]

I though previously that the size 12 was staging to suggest that an intuder put those on her, but reading the transcript above I just don't understand why PR would say that JB put them on herself.

The easy thing would be to say
'yes, that look strange, I have no idea how that got on her'
instead it seems that she really tries to understand how she could have gotten into them herself.
Either PR is very shrewd of she didn't put them on her or I am just plain wrong with my asumption above.
Right now I am leaning towards that PR didn't put her in those panties.
What does JR say when asked the quesion about the size 12?
If he says something like
'yes, that look strange, I have no idea how that got on her'
I think he was the one who dressed her in them.

[rashomon]

It is fact that Patsy was in JonBenet's bathroom Christmas day. She and JonBenet had a tiff over the red turtleneck. The turtleneck ended up balled up in JonBenet's bathroom. Who balled it up? Anyhoo...

If I were to go to a Christmas dinner, I would have bathed my six-year-old daughter. And this is very important:

JonBenet wore leotards under her black velvet pants. Anyone who has had a six-year-old girl would know that she would need help getting them on. And while getting them on, you would notice what type of underwear she would be wearing.

The "Wednesday" panties did not have black fibers from the black velvet pants. Furthermore, if JonBenet did wear the size 12 panties under her leotards, the panties would have been wrinkled due to the size.

So folks, if there were no black fibers, no wrinkles, no skid marks...then the answer would be NO...she did not wear those sz 12 panties to the Whites.Not that I believe for a moment that JB actually wore those size 12 panties to the Whites, but just a 'theoretical' explanation: if JB wore leotards between her panties and the black velvet pants, maybe this would have prevented fibers from the black pants from getting on her panties?

Do you or others know if JB's black velvet pants had traces of urine or feces on them too? For often when children have accidents, not only the panties get dirty but also the pants, at least to some degree.
I don't believe JB ever went to bed that night, and suppose the rage was over a wetting or soiling accident, she might still have been dressed in the clothes she was wearing to the Whites'.

[UKGuy]

I don't believe JB ever went to bed that night, and suppose the rage was over a wetting or soiling accident, she might still have been dressed in the clothes she was wearing to the Whites'.

rashomon,
I've seen no mention of her black velvet pants wrt wetting/soiling etc.

IMO JonBenet was wearing her day clothes when she was killed!


.

[SuperDave]

Another thing: did any of your kids leave a bed as neat as JB's in the picture? I never did!

Patsy's OBVIOUSLY lying in that interview.

[Nuisanceposter]

Patsy was obviously lying almost every time she opened her mouth when it came to JonBenet, if you ask me. Even when JonBenet was still alive - spoke French and played violin, my butt.

I don't believe JonBenet ever made it to bed that night. That bed certainly does not look like a child has been sleeping in it.

[trixie]

Patsy was obviously lying almost every time she opened her mouth when it came to JonBenet, if you ask me. Even when JonBenet was still alive - spoke French and played violin, my butt.

I don't believe JonBenet ever made it to bed that night. That bed certainly does not look like a child has been sleeping in it.


I totally agree with you about Jonbenet not making it to bed that night. I've always thought that.

[rashomon]

rashomon,
I've seen no mention of her black velvet pants wrt wetting/soiling etc.
IMO JonBenet was wearing her day clothes when she was killed!

To avoid any misunderstanding: What were JB's 'day clothes' in your opinion? The shirt with the sequined star on it and the black velvet pants which she wore to the Whites' Christmas party?

[UKGuy]

To avoid any misunderstanding: What were JB's 'day clothes' in your opinion? The shirt with the sequined star on it and the black velvet pants which she wore to the Whites' Christmas party?

rashomon,

More or less the clothes she was wearing on returning from the Whites.

She may have exchanged slippers or sneakers for her footwear.

So White Gap Top, Black Velvet Pants, size-6 underwear, vest?, socks or/and leotard?, the latter I am not certain about.

I'll just mention it again for the umpteenth time, pedantic I know, but she was discovered with bare feet!

Lets be litigious: Just think of somebody wishing to sexually abuse Jonbenet, what do they do?

Well possibly they may undress her from the waist down?

Now if you want to hide or attempt to mask this what might you do?

Wipe her down, clean her up, remove her current underwear, redress her in other underwear, and IF she was wearing leotards, something similar e.g. longjohns, oh and make the underwear a Wednesday pair?

Unless we are dealing with a genius of an intruder who can defy locard's principles, then I think its pretty obvious what happened the night JonBenet was killed, and it was no accident!

.

[narlacat]

<<I'll just mention it again for the umpteenth time, pedantic I know, but she was discovered with bare feet!>>

What is the importance of that UKGuy?

[Nehemiah]

This is a great thread.

I have always thought and posted that JB's clothes hold the key to the mystery of her murder. The pictures taken at the Whites' have never been released. Why is that? I think it's because there is some kind of discrepancy in what the pictures show, and what the depos state, and that is some of the evidence that the BPD has held onto if this case should ever go to court.

Patsy:
I mean, if you have ever seen

2 these little panties, there is not too much

3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm

4 sure even if they were a little bit big,

5 they were special because we got them up

6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they

7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was

8 fine with me....


I have sons and no "experience" in dressing little girls, so seeing the actual pictures posted as a result of Jayelle's experiment helped me to realize just how large those panties were on little JB. I think that someone pulled the large panties out of her drawer for redressing her, and I think it was due to the "Wednesday" imprint that those were chosen. For that reason, I do not think it was Patsy. I do not think that Patsy would have made such a mistake with sizing. I think that a woman's instinct would have been to have at least found some that fit. I believe it to have been a male--a male who really didn't know that much about girls' clothing and sizes.

[narlacat]

This is a great thread.

I have always thought and posted that JB's clothes hold the key to the mystery of her murder. The pictures taken at the Whites' have never been released. Why is that? I think it's because there is some kind of discrepancy in what the pictures show, and what the depos state, and that is some of the evidence that the BPD has held onto if this case should ever go to court.

I have sons and no "experience" in dressing little girls, so seeing the actual pictures posted as a result of Jayelle's experiment helped me to realize just how large those panties were on little JB. I think that someone pulled the large panties out of her drawer for redressing her, and I think it was due to the "Wednesday" imprint that those were chosen. For that reason, I do not think it was Patsy. I do not think that Patsy would have made such a mistake with sizing. I think that a woman's instinct would have been to have at least found some that fit. I believe it to have been a male--a male who really didn't know that much about girls' clothing and sizes.But if they were the only other pair of panties with Wednesday on them...

[UKGuy]

<<I'll just mention it again for the umpteenth time, pedantic I know, but she was discovered with bare feet!>>

What is the importance of that UKGuy?

narlacat,

Its importance might depend on which theory you support.

But think about it laterally, consider the other items which were removed from the crime-scene e.g. part of the paintbrush handle, her size-6 underwear, the flashlight?

So were her socks or leotards also removed?


.

[UKGuy]

This is a great thread.

I have always thought and posted that JB's clothes hold the key to the mystery of her murder. The pictures taken at the Whites' have never been released. Why is that? I think it's because there is some kind of discrepancy in what the pictures show, and what the depos state, and that is some of the evidence that the BPD has held onto if this case should ever go to court.

I have sons and no "experience" in dressing little girls, so seeing the actual pictures posted as a result of Jayelle's experiment helped me to realize just how large those panties were on little JB. I think that someone pulled the large panties out of her drawer for redressing her, and I think it was due to the "Wednesday" imprint that those were chosen. For that reason, I do not think it was Patsy. I do not think that Patsy would have made such a mistake with sizing. I think that a woman's instinct would have been to have at least found some that fit. I believe it to have been a male--a male who really didn't know that much about girls' clothing and sizes.

Nehemiah,

I tend to agree with you, but there is always the possibility that the Wedesday pair mattered not so much to the redresser but also to whomever else was told she was wearing a Wednesday pair?

.

[Nehemiah]

Well, you could certainly be correct. I just don't see a woman doing that, though. Just like with JB having blue hair ties in her hair when found, yet she was wearing black, red, and white clothing. No good Southern mom would commit such a fashion faux pas.

[Becba]

Patsey seems to say she put them in JB's bathroom and then also say she put them in JB"s drawer.

Also, the bed did not look slept in. It is doubtful JB made her bed Christmas day, so it may have been made up for a couple of days. Perhaps she had been sleeping somewhere besides her own bed.

[UKGuy]

Well, you could certainly be correct. I just don't see a woman doing that, though. Just like with JB having blue hair ties in her hair when found, yet she was wearing black, red, and white clothing. No good Southern mom would commit such a fashion faux pas.

Nehemiah,

Thats why her clothing is a key aspect to this case. Analysed properly it can be demonstrated that its likely she was redressed.

.

[Cypros]

Just a little clarification needed. A leotard is a one-piece body suit that covers from the neckline down to the crotch. Tights are the leggings that coer the waist down to the feet. Was JB wearing a leotard or tights under her clothes on Christmas night?

[Cypros]

Patsey seems to say she put them in JB's bathroom and then also say she put them in JB"s drawer.

Also, the bed did not look slept in. It is doubtful JB made her bed Christmas day, so it may have been made up for a couple of days. Perhaps she had been sleeping somewhere besides her own bed.

Here is a picture of JB's bed in the crime scene photos.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1133595#post1133595

To me, the bed looks as if it could have been slept in. 6 year olds do not take up the whole bed and thus do not necessarily mess the whole thing up as larger (taller) children do. Of course, we know that she did not sleep through the entire night so the disturbance to the bed as seen in the photo fit with the idea that she was in bed for a brief period and then got up, IMO. That is, of course, assuming that the bed had even been made on the 25th.

[Nehemiah]

Just a little clarification needed. A leotard is a one-piece body suit that covers from the neckline down to the crotch. Tights are the leggings that coer the waist down to the feet. Was JB wearing a leotard or tights under her clothes on Christmas night?

Well, not necessarily, Cypros.

tights: skintight knit hose covering the body from the waist to the feet worn by acrobats and dancers and as stockings by women and girls wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

When I was growing up, we always said "leotards". Now I hear tights/leotards used interchangeably.

I always assumed that she was wearing "tights" but I don't have a source at this time.

Jayelles, did you take a picture of the nylon tie that secured the Bloomies?

[rashomon]

Lets be litigious: Just think of somebody wishing to sexually abuse Jonbenet, what do they do?

Well possibly they may undress her from the waist down?

Now if you want to hide or attempt to mask this what might you do?

Wipe her down, clean her up, remove her current underwear, redress her in other underwear, and IF she was wearing leotards, something similar e.g. longjohns, oh and make the underwear a Wednesday pair?

Unless we are dealing with a genius of an intruder who can defy locard's principles, then I think its pretty obvious what happened the night JonBenet was killed, and it was no accident!

But these same steps could also have taken place in case JB had a soiling accident and one parent went into something like 'toilet rage', hitting her on the head: then too JB afterwards would have to be undressed from the waist down, (and if she was wearing leotards this would have left her barefoot), cleaned up, her dirty underwear removed, and redressed.

The sexual assault scene could then have been done for staging purposes to provide a false motive for the crime.
I personally believe that the person who wiped her down did this to inspect if the wound he/she had inflicted to her vagina looked 'convincing' enough.

I too think it is pretty obvious what happened to JonBenet, but that it was an 'accident' in the sense that the person who hit her, although being in a blind rage, did not mean to kill her. And then was left with a tragic "Oh my God, what have I done" situation.

[Eagle1]

Well, you could certainly be correct. I just don't see a woman doing that, though. Just like with JB having blue hair ties in her hair when found, yet she was wearing black, red, and white clothing. No good Southern mom would commit such a fashion faux pas.

That's a good point. PR being artistic, a painter, I think she'd have been conscious of the hair ties not matching, and probably so would JonBenet. She was pretty opinionated about what she wore.

And someone on p. 2 mentioned seeing Jayelles' pictures of the model she was making. Where was that? I didn't see any, or any link.

[rashomon]

Not that I believe for a moment that JB actually wore those size 12 panties to the Whites, but just a 'theoretical' explanation: if JB wore leotards between her panties and the black velvet pants, maybe this would have prevented fibers from the black pants from getting on her panties?


A question: there seems to be some discussion about 'leotards'. I always thought 'leotards' was a synonym for 'tights', but after looking up 'leotard' in my dictionary it says it's some kind of body suit often used for exercise or dancing.
Which was JB wearing, tights or a leotard body suit?

[UKGuy]

But these same steps could also have taken place in case JB had a soiling accident and one parent went into something like 'toilet rage', hitting her on the head: then too JB afterwards would have to be undressed from the waist down, (and if she was wearing leotards this would have left her barefoot), cleaned up, her dirty underwear removed, and redressed.

The sexual assault scene could then have been done for staging purposes to provide a false motive for the crime.
I personally believe that the person who wiped her down did this to inspect if the wound he/she had inflicted to her vagina looked 'convincing' enough.

I too think it is pretty obvious what happened to JonBenet, but that it was an 'accident' in the sense that the person who hit her, although being in a blind rage, did not mean to kill her. And then was left with a tragic "Oh my God, what have I done" situation.

rashomon,

Yes but I have already referenced that there was a soiled pair of underwear and jeans lying upstairs on the floor and that when discovered JonBenet was wet with urine. Not quite the scenario a toilet rage advocate would want?

I dont doubt there are similarities in approach to either theory, e.g. Toilet Rage or Sexual Abuse

Also why would a Toilet Rage stager require her to be wearing size-12 underwear, when she had a drawer full of size-6's upstairs?

If you are going to hide the toilet rage aspect then surely you get the underwear correct?

I think over the recent weeks I covered most of the items in the wine-cellar and demonstrated either that they have been staged or they have been removed. This is prima facia evidence that we are dealing with a staged homicide.

JonBenet's death was no accident since regardless of which sequence of events you propose, someone either whacked her on the head then deliberately strangled her, bear in mind all those contusions and abrasions on her neck, those are not accidental! Or the alternate sequence where she was strangled first then whacked on the head, the other circumstance where either occurs in parallel still means she was intended to be killed.

Someone tried to mask the circumstances surrounding her death by staging a homicide in the wine-cellar!

IMO a leotard is something gymnasts or pageant contestants may wear, I would expect JonBenet to normally wear either socks or tights. With it being xmas, she may have been wearing tights, but I have never seen this confirmed anywhere.




.

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Yes but I have already referenced that there was a soiled pair of underwear and jeans lying upstairs on the floor and that when discovered JonBenet was wet with urine. Not quite the scenario a toilet rage advocate would want?

I dont doubt there are similarities in approach to either theory, e.g. Toilet Rage or Sexual Abuse

Also why would a Toilet Rage stager require her to be wearing size-12 underwear, when she had a drawer full of size-6's upstairs?

If you are going to hide the toilet rage aspect then surely you get the underwear correct?

I think over the recent weeks I covered most of the items in the wine-cellar and demonstrated either that they have been staged or they have been removed. This is prima facia evidence that we are dealing with a staged homicide.

JonBenet's death was no accident since regardless of which sequence of events you propose, someone either whacked her on the head then deliberately strangled her, bear in mind all those contusions and abrasions on her neck, those are not accidental! Or the alternate sequence where she was strangled first then whacked on the head, the other circumstance where either occurs in parallel still means she was intended to be killed.

Someone tried to mask the circumstances surrounding her death by staging a homicide in the wine-cellar!

IMO a leotard is something gymnasts or pageant contestants may wear, I would expect JonBenet to normally wear either socks or tights. With it being xmas, she may have been wearing tights, but I have never seen this confirmed anywhere.

If a soiled pair of underwear was found 'in her jeans', it would suggest to me that this was not the underwear JB wore on that particular night. For I can't imagine JB, after coming home from the Whites' party, wearing the black velvet pants, would then have changed 'into a pair of jeans' shortly before bedtime.
Imo JB wore those jeans before going to the Whites' party, not afterward.

Also why would a Toilet Rage stager require her to be wearing size-12 underwear, when she had a drawer full of size-6's upstairs?
Maybe because only the size-12 underwear had 'Wednesday' printed on it?
Remember that it was very important to the stager to make it appear as if JB had been abducted from her bed, still wearing Wednesday (Dec 25) underwear she had gone to bed with.

[UKGuy]

If a soiled pair of underwear was found 'in her jeans', it would suggest to me that this was not the underwear JB wore on that particular night. For I can't imagine JB, after coming home from the Whites' party, wearing the black velvet pants, would then have changed 'into a pair of jeans' shortly before bedtime.
Imo JB wore those jeans before going to the Whites' party, not afterward.


Maybe because only the size-12 underwear had 'Wednesday' printed on it?
Remember that it was very important to the stager to make it appear as if JB had been aducted from her bed, still wearing the Wednesday (Dec 25) underwear she had gone to bed with.


rashomon,



Maybe because only the size-12 underwear had 'Wednesday' printed on it?
Remember that it was very important to the stager to make it appear as if JB had been aducted from her bed, still wearing the Wednesday (Dec 25) underwear she had gone to bed with.


Yes possibly but that consideration did not come first, we know this as the staging changed, unless you think there was only ever one staging event?

JonBenet was sexually assaulted first, then wiped down, then dressed in the size-12 underwear, with longjohns added, but no socks, leaving her in her White Gap Top!

If a Toilet Rage was the reason JonBenet was killed you would expect her staging to be consistent since its known at that point in time what scenario is being planned.


For example, she was meant to have been abducted from bed, so why not after wiping her down undress her completely and redress her in either in pijamas or nightgown?


If its a PDI can we assume she might get that bit worked out?


Imo JB wore those jeans before going to the Whites' party, not afterward.

In a toilet rage theory this does not matter , what does is the fact they were left lying visible on the floor!

So if its Toilet Rage you will want to remove any evidence of JonBenet having a wetting/soiling accident regardless of when it occurred e.g. you want it off the BPD radar completely. So the soiled underwear and jeans upstairs should have been removed and the underwear washed by hand! We know JonBenet's killer has removed and added items to the crime scene.

None of this was done, and its what you would expect from someone trying to hide a toilet rage death.

Why should this be, because Toilet Rage was not the original motivation behind her death! Evidently some other motive was.


.

[Jayelles]

A question: there seems to be some discussion about 'leotards'. I always thought 'leotards' was a synonym for 'tights', but after looking up 'leotard' in my dictionary it says it's some kind of body suit often used for exercise or dancing.
Which was JB wearing, tights or a leotard body suit?
We have an item of clothing here called a "body" (odd name I know). Bodys are SIMILAR to leotards but they have gusset poppers which leotards do not have, When you are wearing a body, you unfasten them at the gusset when you go to the loo. They are very comfortable to wear and give a nice sleek line under trousers/pants. I wear them a lot with business suits.

I would imagine that it would be a similar item of clothing which is being called a leotard here. I don't think JBR was wearing such an item either on the day before she died or at the time of her death.

[Britt]

For I can't imagine JB, after coming home from the Whites' party, wearing the black velvet pants, would then have changed 'into a pair of jeans' shortly before bedtime.
Maybe not on a regular night, but the family was leaving on a trip first thing in the a.m. Clothing routines can be different pre-trip because stuff needs to be washed and packed.

And/or maybe she'd wet the bed the prior night -- LHP said the sheets had been changed -- and she was simply waiting for her nightie in the laundry.

Or, as I said before, maybe she was dressed for bed trip-ready, in Gap shirt and play pants, for early a.m. exit.

Anyway, IMO Patsy's severe amnesia re those pants means they were significant.

[Britt]

For example, she was meant to have been abducted from bed, so why not after wiping her down undress her completely and redress her in either in pijamas or nightgown?
But what if that's not what she was wearing to bed that night? What if the perp was trying to fool the other parent, and that parent knew that JB was going to bed in her Gap shirt and Wednesday undies. Perhaps JB had even made a point of wearing those items, or insisted on it, so the stager had to maintain that, even to the point of replacing the undies with identical ones that were too big.

[Britt]

None of this was done, and its what you would expect from someone trying to hide a toilet rage death.
Good points, UKGuy. I just think Patsy was focused more on hiding the child abuse than on what triggered it.

She didn't remove the pants from the scene; she removed the scene from the pants... and created a whole new scene in a far corner of the basement.

[UKGuy]

Good points, UKGuy. I just think Patsy was focused more on hiding the child abuse than on what triggered it.

She didn't remove the pants from the scene; she removed the scene from the pants... and created a whole new scene in a far corner of the basement.


Britt,

Thanks for your remarks, but my critique still stands. If the motivating factor to killing your daughter arises due to toilet rage, and you go to extraordinary lengths to hide this by staging more than one homicide, removing and adding forensic evidence, why are the soiled pants left in the jeans upstairs?

I would speculate that this is probably where Steve Thomas first saw the possible connection between bedwetting and toilet rage.

Also lets face it JonBenet never went to bed wearing jeans and size-6 underwear which she soiled in bed!

I'm assuming she never soiled her bed that night, since I've read no reports listing forensic evidence to match it.

So you are left with bedwetting as motivation for the death of a 6-year old girl, maybe in some deprived inner city area, where violence may be a norm, but this is Married-To-A-Millionare wannabee socialite Mrs Ramsey, with no history of corporal punishment.


But what if that's not what she was wearing to bed that night? What if the perp was trying to fool the other parent, and that parent knew that JB was going to bed in her Gap shirt and Wednesday undies. Perhaps JB had even made a point of wearing those items, or insisted on it, so the stager had to maintain that, even to the point of replacing the undies with identical ones that were too big.

There is something important regarding the Wednesday underwear, and it may be you are correct, that one of the other Ramsey residents was aware of this.

But JonBenet was redressed, she never went to bed wearing those longjohns or the size-12 underwear, they were selected by her killer, your remarks regarding the white gap top having the same significance as the Wednesday underwear, is contradicted by her barbie-gown being present at the crime-scene, rather than leaving her white gap top, the idea was to replace this with her barbie gown! Either way it does not add up.

Currently IMO the forensic evidence is not consistent with the toilet rage theory.


.

[tumble]

But JonBenet was redressed, she never went to bed wearing those longjohns


PR actually says that she put JB in longjonhs when se put her to bed.
You are convinced that this was a lie? Then, why lie about this?

[UKGuy]

But JonBenet was redressed, she never went to bed wearing those longjohns


PR actually says that she put JB in longjonhs when se put her to bed.
You are convinced that this was a lie? Then, why lie about this?


tumble,

So that how she was discovered in the basement reflects how she says she put her to bed.

But it was obviously intended that she be discovered minus her white gap top, but wearing her barbie-gown

Its doubtful if the statements given by Patsy or John regarding putting JonBenet to bed, can be relied upon since they are not only contradicted, at later dates, by themselves but also the fact that JonBenet was awake eager to eat pineapple.

But what if JonBenet never slept in her own bed, what if she never went to bed, what if she was killed whilst still dressed in her day-clothes?

All the evidence suggests she never went to bed, so how come the toilet rage?

JonBenet was also sexually assaulted, I blelieve there are no forensic traces from this assault on her longjohns, something you might expect if she was wearing them to bed?

IMO the forensic evidence is not strong enough to support toilet rage as the motivating factor behind her death.


.

[SuperDave]

"So you are left with bedwetting as motivation for the death of a 6-year old girl, maybe in some deprived inner city area, where violence may be a norm, but this is Married-To-A-Millionare wannabee socialite Mrs Ramsey, with no history of corporal punishment."

Please, UKGuy, don't waste my time with THAT bs!

Fine, you don't like the "toilet rage" scenario. So, give us one you like! Heck, I'm not too enamored of the "toilet rage" biz myself.

[UKGuy]

"So you are left with bedwetting as motivation for the death of a 6-year old girl, maybe in some deprived inner city area, where violence may be a norm, but this is Married-To-A-Millionare wannabee socialite Mrs Ramsey, with no history of corporal punishment."

Please, UKGuy, don't waste my time with THAT bs!

Fine, you don't like the "toilet rage" scenario. So, give us one you like! Heck, I'm not too enamored of the "toilet rage" biz myself.

SuperDave,

Well I like to think of it as literate bs!

There are really only four theories left I like, one for each of the Ramsey's, and the collective one!

.

[SuperDave]

"Well I like to think of it as literate bs!"

Doesn't matter how literate it is!

List them for me, please. It helps to know where I'm going.

[Old Broad]

I have a question about the DNA that's been tested that was found on the underwear. I understand it was degraded so they weren't able to get a complete reading on it, but weren't they able to say it was from a caucasion male? I am wondering just where the underware was manufactured? Many times I've heard that the DNA could have come from a factory worker, but if the underware was manufactured in let's say china, then would it really seem likely the DNA could have come from a caucasion? Wasn't the underware packaged inside a sealed plastic bag?
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

OB

[SuperDave]

I have a question about the DNA that's been tested that was found on the underwear. I understand it was degraded so they weren't able to get a complete reading on it, but weren't they able to say it was from a caucasion male? I am wondering just where the underware was manufactured? Many times I've heard that the DNA could have come from a factory worker, but if the underware was manufactured in let's say china, then would it really seem likely the DNA could have come from a caucasion? Wasn't the underware packaged inside a sealed plastic bag?
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

OB

OB, I shall attempt to intelligently answer you queries:

It was degraded. Only the lawyers and Private Eyes working for the Ramseys have said it was Caucasian. There's no proof of that or statement to that effect from any scientist who actually worked on it.

I've heard it was made in Vietnam or Hong Kong. You're assuming it came from a Caucasian, thus you say it isn't likely. But that's just spin, far as we know. They found human DNA in unopened packages of underwear from the same plant, if that helps you.

I believe it was sealed.

You have to remember, OB: this DNA was degraded. That takes time. It was likely there for weeks. That's the big one.

[Britt]

Many times I've heard that the DNA could have come from a factory worker, but if the underware was manufactured in let's say china, then would it really seem likely the DNA could have come from a caucasion?
To add to what SuperDave said...

At Forums For Justice Tricia posted what a professional criminalist told her about the DNA:

Excerpts:
...you can look at the statistics for a regular DNA sample and make a guess for race based on whichever race has the best stats. However, I am a Caucasian mutt with some Native American (Mongoloid) thrown in, yet my stats would suggest that I'm African-American! So while you might get an "indication" of race, it's by no means accurate -- it's basically just an educated guess.

***
But if the DNA is from semen or saliva or blood, then the DNA would only be an accurate indicator of gender, and the race would basically be a big guess.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6994&page=3&pp=12

SuperDave is right. The Caucasian claim is Ramsey spin.

[rashomon]

rashomon,
JonBenet was sexually assaulted first, then wiped down, then dressed in the size-12 underwear, with longjohns added, but no socks, leaving her in her White Gap Top!
This is a mere assumption. Dr. Werner Spitz and quite a few others are of the opinion that the head bash came first. And the CASKU experts asaid that the paintbrush injury and the garrote contraption was staging.
If a Toilet Rage was the reason JonBenet was killed you would expect her staging to be consistent since its known at that point in time what scenario is being planned.

For example, she was meant to have been abducted from bed, so why not after wiping her down undress her completely and redress her in either in pijamas or nightgown?


If its a PDI can we assume she might get that bit worked out?

In a toilet rage theory this does not matter , what does is the fact they were left lying visible on the floor!

So if its Toilet Rage you will want to remove any evidence of JonBenet having a wetting/soiling accident regardless of when it occurred e.g. you want it off the BPD radar completely. So the soiled underwear and jeans upstairs should have been removed and the underwear washed by hand! We know JonBenet's killer has removed and added items to the crime scene.

None of this was done, and its what you would expect from someone trying to hide a toilet rage death.

Why should this be, because Toilet Rage was not the original motivation behind her death! Evidently some other motive was.

That toilet rage was not the motive is pure speculation.
Patsy for example could quite simply have forgotten to remove the jeans with the panties in them. Those panties obvioulsy weren't very dirty either.
And the panties JB had worn to the Whites' seem to be missing.

And whether the motive was toilet rage or sexual assault, the stager didn't get it consistent in either case, for a kidnapping for ransom would contradict the strangling by a garrote scenario.

It was the Ramseys' story that JonBenet had gone to bed, and regardless of whether the motive was sexual abuse or toilet rage, why then didn't they dress JB in her nightgown afterwards? Why leave her in her day-clothes from the waist up?

UkGuy, in prior posts you said this was a premeditated act.
Who abused JB in your opinion?
Who killed her? (Abuser and killer needn't be the same person).

[SuperDave]

"you can look at the statistics for a regular DNA sample and make a guess for race based on whichever race has the best stats. However, I am a Caucasian mutt with some Native American (Mongoloid) thrown in, yet my stats would suggest that I'm African-American! So while you might get an "indication" of race, it's by no means accurate -- it's basically just an educated guess.

***
But if the DNA is from semen or saliva or blood, then the DNA would only be an accurate indicator of gender, and the race would basically be a big guess."

Look at me: white, American Indian, some Japanese.

"The Caucasian claim is Ramsey spin."

Does the phrase, "far as I can throw them" mean anything?

"And whether the motive was toilet rage or sexual assault, the stager didn't get it consistent in either case, for a kidnapping for ransom would contradict the strangling by a garrote scenario."

There are about five different intruder motives in one man!

"This is a mere assumption. Dr. Werner Spitz and quite a few others are of the opinion that the head bash came first. And the CASKU experts asaid that the paintbrush injury and the garrote contraption was staging."

They said there was "staging WITHIN staging."

[UKGuy]

This is a mere assumption. Dr. Werner Spitz and quite a few others are of the opinion that the head bash came first. And the CASKU experts asaid that the paintbrush injury and the garrote contraption was staging.


That toilet rage was not the motive is pure speculation.
Patsy for example could quite simply have forgotten to remove the jeans with the panties in them. Those panties obvioulsy weren't very dirty either.
And the panties JB had worn to the Whites' seem to be missing.

And whether the motive was toilet rage or sexual assault, the stager didn't get it consistent in either case, for a kidnapping for ransom would contradict the strangling by a garrote scenario.

It was the Ramseys' story that JonBenet had gone to bed, and regardless of whether the motive was sexual abuse or toilet rage, why then didn't they dress JB in her nightgown afterwards? Why leave her in her day-clothes from the waist up?

UkGuy, in prior posts you said this was a premeditated act.
Who abused JB in your opinion?
Who killed her? (Abuser and killer needn't be the same person).


rashomon,


This is a mere assumption. Dr. Werner Spitz and quite a few others are of the opinion that the head bash came first. And the CASKU experts asaid that the paintbrush injury and the garrote contraption was staging.


Sure if you are discussing the cause of death.


That toilet rage was not the motive is pure speculation.
Patsy for example could quite simply have forgotten to remove the jeans with the panties in them. Those panties obvioulsy weren't very dirty either.
And the panties JB had worn to the Whites' seem to be missing.

Well I dont thinks its speculative when I offer sound reasoning along with forensic evidence.


And whether the motive was toilet rage or sexual assault, the stager didn't get it consistent in either case, for a kidnapping for ransom would contradict the strangling by a garrote scenario.

Thank you for making my point for me, tell all the Toilet Rage PDI theorists too.

JonBenet's death was staged, and its possible that her head trauma was meant to be part of this staging, I have an open mind on this, since I accept it may also either have been intentional or accidental.



Who abused JB in your opinion?

There are four possibilities as to who abused JonBenet.

1. John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
2. Patsy had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
3. Burke had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
4. Some combination of the above.


Who killed her? (Abuser and killer needn't be the same person).

Depends on which of the latter possibilities you consider the most likely.

The violence used suggests John.

As an antidote to the bias in theory forming that is prevalent where opinions are based on staged forensic evidence.

Its also possible the assumptions we make about John may also apply to Patsy.

That is Patsy may have had lesbian preferences that she indulged herself with via JonBenet!


.

[Nuisanceposter]

There are four possibilities as to who abused JonBenet.

1. John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
2. Patsy had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
3. Burke had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
4. Some combination of the above.I've always wondered if the prior sexual abuse wasn't incurred not out of sexual gratification but out of corporal punishment administered to JonBenet (imo, by Patsy for her incontinence.)

[Britt]

There are four possibilities as to who abused JonBenet.

1. John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
2. Patsy had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
3. Burke had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
4. Some combination of the above.
5. Patsy physically abused JonBenét.

I've always wondered if the prior sexual abuse wasn't incurred not out of sexual gratification but out of corporal punishment administered to JonBenet (imo, by Patsy for her incontinence.)
Exactly. As many have pointed out in this case, vaginal abuse doesn't necessarily mean sexual abuse...

One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who was being physically abused. ITRMI p. 253 pb

[UKGuy]

5. Patsy physically abused JonBenét.


Exactly. As many have pointed out in this case, vaginal abuse doesn't necessarily mean sexual abuse...

One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who was being physically abused. ITRMI p. 253 pb

Britt,

Well I did use the word incestuous and assuming a punitive element does not rule out a sexual one either, they probably run together.



.

[UKGuy]

I've always wondered if the prior sexual abuse wasn't incurred not out of sexual gratification but out of corporal punishment administered to JonBenet (imo, by Patsy for her incontinence.)

Nuisanceposter,

Its possible more probable than some accident imo.

.

[Britt]

Well I did use the word incestuous and assuming a punitive element does not rule out a sexual one either, they probably run together.
I agree in the sense that the punitive abuser lacked boundaries, sexual and otherwise, between herself and her child... but not in the sense of a pedophile, who sees his/her victim as a sexual object.

[tumble]

That is Patsy may have had lesbian preferences that she indulged herself with via JonBenet!

As PR was active member of ECUSA and with Jerry Winterrowd as bishop this lesbian connection could be worth looking into. If PR had lesbian tendencies she would probably be quite confused about the subject, the good bishop was.

[rashomon]

Who abused Jon Benet in your opinion?
There are four possibilities as to who abused JonBenet.

1. John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
2. Patsy had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
3. Burke had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
4. Some combination of the above.
Who killed her (abuser and killer needn't be the same person)?

Depends on which of the latter possibilities you consider the most likely.

The violence used suggests John.

As an antidote to the bias in theory forming that is prevalent where opinions are based on staged forensic evidence.

Its also possible the assumptions we make about John may also apply to Patsy.

That is Patsy may have had lesbian preferences that she indulged herself with via JonBenet!

UKGuy, in prior posts you said that JB's killing was a planned act and the reason you gave was that the perp wiped the flashlight beforehand.
So you think that John or Patsy planned to kill JonBenet, and 'prepared' the flashlight by wiping it beforehand?

[rashomon]

Exactly. As many have pointed out in this case, vaginal abuse doesn't necessarily mean sexual abuse...

One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who was being physically abused. ITRMI p. 253 pb
Maybe this expert (was this Dr. Krugman?) was referring to the paintbrush injury only?

For Dr. McCann, a world-renowned pediatric expert, was of the opinion that JB's old injuries were from prior sexual abuse. According to Dr. McCann, the change in the hymeneal structure was due to healing from prior penetration: there existed three-dimensional thickening from the inside to outside of the inferior hymeneal rim and irregularity of the edge of the hymen.
Then there was the exposure of vaginal structures which are normally covered, the reddening of the vaginal walls, and the hymeneal orifice being too wide for a child of that age.

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, in prior posts you said that JB's killing was a planned act and the reason you gave was that the perp wiped the flashlight beforehand.
So you think that John or Patsy planned to kill JonBenet, and 'prepared' the flashlight by wiping it beforehand?

rashomon,

I think you are jumping ahead of yourself.

I never said anyone

'prepared' the flashlight by wiping it beforehand?

You are misinterpreting what I posted, your last post had a similar question.

Now its actually the other way round. The perp wiped the flashlight and batteries after JonBenet was killed.

The planned aspect comes into play if you can demonstrate that the batteries are new into the flashlight.

Wiping the flashlight indicates forensic awareness, like the size-12 underwear this has significance, whether you consider it to be intentional or a by-product of a cleaning up process is for you to decide.

Yes I think John or Patsy or both together killed JonBenet then staged her homicide in the wine-cellar.

.

[SuperDave]

"1. John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
2. Patsy had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
3. Burke had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
4. Some combination of the above."

And you'll find plenty who subscribe to every one of them!

"I've always wondered if the prior sexual abuse wasn't incurred not out of sexual gratification but out of corporal punishment administered to JonBenet (imo, by Patsy for her incontinence.)"

That would be Richard Krugman. Rashomon got it right.

Patsy a lesbian abusing JB? What a horrid thought! But there was something along thos lines...

Jamie Turndorf, a psychotherapist, said that Patsy's need to dress JB up in the costumes like she wore were an attempt to relive her sexual fantasies of being a sex object. But when JB got too good, maybe it was like, "You little slut! I see the way you make those men look at you!" And that brought on the sexual attacks. That, is of course, JSB, in the strongest sense!

[sandraladeda]

This is an excerpt from one of Patsy's interviews:

1 A. I am sure that I put the package

2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened

3 them and put them on.

Okay, she says very clearly that she put them in JB's bathroom and that JB put them on.
It goes on:



9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing

10 these? And I don't mean this specific day

11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you

12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in

13 this package of underpants and had been

14 wearing them since the trip to New York in

15 November?

16 A. I don't remember.

21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash

22 clothes on occasion?

23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.

24 Q. Do you have any recollection of

25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

0085

1 A. Not specifically.

2 Q. Was it something that, the fact

3 that she is wearing these underpants designed

4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and

5 I will give you a minute to think about it

6 because I know it is tough to try to pin

7 down a couple of months of casual

8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any

9 conversations with her concerning the fact

10 that she is wearing underwear that is just

11 too large for her?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it

14 was, if it had caught your attention or came

15 to your attention, do you think you might

16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't

17 fit, put something on that fits, that is

18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,

19 had come to your attention --

20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the

21 package had been opened, we made the

22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and

23 use them because, you know, we weren't going

24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,

25 so.

0086

1 I mean, if you have ever seen

2 these little panties, there is not too much

3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm

4 sure even if they were a little bit big,

5 they were special because we got them up

6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they

7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was

8 fine with me.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see

10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?

11 THE WITNESS: No.

The question was, if Patsy knew about them and knew that JB had them on, would she have told JB NOT to wear them. Patsy CHANGES her story to say that they really weren't that much different.

Det. Harmer jumps right on that:

12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically

13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?

14 And I am not saying --

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in

16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I

17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all

18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can

19 help herself to whatever is in there.

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not

21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to

22 Jenny.

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in

25 JonBenet's bathroom?

0087

1 A. Right.

2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm

3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then

4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet

5 express an interest in them; therefore, you

6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --

7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I

8 think I bought them with the intention of

9 sending them in a package of Christmas things

10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that

11 together, so I just put them in her, her

12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

She changes from "I'm sure" to "maybe" and "we decided," and "I never saw them on her," and this and that.

But it gets more interesting from there!

The story is that the Ramsey PI's took the pack with the size 12's and that they kept them until the DA took over in 2002.

WHAT?! They had to know how important these panites were. They know that the BPD's claim that the DNA came from the manufacturer could be proven or disproven by testing them. The Ramseys SAY they want all irrelevant evidence cleared up so LE can move on, then they pull a stunt like this?! This is what they call "cooperation?!" Isn't that WITHOLDING EVIDENCE? Isn't that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
Question about the too-big panties -

Brand new panties are a bit stiff, almost starchy before they have been laundered.

Were the panties tested to see if they had ever been worn and laundered before, or if they were fresh out of the package when worn by the dead JBR? Panties that had been previously laundered would have traces of laundry detergent, perhaps fabric softener. They certainly would not have any trace DNA evidence from the underwear factory worker in China.

This could help to decode Patsy's rambling inconsistencies in bold above regarding the Bloomies. They were in the package? They were in JBR's underwear drawer and had been amalgamated with the regular lineup of size 6 panties? I would assume that, if the package was still intact (which seems to be the case if the Ramsey's PIs took the pack of size 12s and kept custody of it) with all but the Wednesday pair, then it is silly to think the Wednesday pair had found its way into the underwear drawer.

sorry if I'm not making sense.

This is the best JBR thread I have read in awhile.

[Britt]

Maybe this expert (was this Dr. Krugman?) was referring to the paintbrush injury only?
Krugman, yes. He made the distinction between "physical" abuse and "sexual" abuse and thought that JB was being physically abused for punishment. He agreed with the consensus of prior/chronic abuse, but disagreed that it was for sexual purposes.

[UKGuy]

Question about the too-big panties -

Brand new panties are a bit stiff, almost starchy before they have been laundered.

Were the panties tested to see if they had ever been worn and laundered before, or if they were fresh out of the package when worn by the dead JBR? Panties that had been previously laundered would have traces of laundry detergent, perhaps fabric softener. They certainly would not have any trace DNA evidence from the underwear factory worker in China.

This could help to decode Patsy's rambling inconsistencies in bold above regarding the Bloomies. They were in the package? They were in JBR's underwear drawer and had been amalgamated with the regular lineup of size 6 panties? I would assume that, if the package was still intact (which seems to be the case if the Ramsey's PIs took the pack of size 12s and kept custody of it) with all but the Wednesday pair, then it is silly to think the Wednesday pair had found its way into the underwear drawer.

sorry if I'm not making sense.

This is the best JBR thread I have read in awhile.

sandraladeda,

No you make perfect sense Patsy does not.

The size-12 underwear may be her Smoking-Gun since it can be shown she is lying her head off.

Once you link it to other aspects of JonBenet being redressed, and factor in whether to regard it as staging, then more questions will arise.

BPD found NO size-12 underwear in her panty drawer, none is listed on any search warrants itemizing underwear taken from the house.

That there was size-12 underwear handed into the BPD at a later date should raise a red flag for people.

This tells you how important the size-12 redressing was to the Ramseys, so vital they analyzed the situation and for consistencies sake, decided to hunt down some size-12 underwear, and hand it in.

But was the underwear handed in the original packet or another one purchased when it was decided it mattered?

Also why remove the remaining size-12's? This is another item to place on the removed list!

.

[rashomon]

rashomon,

I think you are jumping ahead of yourself.

I never said anyone


You are misinterpreting what I posted, your last post had a similar question.

Now its actually the other way round. The perp wiped the flashlight and batteries after JonBenet was killed.

The planned aspect comes into play if you can demonstrate that the batteries are new into the flashlight.

Wiping the flashlight indicates forensic awareness, like the size-12 underwear this has significance, whether you consider it to be intentional or a by-product of a cleaning up process is for you to decide.

Yes I think John or Patsy or both together killed JonBenet then staged her homicide in the wine-cellar.

That the flashlight was wiped after the killing is my theory too.
I can't retrieve the posts right now, but I'm fairly sure that you disputed that wiping the flashlight was an afterthought by the perp. I had the impression you thought an intruder who had wiped it beforehand had brought it into the home.

You also wrote why, in case they were the perps, would the Ramseys leave that flashlight on the kitchen table and not put it in the wine cellar for staging purposes.

Why do you think the Ramseys dressed JB in size 12 underwear?

[UKGuy]

That the flashlight was wiped after the killing is my theory too.
I can't retrieve the posts right now, but I'm fairly sure that you disputed that wiping the flashlight was an afterthought by the perp. I had the impression you thought an intruder who had wiped it beforehand had brought it into the home.

You also wrote why, in case they were the perps, would the Ramseys leave that flashlight on the kitchen table and not put it in the wine cellar for staging purposes.

Why do you think the Ramseys dressed JB in size 12 underwear?

rashomon,


I can't retrieve the posts right now, but I'm fairly sure that you disputed that wiping the flashlight was an afterthought by the perp.

Yes I possibly did, but this is not the same as saying it was wiped prior to use.

What I was claiming is that wiping after the fact is intentional and indicates premeditation.

Also if the batteries are new in the flashlight then its almost conclusive.


You also wrote why, in case they were the perps, would the Ramseys leave that flashlight on the kitchen table and not put it in the wine cellar for staging purposes.


Well whichever way round it is, what I was trying to highlight is the inconsistency of the flashlight being removed from the wine-cellar.

Currently I view the flashlight as part of the staging prior to the ransom note, I think JonBenet was whacked on the head to simulate a violent death, and the flashlight left behind.

Later on, with revision to the Kidnap/Ransom staging, someone decided the flashlight was out of place, so removed it to the kitchen where it was wiped clean, probably to break any forensic links with the wine-cellar.

In terms of a staged homicide I think most of the items in the wine-cellar now have a consistent interpretation.


.

[sandraladeda]

UK Guy, I'm just wondering if you believe the flashlight was used as a light, or simply used as a weapon? I am just not sure what bearing new batteries would have on pre-meditation if, in fact, the flashlight was used as a weapon only. IOW, you don't need battery power to whack someone over the head with a flashlight....a dead flashlight works just as well....

[tumble]

Clearly the R's goes as far as the flashlight was not theirs, at least this seem to be the stagers initial agenda. So therefore their prints on the batteris would have to go.
They never acknowledged that the maglite was indeed theirs.
Why LE does not push them to show THEIR flashlight I don't understand.

So why was the flashlight out of its drawer? Could be the JR used it at his plane visit on the 25th or it could be used in the house during Christmas night or evening or maybe someone were looking underneath some furniture for a dropped object(thats my own primary use of a flashlight nowadays...).

The flashlight or atleast some flashlight was probably used as lighting after the fact, using the normal lightening would draw attention from the neighbours.
Flickering lights in the kitchen was reported by a neighbour.

The only normal light reported is that one of the neighbours noticed the light in the butlers kitchen was lit at some point, that seem to indicate that the flashlight was not in use at that point.

I find this butlers kitchen light interesting. Why was this light lit? We know that the painting tote was stored there prior to it being moved to the basement. Maybe PR was looking for the painting tote and thought that maybe the cleaning lady had not moved it yet or she just forgot that and thought of the last location she had seen it. Could it be that PR at this point already has the garrote in her mind or is it the paintbrush she needs. If this is so it seem to indicate that the flashlight was used after the paint tote.
I may also be the case that turning the light on in the butlers kitchen brought the light issue to the perp attention and used a flashlight after that.

But it could also be the case that turning the light on in the butlers kitchen is done because the flashlight is already cleaned and placed in the kitchen at this point so she have to turn the light on for a quick peek for the paint tote.
In this case the flashlight could be the initial murder weapon. Maybe lying around in the kitchen after JR had used it on the 25th. As the pineapplebowl was found nearby could it be that the fatal incident happened in the kitchen connected to the pineapple bowl?


Would turnin the basment light on be noticed outside the house? If not the perp would probably feel safe not to use the flashlight in the basement.

Enought spitballing for the moment ;)

[UKGuy]

UK Guy, I'm just wondering if you believe the flashlight was used as a light, or simply used as a weapon? I am just not sure what bearing new batteries would have on pre-meditation if, in fact, the flashlight was used as a weapon only. IOW, you don't need battery power to whack someone over the head with a flashlight....a dead flashlight works just as well....

sandraladeda,

It may have been used for both purposes.

Lets assume the flashlight would not normally be found in the basement, particularly the wine-cellar.

So it would probably have arrived there as part of the general crime-scene, that is it formed part of the crime.

The premeditation can come in at two levels, that is, possibly it was used in the commission of JonBenet's homicide, and afterwards to navigate the Ramsey house, if they decided not to switch on lights? So speculating, maybe the batteries ran out and needed replaced, or they were replaced with new ones prior to or just after she was killed?

I agree you do not need battery power to whack someone over the head, but we do know the batteries were wiped clean, and its difficult to explain this other than the flashlight was used at the crime-scene so was cleaned, erasing the user's fingerprints and there may have been more than one set?

The more interesting aspect is why the flashlight was placed in the kitchen, think over all the forensic evidence, and other than possibly the barbie gown and size-12 underwear, yet found at the crime-scene, no other piece of evidence appears out of place?

As I suggested this is possibly because the flashlight was used as part of the staging, to whack JonBenet giving the appearance of a violent homicide, and attempting to mask any prior assault, the flashlight was left in the wine-cellar, but later when the staged was revised, someone removed it, and cleaned it up.

If you decide to use a tool and before you use it you make sure its in working order, including any change of batteries, then later you wipe it clean of fingerprints including the batteries. This has all the hallmarks of premeditation and planning.

It appears that JonBenet was strangled then her death was staged down in the wine-cellar, where she was redressed and her head was whacked with the flashlight. The sexual assault may have been prior to or after her death and forms part of the staging.

And its not to difficult to see the hands of Patsy then John involved in this staging?

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene. Nearly all the items can be satisfactorly explained within this context.



.

[SuperDave]

"Were the panties tested to see if they had ever been worn and laundered before, or if they were fresh out of the package when worn by the dead JBR? Panties that had been previously laundered would have traces of laundry detergent, perhaps fabric softener. They certainly would not have any trace DNA evidence from the underwear factory worker in China."

I'm pretty sure they were RIGHT out of the pack.

[rashomon]

Currently I view the flashlight as part of the staging prior to the ransom note, I think JonBenet was whacked on the head to simulate a violent death, and the flashlight left behind.
There was swelling of the brain, which would indicate that the head bash came first, as it takes some time for the brain to swell.

This tells you how important the size-12 redressing was to the Ramseys, so vital they analyzed the situation and for consistencies sake, decided to hunt down some size-12 underwear, and hand it in.

UkGuy:
What do you think was the Ramseys' motive in redressing JonBenet in size 12 underwear?

[UKGuy]

There was swelling of the brain, which would indicate that the head bash came first, as it takes some time for the brain to swell.

UkGuy:
What do you think was the Ramseys' motive in redressing JonBenet in size 12 underwear?

rashomon,

The head bash may have come first, but interpreting it as staging is my best interpretation of the evidence, to date. Possibly I'm missing something due to the staging?


What do you think was the Ramseys' motive in redressing JonBenet in size 12 underwear?
The motive was staging, they were for effect.

Once you view the wine-cellar as a staged homicide then nearly everything contained therein has this as its purpose, its part of the design, its what lends to JonBenet's death a sense of wilful planning.

There is the outside possibilty, one I favor, that the redresser was in a hurry, and any pair of Wednesday underwear would do, the redresser would let others worry about the rationale.

But I'll mention it again, did JonBenet normally wear underwear to bed?

I should think not if she was prone to bedwetting?

So the redresser was not dressing JonBenet as for bed so to speak, but possibly more to replace the pair just removed?

So the motive is surely staging an attempt to hide the removal of her size-6 underwear which may have been contaminated with semen, she was wiped down, so possibly any other traces were removed?

The same reasoning can be applied to the Toilet Rage theory.


.

[rashomon]

The motive was staging, they were for effect.

There is the outside possibilty, one I favor, that the redresser was in a hurry, and any pair of Wednesday underwear would do, the redresser would let others worry about the rationale.

But I'll mention it again, did JonBenet normally wear underwear to bed?

I should think not if she was prone to bedwetting?

So the redresser was not dressing JonBenet as for bed so to speak, but possibly more to replace the pair just removed?

So the motive is surely staging an attempt to hide the removal of her size-6 underwear which may have been contaminated with semen, she was wiped down, so possibly any other traces were removed?

The same reasoning can be applied to the Toilet Rage theory.

The basic question is: why didn't the redresser take one of JB's many size 6 underpants to replace the other pair? The only reasons I can think of:
-either it was important to for the stager to have 'Wednesday' printed or them.
or
- the stager chose the far too big panties on purpose to lead investigators think that "no parent would dress her child in those big panties", i. e. the attention should be directed to an intruder.

UkGuy, can you think of another reason?

Once you view the wine-cellar as a staged homicide then nearly everything contained therein has this as its purpose, its part of the design, its what lends to JonBenet's death a sense of wilful planning.
You mean the stager of the scene wanted to make it appear as a wilfully planned death?

rashomon,

The head bash may have come first, but interpreting it as staging is my best interpretation of the evidence, to date. Possibly I'm missing something due to the staging?
Like SD mentioned in one of his posts, while the cord around her neck looks brutal at first glance, the larnyx, tongue and hyoid bone were undamaged.
In addition, the cord wrapped around the stick was obviously a contraption which did not function as a garrote at all.
Therefore to me, it seems that (aside from the vaginal injury and the ligatures around JB's wrists), the cord around the neck was the staging element. Although this may finally have cut JB's respiration of too, it obviously was placed on an unresistent (already unconscious) body.

JonBenet would not have died from the injury inflicted to her vagina either.
UkGuy, you said that one of the Ramseys killed JB. Why do you think was she killed?
And do you have a time line as to the sequence of events on that night?

[UKGuy]

The basic question is: why didn't the redresser take one of JB's many size 6 underpants to replace the other pair? The only reasons I can think of:
-either it was important to for the stager to have 'Wednesday' printed or them.
or
- the stager chose the far too big panties on purpose to lead investigators think that "no parent would dress her child in those big panties", i. e. the attention should be directed to an intruder.

UkGuy, can you think of another reason?


You mean the stager of the scene wanted to make it appear as a wilfully planned death?


Like SD mentioned in one of his posts, while the cord around her neck looks brutal at first glance, the larnyx, tongue and hyoid bone were undamaged.
In addition, the cord wrapped around the stick was obviously a contraption which did not function as a garrote at all.
Therefore to me, it seems that (aside from the vaginal injury and the ligatures around JB's wrists), the cord around the neck was the staging element. Although this may finally have cut JB's respiration of too, it obviously was placed on an unresistent (already unconscious) body.

JonBenet would not have died from the injury inflicted to her vagina either.
UkGuy, you said that one of the Ramseys killed JB. Why do you think was she killed?
And do you have a time line as to the sequence of events on that night?

rashomon,


The basic question is: why didn't the redresser take one of JB's many size 6 underpants to replace the other pair? The only reasons I can think of:

-either it was important to for the stager to have 'Wednesday' printed or them.
or
- the stager chose the far too big panties on purpose to lead investigators think that "no parent would dress her child in those big panties", i. e. the attention should be directed to an intruder.

UkGuy, can you think of another reason?


Remember not to give to much importance to staged evidence, that is until you are certain of its status.


The basic question is: why didn't the redresser take one of JB's many size 6 underpants to replace the other pair? The only reasons I

It would appear Wednesday simply mattered to the redresser?



- the stager chose the far too big panties on purpose to lead investigators think that "no parent would dress her child in those big panties", i. e. the attention should be directed to an intruder.

This is like other similar claims regarding the forensic evidence e.g. flashlight, simply inconsistent with the staging. Why not redress JonBenet in one of Patsy's night-gowns, or any of her adult themed pageant clothes. Why would any intruder care about this apparently trivial aspect, why even bother redressing her?

You should really as a first guess assume the stager selected the size-12 Wednesday underwear by chance, then demonstrate why it was not a random event and that it was important for the redresser.

Another possibility is that the size-12 underwear were not located where Patsy claimed they were. Why should another childs gift be placed in your daughters bedroom anyway?


You mean the stager of the scene wanted to make it appear as a wilfully planned death?

No the stager wanted the staging to appear as if JonBenet had been abducted from her bed. We know it was wilful and planned since we accept it was staged and not simply a consequence of circumstance.

JonBenet was sexually assaulted that night and depending on how you read the evidence, on prior occassions also. All this was hidden, masked via the staging.

If Toilet Rage had been the motivation behind her death then all instances of bedwetting or soiling should have been removed from the house, this was not done. Which suggests it was not this that was being staged away with all the redressing etc.

Now consider this, if JonBenet had wet/soiled the bed, and her underwear then this would have been available as forensic evidence, but it would not have helped you prove just who killed JonBenet, because like the soiled underwear and jeans lying upstairs, they dont tell you anything about her killer!

So her size-6 underwear were removed to prevent any forensic evidence becoming available.

That must really mean semen, although possibly other body fluids too, was Burke not still pre-pubescent, I'll guess he was not producing sperm?

JonBenet was killed to silence her, she was going to talk, she had a secret, a secret that was only allowed public expression at pageants!


.

[rashomon]

[UKGuy]You should really as a first guess assume the stager selected the size-12 Wednesday underwear by chance, then demonstrate why it was not a random event and that it was important for the redresser.
Unlike as with the ligatures, we won't be able to demonstrate that it was staged, but we have the demonstration by Jayelles how these size 12 panties looked on JB: way to big for a child of JB's size.
And what are the odds that a parent whose child had a whole drawer full of size 6 panties would randomly grab a size 12 pair? Of course, everything is possible. But some things are less possible imo.
rashomon,
No the stager wanted the staging to appear as if JonBenet had been abducted from her bed.
But then why wasn't JB dressed in her nightgown?
We know it was wilful and planned since we accept it was staged and not simply a consequence of circumstance.
Of course every staging is wilful and planned, and there is no question that the scene in the wine cellar was staged from A to Z, but what interests me is what preceded the staging:
Did one of the parents strike out at JB in rage, and then, after the shocking realization that the child was very severely injured or probably dead from the head bash, desperately tried to stage a scene?
or
Was this in fact a first-degree murder (like in your theory): JonBenet's abuser tried to silence her for good?
JonBenet was killed to silence her, she was going to talk, she had a secret, a secret that was only allowed public expression at pageants!
What exactly do you mean by that? What secret did JB publicly express at pageants? Do you mean her sexualized behavior in those pageants was a clue as to what happened at home - that she was a victim of chronic sexual abuse?

[SuperDave]

"No the stager wanted the staging to appear as if JonBenet had been abducted from her bed. We know it was wilful and planned since we accept it was staged and not simply a consequence of circumstance."

Hmm.

"What exactly do you mean by that? What secret did JB publicly express at pageants? Do you mean her sexualized behavior in those pageants was a clue as to what happened at home - that she was a victim of chronic sexual abuse?"

Even John McCann said that behavior was common at pageants, so I don't know about that.

There was something else. A few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Rs. At one point, they showed a video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public. It was shocking, to say the least.

[UKGuy]

Unlike as with the ligatures, we won't be able to demonstrate that it was staged, but we have the demonstration by Jayelles how these size 12 panties looked on JB: way to big for a child of JB's size.
And what are the odds that a parent whose child had a whole drawer full of size 6 panties would randomly grab a size 12 pair? Of course, everything is possible. But some things are less possible imo.

But then why wasn't JB dressed in her nightgown?

Of course every staging is wilful and planned, and there is no question that the scene in the wine cellar was staged from A to Z, but what interests me is what preceded the staging:
Did one of the parents strike out at JB in rage, and then, after the shocking realization that the child was very severely injured or probably dead from the head bash, desperately tried to stage a scene?
or
Was this in fact a first-degree murder (like in your theory): JonBenet's abuser tried to silence her for good?

What exactly do you mean by that? What secret did JB publicly express at pageants? Do you mean her sexualized behavior in those pageants was a clue as to what happened at home - that she was a victim of chronic sexual abuse?

rashomon,


But then why wasn't JB dressed in her nightgown?

Because its possible rigor-mortis prevented the barbie-gown being placed on her, or/and, the redresser never got round to it.



What exactly do you mean by that? What secret did JB publicly express at pageants? Do you mean her sexualized behavior in those pageants was a clue as to what happened at home - that she was a victim of chronic sexual abuse?

Yes that her sexualized behavior mirrored her domestic behaviour. That she was a victim of chronic sexual abuse helps explain the staging and why she was killed, possibly not the whole motive, but it explains more than other theories do. Anyone can have an accident and they do, but they dont all become meshed up in staging and evidence removal along with episodic amnesia.

.

[tumble]

UKGuy:
We know it was wilful and planned since we accept it was staged and not simply a consequence of circumstance

So, if I crash my car into a lamp post and tries to stage it to look like my car was hit by another car we can conclude that I drove into the lamppost in a 'wilful and planned' manner?

[UKGuy]

"No the stager wanted the staging to appear as if JonBenet had been abducted from her bed. We know it was wilful and planned since we accept it was staged and not simply a consequence of circumstance."

Hmm.

"What exactly do you mean by that? What secret did JB publicly express at pageants? Do you mean her sexualized behavior in those pageants was a clue as to what happened at home - that she was a victim of chronic sexual abuse?"

Even John McCann said that behavior was common at pageants, so I don't know about that.

There was something else. A few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Rs. At one point, they showed a video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public. It was shocking, to say the least.


SuperDave,



Even John McCann said that behavior was common at pageants, so I don't know about that.

Sure but we are not analyzing pageants, the question is not do pageants exhibit sexualized behaviour?, but is did JonBenet exhibit sexualized behaviour? Answer: Yes she did.

In your Geraldo anecdote, was JonBenet performing at a pageant?


.

[rashomon]

[SuperDave]
Even John McCann said that [sexualized] behavior was common at pageants
[UKGuy]Sure but we are not analyzing pageants, the question is not do pageants exhibit sexualized behaviour? but is did JonBenet exhibit sexualized behaviour? Answer: Yes she did.
UkGuy:
Dr. McCann was of the opinion that the sexualized behavior which little girls show at beauty pageants would not automatically suggest that all these children are being sexually abused in the physical sense, for this kind of behavior is taught to them by parents especially for the pageants.
But the case of JonBenet was of course different, for Dr. McCann stated the forensic evidence points to chronic sexual abuse. So there is JonBenet's sexualized behavior coupled with the forensic findings.
[SuperDave]There was something else. A few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Rs. At one point, they showed a video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public. It was shocking, to say the least.
SuperDave - do I understand this correctly: the trial was a mock trial but the video was a real video which showed JB doing that? For if yes, all doubts in my mind now have been removed as to if she was indeed the victim of chronic sexual abuse: she was. For children don't do that if they haven't experienced vaginal penetration before.
This kind of behavior btw has nothing to do with children's natural curiosity in terms of wanting to explore their genitals by playing 'doctor games'. For vaginal penetration is not common at all in these doctor games (unless someone a good deal older and 'more experienced' is doing that to the child).

This would also clear up another question for me: it has been speculated that JB's chronic vaginal injuries may have been done for 'toilet rage' punishment purposes. I find this hard to believe, for I don't think a parent punishing her child for wetting or soiling accidents would penetrate her vagina - injuring the outer genitals imo would be more consistent with that type of rage.

So if JB in that video actually made those masturbating movements in public (was this at a pageant?), this leaves no doubt in my mind that she had indeed been sexually abused, and would confirm the medical experts' opinion.

[UKGuy]

UkGuy:
Dr. McCann was of the opinion that the sexualized behavior which little girls show at beauty pageants would not automatically suggest that all these children are being sexually abused in the physical sense, for this kind of behavior is taught to them by parents especially for the pageants.
But the case of JonBenet was of course different, for Dr. McCann stated the forensic evidence points to chronic sexual abuse. So there is JonBenet's sexualized behavior coupled with the forensic findings.



rashomon,

Exactly, either on its own, is questionable, but not significant enough.

Pool the two together, along with the question: Who taught JonBenet, all those adult postures? and it might open a pandora's box.

Just for completenes you can also add her lack of boundaries with regard to her toileting!


.

[LI_Mom]

It's also possible that JB woke up & put on the size 12s herself.

As far as I know, most children's underwear is packaged in soft plastic, not hard to rip open & pull out the underwear.

Were all the size 6s are packed for the trip already or did she have any in her drawer?

Remember Thomas said the Pull Ups were hanging half off the shelf... maybe she was going to wear those but decided on the big panties instead? And then she goes downstairs for her pineapple.....



The Ramseys are pressed for time... they have the note to write, fingerprints to wipe and people know they must be waking up around 5:30 am, if they are late waking up, they'll be casting suspicion on themselves for sure. These too big panties are to their advantage anyway, it points to an intruder more than to a loving parent. It works out well in the end.

The size 12s, the pineapple, the flashlight, the Kleenex, the bat.... all these things the Ramseys claim they have NO KNOWLEDGE of. They must produce some hard evidence of an intruder since everything concerning the RN connects directly to the family.



As far as the paint tote. Patsy told Linda to bring it to the basement before Christmas.

If they were upstairs near the kitchen, it seems more likely they would grab a wooden spoon or some other utensil.

I think they headed straight for the basement.


Is there any way to determine WHEN that paintbrush was broken?

As far as the garrote being too complicated to create in a rush. I've always wondered if Burke might have fashioned that garrote one day while he was playing in the basement. Boys loves making toys like that. JB used rope in her pageants, it's very likely Burke had a piece to play with as well. It could have been a completely innocent 'weapon' but one that was subsequently used because it was available.

[SuperDave]

"Is there any way to determine WHEN that paintbrush was broken?"

I think it's only possible to tell if the break was fresh or old.

"In your Geraldo anecdote, was JonBenet performing at a pageant?"

No. She was performing for a group of senior citizens.

"the trial was a mock trial but the video was a real video which showed JB doing that?"

yes.

"For if yes, all doubts in my mind now have been removed as to if she was indeed the victim of chronic sexual abuse: she was. For children don't do that if they haven't experienced vaginal penetration before."

The expert who commented on the tape said it was likely a woman who did it.

[Eagle1]

Quoting LI Mom, "Were all the size 6s are packed for the trip already or did she have any in her drawer? Remember Thomas said the Pull Ups were hanging half off the shelf... maybe she was going to wear those but decided on the big panties instead? And then she goes downstairs for her pineapple....." hey, that could be it.

As for the expert expressing an opinion that a woman did it, probably they stated that it was just an emotional opinion, like ST's, not too professional in my own emotional opinion, to jump to such a conclusion and express it so early in the game. We've all read enough psychology to know that's pretty unprecedented except in the infamous "Sybil" case. We can't just assume PR or any other mom is like Sybil's mom because we liked the story. Not saying she couldn't have been, of course, just that nobody in this case knows.

[SuperDave]

It could be. But that's as far as we've gone so far.

"As for the expert expressing an opinion that a woman did it, probably they stated that it was just an emotional opinion, like ST's, not too professional in my own emotional opinion, to jump to such a conclusion and express it so early in the game. We've all read enough psychology to know that's pretty unprecedented except in the infamous "Sybil" case. We can't just assume PR or any other mom is like Sybil's mom because we liked the story. Not saying she couldn't have been, of course, just that nobody in this case knows."

Well, the expert was Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber, wife of Dr. Michael Baden. Perhaps her conclusion that it was a woman was just a gut feeling, as you say, but her contention that JB was being abused is most likely fact.

I don't know what you have against ST, Eagle1. But then, he's no saint in this case. Nobody is. But his motives were laudable, imo. Besides, he had the support of plenty of pros.

As for it being unprecedented, maybe not. We don't really know. Female pedophilia (go with this for a second) is HIGHLY understudied. The FBI now believes that a good number of unsolved homicides were committed by women who got away with it because no one thought a "girl" could kill.

And since I've never SEEN or read the Sybil story, I can hardly be accused of that!

[rashomon]

There was something else. A few years ago, Geraldo had a mock trial of the Rs. At one point, they showed a video of JB performing a few days before Christmas dressed as an elf. At one point, she takes a musical instrument and runs it between her legs several times, effectively masturbating in public. It was shocking, to say the least.
SuperDave, I just told another die-hard Ramsey supporter on Courttv about that and she went through the roof. That's what she wrote:

A "best informed poster" said there was such a video so you accept it as fact????? I saw that show and I do NOT remember any such video. IMO IF there was such a video it too would have been shown over and over on TV and it has NOT been.

IMO what is shocking is the sick minds that can dream this stuff up about a little girl AND the sick minds that believe it.
Has anyone else seen the Geraldo mock trial?

And then she went on that she read the autopsy report where it says nothing about sexual abuse. I doubt if she has read what Dr. MCann said.

[Nuisanceposter]

I saw the mock trial back when it aired, but that was in 1997. I don't remember much detail about it anymore.

I linked her to the Bonita Papers at FFJ with post number for easy reference, so she can read for herself what McCann et al have to say. Watch her dismiss it as "lies", "gossip", and "opinion".

[rashomon]

As far as the garrote being too complicated to create in a rush. I've always wondered if Burke might have fashioned that garrote one day while he was playing in the basement. Boys loves making toys like that. JB used rope in her pageants, it's very likely Burke had a piece to play with as well. It could have been a completely innocent 'weapon' but one that was subsequently used because it was available.
But JonBenet's hair was entangled in the cord wrappings around the paintbrush stick, which makes a scenario likely where the garrote contraption was 'newly' constructed. The perp probably tied the knot around her neck first and then wrapped the remaining longer end of the stick around the paintbrush handle.
I don't think that this was too complicated to create in a rush, but could be done very quickly.

[tumble]

Good thinking about the handle being pre fabricated.

Am I right about that the sled needed a new cord for the winter? The 'handle' seems perfect for pulling a sled with it.

The mummy wrapping could have been done at the neck.

Edit: Hmm, with the paint tote and the splinters nearby this does not seem plausible... Probably not pre-fabricated. But then again this could explain why a piece was missing. Was the sled located nearby the winecellar?

[Camper]

Jayelles, Camper is very interested in knowing how a child that size sitting on the toilet would look in terms of how would their clothing touch the toilet itself. You might be onto something.



--->>>Yeppers Dave, I am behind reading cuz of my trip to DC.

I have visited the modelled pantie pictoral, good work Jayelles.

I have a tiny grand daughter who is now age 8, and beautifully proportioned in size. She wears size 12 dresses.

I have not quizzed her mommy on what size panties she wears.
But I did of course have five daughters of my own.

Where I am coming from on the size 12 Day of the Week panty is that I have NEVER seen them made in anything except fine nylon fabric, possibly silk - huh ?, which adapts nicely in the wrinkle area. Sure there would be a saggy seat to contend with, but.

Cotton or cotton polyester, is quite another matter, bunches up and is unmoveable having a life of its own. Remember those old TV ads, where the guy tries to reach something and WE discover that his UNDERWEAR will not let him, well that is cotton or cotton blend for sure. Jayelles in your model info, what is the fabric content of the modelled bloomies?

A six year old would be full of 'wanting' to be a big girl and could or might have just 'gotten' them herself over her 'wanting' to be a big girl just BECAUSE, or because she and her mom had some disagreement about just what being a BIG girl might include.

Her mom most likely, (I am guessing) focused on the potty/training panties etc. and JonBenet striving to become a BIG girl and getting to the bathroom 'in time', BUT she also focused on (again I am guessing) on the wearing of the same clothing as MOMMY, to the W's party, being a BIG girl like mommy, etc.

My visit with my 3 year old little grand daughter in DC, for two weeks, she was obsessed with being or becoming a BIG girl. She is being very focused on her ability to get to the bathroom 'in time' now. When she does the big #2 on the 'throne', she is rewarded with a piece of a Tootsie pop. This is great motivation, because she is not subjected to BIG candy consumption.

WE have never seen pictures of JonBenet AT the Whites party, boy what I would give to SEE the pictures that LE have or had. Do you think they would still have those pictures in custody, or perhaps copies were made??

I CAN however see, PR putting the BIG PANTIES on JonBenet after death, feeling sorry about what had been done, by WHOMEVER did IT.

.

[SuperDave]

"I linked her to the Bonita Papers at FFJ with post number for easy reference, so she can read for herself what McCann et al have to say. Watch her dismiss it as "lies", "gossip", and "opinion"."

What a shock.

"IMO what is shocking is the sick minds that can dream this stuff up about a little girl AND the sick minds that believe it."

Hey, F you, sweetheart! I don't have that kind of imagination!

Okay, folks! Here's the ACTUAL transcript!

Raoul Felder: Do any highlights from the tapes you studied stand out in your mind?

Densen-Gerber: On Dec. 23rd, JonBenet is dressed as a little elf doing a show for senior citizens. She picks up a saxophone and, for the next minute-and-a-half, she masturbates with it.

Judge Katz: What is the significance of that?

Densen-Gerber: That's a sexually stimulated child. At six years old, you're not going to put a saxophone between your legs and rub it back and forth.

Try that.

[Nuisanceposter]

Holy crap. Thanks, SuperDave. I assume that's the transcript from the mock trial episode.

They seem to think that particular video should be available online with a link to click to get right to it.

And of course, they dismissed the opinion of sexual abuse experts as not being as valid as the opinion of Dr Beuf, who saw her in person. Pshhht.

What's the story with Beuf? How tight was he really with Rams? Does anyone else think he sounds weird?

[SuperDave]

"Holy crap. Thanks, SuperDave. I assume that's the transcript from the mock trial episode."

It is.

"They seem to think that particular video should be available online with a link to click to get right to it."

Good luck! I taped it YEARS ago and can't find it! It's like Solomon's Mine around here.

But I should say one thing: Eagle1 was part right: Dr. Densen-Gerber DID base her belief in a woman being the abuser on little more than a gut feeling. But that said, it doesn't change what was on that tape.

"And of course, they dismissed the opinion of sexual abuse experts as not being as valid as the opinion of Dr Beuf, who saw her in person. Pshhht."

You mean her pediatrician who admitted he never did an internal exam and hadn't seen her in, what was it?-three months?

"What's the story with Beuf? How tight was he really with Rams? Does anyone else think he sounds weird?"

I do. I said that his close friendship with them made him less professional. It's called "conflict of interest." HOTYH didn't think much of that. I didn't expect he would, but that's okay, because I don't think much of it myself. To me, that whether it did or not is ULTIMATELY less important than the fact that he hadn't examined her for a long time.

[LinasK]

Bumping this thread for the benefit of the newbies...

[K. Taylor]

We were discussing this in another thread, but according to John, JonBenet couldn't read. Does that affect the theory of whether she chose the underwear? If she couldn't read, how could she tell they were the right day? Are the patterns on each day different?

[Nuisanceposter]

The underwear that JonBenet was found in was exactly the same in appearance to the pair missing. Take a good look at the pictures of the size 4/6 and the size 12/14. There is absolutely no way JonBenet herself would have chosen to dress in such overlarge and ill-fitting underwear. It would have been extremely uncomfortable, with the crotch hanging down to her knees and the waistband slipping off her hips.

Patsy said she undressed JonBenet that night when she was carried in and put in bed - removing the velvet pants she had been wearing and replacing them with long johns. Certainly these size 12/14s, had they already been in JB, would have come off when Patsy pulled off the velvet pants. They're so huge there would be nothing holding them on her. You would certainly think Patsy would have noticed that they were way too large and dressed her in the right size underwear - and since Patsy doesn't say that happened, I have to assume the person who wiped down and redressed JonBenet was the person who picked the size 12/14 undies. Why? All I can figure is that the redresser needed the underwear to look exactly the same.

And these size 12/14 underwear were located in a drawer in JonBenet's bathroom, still in the package. How likely is it that some intruder, after sexually assaulting a child, went up into her bedroom and into her bathroom and looked around until he found underwear that were a visual match (except for size) and dressed her in them, seemingly unconcerned about being heard and caught roaming around in the house of the child he just attacked?

[PagingDrDetect]

I actually think that the reason for the mombo sized panties isn't so much the day of the week written on them but the fact that they were pristine... fresh out of a sealed plastic package with no Ramsey DNA on them.

[Eagle1]

........... How likely is it that some intruder, after sexually assaulting a child, went up into her bedroom and into her bathroom and looked around until he found underwear that were a visual match (except for size) and dressed her in them, seemingly unconcerned about being heard and caught roaming around in the house of the child he just attacked?


How likely was it that rope fibers would be found in the victim's bed?

[Camper]

"125
Today, 12:16 PM
Eagle1
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit 'Burb
Posts: 2,204


Rope Fibers in Her Bed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
........... How likely is it that some intruder, after sexually assaulting a child, went up into her bedroom and into her bathroom and looked around until he found
underwear that were a visual match (except for size) and dressed her in them, seemingly unconcerned about being heard and caught roaming around in the house of the child he just attacked? [/quote]


How likely was it that rope fibers would be found in the victim's bed?
__________________
JMHO, of the MOMENT.


==========>>>Really, IF IF IF a stun gun as Lou Smit would like us to believe was used, the to remove JonBenet from the bedroom, fine.

THEN our 'intruder killer' takes her to the basement and KILLS HER, then comes BACK up to the bedroom to MAKE the device, aaaaaaaaaa nope.

ER ER 'our killer' intruder makes the device with her still sleeping in the bed. THEN does Lou Smit think that our 'intruder picks up the device, stuns guns her and carries her to the basement, and gets some pineapple for her on the way down to soothe her WHEN she recovers from the stun gun, she will then eat some of the pineapple, aaaaaaaaaa nope.

ER ER IF IF our 'intruder killer' comes in to the house when the R's are at the W's party, WHY would he sit (er did he) on the bed making the device. IF IF he left fibres from the rope WHY didn't he leave traces of him being in the bedroom on or near the bed?

WE indeed have an odd set of circumstances for a potential intruder.

.

[LinasK]

I actually think that the reason for the mombo sized panties isn't so much the day of the week written on them but the fact that they were pristine... fresh out of a sealed plastic package with no Ramsey DNA on them.
Yeah, but all the ones in the package were new, the Wednesday ones were chosen because Christmas Day 1996 fell on a Wednesday...

[UKGuy]

I actually think that the reason for the mombo sized panties isn't so much the day of the week written on them but the fact that they were pristine... fresh out of a sealed plastic package with no Ramsey DNA on them.

PagingDrDetect,

Yes that is a likely reason since it is consistent with other aspects of her death.

This and the Wednesday feature suggests just how meticulous someone was wrt to forensic evidence?


.

[Eagle1]

Rope Fibers in Her Bed ...........................
IF IF he left fibres from the rope WHY didn't he leave traces of him being in the bedroom on or near the bed?................................
WE indeed have an odd set of circumstances for a potential intruder.

I know. I can't picture the scenario either. No idea why there would be rope fibers in (or on?) the bed. If they'd been playing this "game" previously, maybe just showing her the rope was supposed to make her want to go downstairs? "Nope" I don't think so. But they say pedophiles typically think the child is in love with them. Big heads.

Yup, I doubt pineapple would sooth the child if she'd been stun-gunned, or that she would even eat it, no matter how much she liked it. I just don't know exactly how all this came down. Karr may have been describing the typical scenario, y'know. Would any of the R's be familiar with it? Dunno. Depends what they and all those "friends" had in common in the first place, who rather promptly distanced themselves in time of trouble. (I know, they were being thrown under the bus, but maybe knew something they could have revealed to defend themselves, eh?)

[Camper]

Geeze!

Since the panties were found on JonBenets body, they would of course had her DNA on them. My best thought on the big panties continues to be that JonBenet had altercation prior to W party with her mom on WHAT to wear, and that she knew where the panties were and got them herself.

BUT could she have read the word 'Wednesday' on them and selected them herself to be the appropriate ones for that Christmas Day.

Since PR put the panties in the bathroom drawer after purchase, her prints would of course already have been on the package, in more innocent times. Fingerprints do NOT come with a date stamp, unfortunately.

As I recall the panties were put away for JonBenet and the day that she would be a BIG GIRL.

The question is who would know that she had become a BIG GIRL on Christmas night?

.
.

[PagingDrDetect]

Originally Posted by Camper
Geeze!

Since the panties were found on JonBenets body, they would of course had her DNA on them. My best thought on the big panties continues to be that JonBenet had altercation prior to W party with her mom on WHAT to wear, and that she knew where the panties were and got them herself.
BUT could she have read the word 'Wednesday' on them and selected them herself to be the appropriate ones for that Christmas Day.

Since PR put the panties in the bathroom drawer after purchase, her prints would of course already have been on the package, in more innocent times. Fingerprints do NOT come with a date stamp, unfortunately.

As I recall the panties were put away for JonBenet and the day that she would be a BIG GIRL.

The question is who would know that she had become a BIG GIRL on Christmas night?Yes, of course JBR's DNA would be on the panties, that's obvious. However, I believe the decision to use the size 12 panties was because they were the only ones in a sealed plastic container that had no Ramsey DNA on them... the size 12 panties were chosen because there would be no Ramsey DNA on them OTHER THAN JBR's own. Once the decision to use the size 12 panties was made, obviously the Wednesday pair would have been chosen so that later it could be claimed that they were brought by an intruder THAT night. Later, once it was found that others knew that particular package was in JBR's panty draw, PR HAD to say she put them there, JBR chose to wear them herself and put them on herself. In fact, that's exactly what PR claimed.

The missing other six panties in the package is also telling... whose fingerprints or DNA would be found on the INSIDE of the package? PR or JR must have taken the rest of them and hidden them away initially assuming that it would be found that an intruder brought the pair JBR was found wearing. But the housekeeper saying she knew that package of panties was in JBR's panty drawer later ruined that plan. Therefore, PR HAD to say when finally interviewed about them that she bought them, she put them in JBR's panty drawer, and knew they existed. But, they realized later that the other size 12 panties being missing pointed to them after all, so a new package of size 12's were purchased and given to their own investigators to finally turn in as though they had just been discovered amongst the Ramsey's household items after they moved. The panties were turned in years later as though just discovered, but that doesn't explain why the package of the other six pairs wasn't in the panty drawer as PR HAD to testify to later. No wonder her testimony about the mombo sized panties is all over the map... she has no good explanation for anything about them.

It's my opinion and observation that the Ramsey's have never stopped staging this crime.

[angelwngs]

In the list of items taken from the house it was listed that "7 pairs of children's size panties were removed by LE". Were these additional to or including the pair of size 12's found on JBR's body? What size were these panties and if they were not size 12's why did they take 7 pairs? Were those 7 pairs the total contents found in JBR's underware drawer?

[LinasK]

Geeze!

Since the panties were found on JonBenets body, they would of course had her DNA on them. My best thought on the big panties continues to be that JonBenet had altercation prior to W party with her mom on WHAT to wear, and that she knew where the panties were and got them herself.

BUT could she have read the word 'Wednesday' on them and selected them herself to be the appropriate ones for that Christmas Day.


Camper, I was under the impression that JonBenet could not yet read her own name, let alone the days of the week...

[Camper]

I would like to see a package of those panties WRAPPED, to see how easy it would have been to open the package.

A picture of the opened package could be revealing to determine HOW they were opened. Would a Swiss knife have been needed to open the sometimes impossible packaging that baffles me everyday.

Do the 'Bloomie' panties have a 'tear' strip or what?

.

[PagingDrDetect]

I would like to see a package of those panties WRAPPED, to see how easy it would have been to open the package.

A picture of the opened package could be revealing to determine HOW they were opened. Would a Swiss knife have been needed to open the sometimes impossible packaging that baffles me everyday.

Do the 'Bloomie' panties have a 'tear' strip or what?
Jayelles at Forums for Justice did a marvelous experiment with the size 12 Bloomies. The first link is the package, how it's secured, etc., comparison of the size 12/14 and size 4/6 side by side, and so on. The second link is when she made a model the same dementions as JBR and showed the model wearing the Bloomies. She did a really incredible and eye-opening job on this.

Check out both threads...
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7107

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128

[LaMer]

Jayelles at Forums for Justice did a marvelous experiment with the size 12 Bloomies. The first link is the package, how it's secured, etc., comparison of the size 12/14 and size 4/6 side by side, and so on. The second link is when she made a model the same dementions as JBR and showed the model wearing the Bloomies. She did a really incredible and eye-opening job on this.

Check out both threads...
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7107

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128

PDD, I agree, they are absolutely the theads to read. Great sleuthing going on over yonder! Jayelles is to be commended! :) Top Notch detective work! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Camper]

Imop, JonBenet would have to have had a tool, scissors or knife to open the packaging, unless the package had been opened previously to see the panties, then carefully packed back for the day when she would have been old enough to wear them.

So the question is still up for discussion about WHO removed the pair from the package, that she was wearing.

.

[LaMer]

Imop, JonBenet would have to have had a tool, scissors or knife to open the packaging, unless the package had been opened previously to see the panties, then carefully packed back for the day when she would have been old enough to wear them.

So the question is still up for discussion about WHO removed the pair from the package, that she was wearing.

.

Who? Big question! Also when and by who and how?

Speculation follow...>>>>>>

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27340&page=1&highlight=penknife

[PagingDrDetect]

Originally Posted by Camper
So the question is still up for discussion about WHO removed the pair from the package, that she was wearing.I think an even better question is why did the package with the rest of the panties disappear only to be turned in years later by Ramsey investigators who supposedly found them in their Atlanta house and turned over to BDA.

Patsy was all over the place about the huge panties in her interviews... none of it made a bit of sense. She said they were in JBR's panty drawer, the housekeeper confirmed she had seen the package in that drawer previously, but LE only found 15 pairs of panties all size 4/6 in JBR's panty drawer... where did the rest of the panties in that package of the size 12/14's go and why? And why did they suddenly turn up in the hands of Ramsey investigators years later?

Patsey claims in the interviews that JBR chose to wear those panties to the White's herself and Patsy let her. I'm not buying it. Clearly, no child accustomed to having the best of clothes and concerned with her appearance would chose to wear such enormous panties. And clearly, Patsy would never have allowed it. Those panties would have bunched up underneath her pants at the White's making unsightly bumps and bulges that would have been noticable. And I think it's apparant from Jayelles demonstration that they would have been very uncomfortable to have worn... JBR would most likely have been picking at herself trying to straighten out the panties under her pants (which also would have been noticable at the White's).

Patsy also claims that she didn't notice the panties when she took off JBR's pants and put on her longjohns for sleeping that night. Rubbish. If she had worn those huge panties to the White's they would have slid right off when Patsy pulled her pants off. There's no possible way that those huge panties would have gone unnoticed by Patsy. Yet, she claims JBR chose to wear them, did wear them, and Patsy noticed nothing unusual. BAH! I mean, just LOOK at them! They're so obviously outrageously HUGE.

JBR did NOT wear those panties to the White's, and was not put to bed wearing those panties. Therefore, they were part of the staging. There must have been something about the panties she DID wear that night that had to be hidden just like whatever was on her body "down there" had to be hidden/removed because it's evident that she was cleaned "down there". The real panties that needed to be hidden for some reason were removed/destroyed, and these monster sized panties were put on her to replace them.

But with 15 pairs of size 4/6 panties to choose from in her pantry drawer that would have fit her normally, why were these ridiculously large panties chosen? My guess is because they were one of 7 in the house that were pristine... the 7 that were in that sealed plastic package that were untouched by Ramsey hands and therefore had no Ramsey DNA or other incriminating evidence on them. Just another bit of staging that points to an intruder.

And that's why the rest of the panties in that package went missing... they could point to those monster sized panties and say, "See? They're obviously panties that were brought to the house by some pervert intruder who didn't know what size she wore, and they have no Ramsey physical evidence on them!" (except they didn't realize that the fibers from her genitals would transfer to the crotch of the pristine panties rendering them not so pristine after all).

That didn't work out so well seeing as they didn't realize that the housekeeper would testify that PR bought those panties in NY and put the package in JBR's panty drawer... so then Patsy had to admit they DID come from the house - she did buy them, and she did put them in JBR's panty drawer. Enter the missing package with the rest of the panties in them... Ramsey investigators suddenly said "Whoopsie! We found that package of panties after all!"

Patsy has nothing left to do but try to convince her interagators that JBR chose to wear the huge panties, put them on herself, and that was just a-ok with Patsy. At that point, what else could she say?

But... DID the Ramsey investigators actually find them? I doubt it. I think it was a whole new package with the Wednesday pair removed just as what was done on that Christmas night... except this time the Wednesday pair was removed while wearing gloves to leave no incriminating physical evidence inside the package.

[Camper]

PagingDrDetect. " JBR would most likely have been picking at herself trying to straighten out the panties under her pants (which also would have been noticable at the White's)."

WEdon't know that JonBenet didn't do any tugging 'that' night.

Possibly since Patsy lost the battle of the matching shirts, she gave in to the BIG GIRL panties.

Jayelles gave excellent pics of the overage size differential, and the packaging. I have asked a number of times about the MATERIAL the panties were made of.

Remember OJ attorney, and the GLOVES? Attorney put rubber gloves on OJ then he was supposed to put on the crime scene leather glove. Quilting women, sewing women, people who know what happens when you DO that, those gloves are NOT going to go on the hands easily or EVER.

When my little girls were small the ONLY way you could purchase day of the week panties, the Material was a nylon or silky smooth blend NOT COTTON. My little girl 'J' called the material "Swanky". Fabric that is 'swanky' easily adapts to enclosed areas, with minimized flattened wrinkles.

Fact is that the entirety of 'UNKNOWN TRUTHS' of this case have yet to be revealed to us all. We all speculate with the information that WE know from the visual media, the Ramseys mouths, TV, and literature.

Someone tell me again, was the remainder of the bloomie package on the list of evidence removed from the home initially ?, it seems that it was not by way of the PagingDrDetect post here, huh, er?

.

[PagingDrDetect]

PagingDrDetect.

WEdon't know that JonBenet didn't do any tugging 'that' night.

Possibly since Patsy lost the battle of the matching shirts, she gave in to the BIG GIRL panties.

Jayelles gave excellent pics of the overage size differential, and the packaging. I have asked a number of times about the MATERIAL the panties were made of.

Remember OJ attorney, and the GLOVES? Attorney put rubber gloves on OJ then he was supposed to put on the crime scene leather glove. Quilting women, sewing women, people who know what happens when you DO that, those gloves are NOT going to go on the hands easily or EVER.

When my little girls were small the ONLY way you could purchase day of the week panties, the Material was a nylon or silky smooth blend NOT COTTON. My little girl 'J' called the material "Swanky". Fabric that is 'swanky' easily adapts to enclosed areas, with minimized flattened wrinkles.

Fact is that the entirety of 'UNKNOWN TRUTHS' of this case have yet to be revealed to us all. We all speculate with the information that WE know from the visual media, the Ramseys mouths, TV, and literature.

Someone tell me again, was the remainder of the bloomie package on the list of evidence removed from the home initially ?, it seems that it was not by way of the PagingDrDetect post here, huh, er?
They're either cotton or a cotton/polyester blend... no silky stuff. Besides, unless they were swabbed with superglue on the inside or made of cast iron the bloody things are ENORMOUS and would have bunched up in her pants and come right off with the pants when the pants were removed. LOOK at the darn things! She could have filled them with water and swam in them!

Did you read all the comments in those threads? Part of that experiment was putting pants on over them and seeing what happened when the pants were pulled off.

If OJ had worn slinky silky "swanky" gloves of the same thickness as the rubber gloves, he would have gone to jail because they gloves he was pretending didn't fit would have slid right on. My mom used to make me wear slinky socks with my rubber boots when I was a kid for that reason... she wouldn't have to dislocate my knees to wrestle my boots off. The rubber gloves OJ was made to wear were stupid because the material of rubber causes other materials to stick to them... that's the nature of rubber. Why do you think women wear rubber gloves to wash dishes? It's not just to save the precious skin on their hands, it's to hold onto a slippery dish.

Ever worn rubber clothes? Unfortunately, as an entertainer I've had to wear some pretty bizzare stuff like that. A rubber get-up I had to wear once was one of the most emabarrassing experiences of my life... nice big audience, cool plexiglass stage - and I STUCK to it like GLUE! Mortifying.

There's no way JBR would have chosen to wear those ridiculous panties. She had the nicest of clothes and cared about how she looked. She and Patsy even had an altercation that night about what outfit she would wear. And there's no way Patsy would have let her wear them either. We know how Patsy was about appearances (she said in her book she would never go out with out full make-up), she had the best clothes money can buy, and we KNOW she trotted out her daughter like a mini fashion plate.

Nope, they never found the package of the rest of the size 12 bloomies... they went over that in the first interview. Patsy had no explanation. The rest of those panties didn't show up until the Ramsey investigators turned them in to BDA claiming they found them among boxes of JBR's belongings in the Ramsey's Atlanta house years later. Can you say OBSTRUCTION?

[UKGuy]

The size-12's are patently staging, its disengenuous to argue otherwise.

Whats of more interest is just why they should have been selected?

There were plenty clean pairs of size-6 underwear available.

My guess is that the stager assumed or knew for a fact that someone else e.g. a White, knew that JonBenet wore a Wednesday pair of underwear, or that any pair would do as long as it was underwear. the intent was to have her wearing underwear.

But another question is did JonBenet normally wear underwear to bed, since she occassionally wet the bed?

I'll assume not, so why was she being dressed in underwear, and then later the Ramsey's state she was taken from her bed, imo this does not add up?


.

[PagingDrDetect]

The size-12's are patently staging, its disengenuous to argue otherwise.

Whats of more interest is just why they should have been selected?

There were plenty clean pairs of size-6 underwear available.

My guess is that the stager assumed or knew for a fact that someone else e.g. a White, knew that JonBenet wore a Wednesday pair of underwear, or that any pair would do as long as it was underwear. the intent was to have her wearing underwear.

But another question is did JonBenet normally wear underwear to bed, since she occassionally wet the bed?

I'll assume not, so why was she being dressed in underwear, and then later the Ramsey's state she was taken from her bed, imo this does not add up?
I still think the original idea to use the monster panties was because they were pristine... no Ramsey DNA on them. Then logically the Wednesday pair was selected to make it appear that those were the panties that she normally wore that day (and in case someone at the White's who may have helped her in the bathroom might have noticed they were Wednesday panties). I don't think they anticipated just how HUGE they'd be. But, I also think that the staging done in the basement was done by flashlight so as not to alert the neighbors that there was someone in the basement, so it could have been that they couldn't see so well to know just how bizarre they looked. It also may be that it was JR who did the re-dressing, so PR didn't even know herself how strange they looked... after all, it was HIS shirt fibers found "down there" but Patsy's were found everywhere else.

Patsy said in her interviews that she was trying to train JBR to go through the night without the pull-ups. She said she thought that because the pull-ups didn't let the child feel the wetness that going without them might make JBR wake up if she started to go in her bed and felt the wetness. Personally, I think she was rushing JBR through the process before she was ready... she was anxious for her to stop messing her bed. In all of her interviews, Patsy is clearly uncomfortable about discussing the toileting issue and really plays it down... I think it really embarrassed her, and I get the sense that she took it personally that it was happening.

[Camper]

Oh yes indeed, I have read the comments previously in which it was NOT covered as to what the fibre content of the 'Bloomies' was.

Having had 8 children of my own, I have been there done that as far as little children are concerned, now working on 17 grandchildren, I have as you say been around.

Here is another point of mine for you all to deal with.

IF IF PR wrote the note, which I do believe she either wrote it from scratch or redid the note -that someone else had written- and added some extra familiar family comments to it as part of the staging. Not too much thinking involved in that, just re copy to protect 'someone'. There were enough pages missing from the legal pad to support my thoughts.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I kept a legal pad at all times to log activities for my children, business contacts, daily things on the pad, when a page was full, I flipped it over and kept the pages attached for ready reference.

Rarely did I ever tear a page off, once in a while I did, but never masses of pages. When the pad was full, I reviewed messages and copied over ones still needed on a BRAND NEW LEGAL pad.

IF IF Patsy found someone abusing JonBenet or discovered the situation upon getting up at midnight ORaround 1 AM, to do a bed check, and IF IF she found JonBenet dead at that time AND found the note, and in the hours following she cleaned up JonBenet, dressed her with care and GOT the BIG GIRL panties, thinking that whomever had abused JonBenet previously as in -eroded hymen/incest in the family dictionary/911 call of the 23rd - Patsy may have in her major distress thought that JonBenet had BECOME a BIG GIRL, and put the panties on her baby because JonBenet had earned the title of BIG GIRL in the worst nightmare possible.

IF IF this is what happened 'that' night, then around 3 hours elapsed BEFORE the police were called. Plenty of time to do the cleaning, staging, writing etc.

.

[aussiesheila]

Here's something new and factual. There has been much speculation about the size 12/14 panties that Jonbenet was wearing. Patsy had been in new York and had visited the department store Bloomingdales there. She bought some of Bloomingdales' day of the week knickers there in size 4/6 for Jonbenet and size 12/14 for her niece. Somehow along the line, Jonbenet ended up wearing the size 12/14 knickers when she died and investigators asked numerous questions about this.

Well I have purchased the exact same Bloomies in size 4/6 and size 12/14 and here is a comparison of the two for size.

My youngest daughter is six and a half years and she is almost exactly the same weight and height as Jonbenet was when she died. The Bloomies are generously cut and the size 4/6 didn't fit her until this year.

Here are the dimensions of the knickers:-

Size 4/6 - 8.5 inches from waistband to bottom of crotch and waistband measures 17 inches unstretched.

Size 12/14 - 12 inches from waistband to crotch and waistband measures 22 inches unstretched.

The most noticeable difference in size to my mind is the leg openings. The height of the leg openeing in the larger knickers is almost as big as the entire smaller knickers. When I tried to imagine Jonbenet wearing the larger knickers, I had always thought of them slipping down off her waist. In fact, what is more likely is that the crotch would have been very "gapey" and the crotch would have hung down practically to her knees. The legs of the knickers are so wide that her crotch would have been very exposed IMO

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1921&stc=1I've posted my thoughts about the panties before and I'm sorry to bore those who have been here awhile with it again but for the sake of the host of returnees and newcomers here I go again. I think JonBenet put those size 12/14s on herself when she was dressing to go to the White's party and she had them still on when she went to bed that night and was re-dressed in them by the killers.

I know what Jayelles is saying about them being far too big and bulky and therefore uncomfortable as well as likely to fall down and I'm sure she is absolutely correct on all those points. On the uncomfortable issue, don't we all know that if a child has a reason to do so, even if that reason is entirely lost on adults, they will wear the most uncomfortable clothes if they want to eg left shoe on right foot, right on left, woolly sweaters midsummer, and Tshirts in winter. It is my belief that JonBenet had a good reason to wear those panties and that is because they were stored in her bedroom cupboard. Never mind that Patsy said in her interview that she was sure they were in the bathroom drawer, that is neither here nor there. I think that in the aftermath of that "little tiff" between Patsy and JonBenet in the bathroom over the red sweater, JonBenet retreated to her bedroom to get ready for the party. I think as she was dressing she realised the panties she had been wearing all day were soiled and she needed to get a clean pair. Rather than go back to the bathroom where all her size 6 panties were stored and having to be confronted again by Patsy who was angrily 'balling' the red sweater and probably a lot more besides, JonBenet chose to get a pair out of her bedroom cupboard, even if they were the wrong size and had all the concomitant problems that Jayelles points out. Others have posted how nasty Patsy could get when she wasn't getting her own way and I think she could also get really nasty at JonBenet (in private, of course). I think the panties would not have fallen down because they were held up by the black tights and the bulkiness would not have shown because she wore a black dress over the top.

So what would be interesting to know is where did BPD find the opened packet of size 12/14s? Was it in the bedroom? Surely there is a record of that somewhere? And was Patsy ever questioned about what JonBenet was wearing under the longjohns that she put on her when she tucked her into bed? I can't find it in any of the interviews and if they really didn't ask her I find it absolutely incredible. Also the clothes JonBenet wore during the day must have been dumped somewhere as she got dressed for the party. I know there were some jeans and soiled panties found on the bathroom floor, but they didn't necessarily have to be the clothes she wore that day, they could have been there for however many days it was since Linda H-P was last there. I would like to know what previously worn clothes were found in her bedroom. I don't think that was made clear in the interviews, although maybe it was and I just missed it. If anyone has read to the end of this lengthy post and knows where it was they will point it out to me, thanks.

[Darlene733510]

I don't think BPD found the packet of size 12 panties, minus one pair.

From what I remember reading PR turned the remaining size 12s in to BPD after they had moved to Atlanta.
She said she found them when she unpacked the boxes that were in JB's room.

So they were supposedly in the drawer with the size 6
panties, but they ended up in Atlanta. Just another strange thing isn't it?

[angelwngs]

I've posted my thoughts about the panties before and I'm sorry to bore those who have been here awhile with it again but for the sake of the host of returnees and newcomers here I go again. I think JonBenet put those size 12/14s on herself when she was dressing to go to the White's party and she had them still on when she went to bed that night and was re-dressed in them by the killers.

I know what Jayelles is saying about them being far too big and bulky and therefore uncomfortable as well as likely to fall down and I'm sure she is absolutely correct on all those points. On the uncomfortable issue, don't we all know that if a child has a reason to do so, even if that reason is entirely lost on adults, they will wear the most uncomfortable clothes if they want to eg left shoe on right foot, right on left, woolly sweaters midsummer, and Tshirts in winter. It is my belief that JonBenet had a good reason to wear those panties and that is because they were stored in her bedroom cupboard. Never mind that Patsy said in her interview that she was sure they were in the bathroom drawer, that is neither here nor there. I think that in the aftermath of that "little tiff" between Patsy and JonBenet in the bathroom over the red sweater, JonBenet retreated to her bedroom to get ready for the party. I think as she was dressing she realised the panties she had been wearing all day were soiled and she needed to get a clean pair. Rather than go back to the bathroom where all her size 6 panties were stored and having to be confronted again by Patsy who was angrily 'balling' the red sweater and probably a lot more besides, JonBenet chose to get a pair out of her bedroom cupboard, even if they were the wrong size and had all the concomitant problems that Jayelles points out. Others have posted how nasty Patsy could get when she wasn't getting her own way and I think she could also get really nasty at JonBenet (in private, of course). I think the panties would not have fallen down because they were held up by the black tights and the bulkiness would not have shown because she wore a black dress over the top.

So what would be interesting to know is where did BPD find the opened packet of size 12/14s? Was it in the bedroom? Surely there is a record of that somewhere? And was Patsy ever questioned about what JonBenet was wearing under the longjohns that she put on her when she tucked her into bed? I can't find it in any of the interviews and if they really didn't ask her I find it absolutely incredible. Also the clothes JonBenet wore during the day must have been dumped somewhere as she got dressed for the party. I know there were some jeans and soiled panties found on the bathroom floor, but they didn't necessarily have to be the clothes she wore that day, they could have been there for however many days it was since Linda H-P was last there. I would like to know what previously worn clothes were found in her bedroom. I don't think that was made clear in the interviews, although maybe it was and I just missed it. If anyone has read to the end of this lengthy post and knows where it was they will point it out to me, thanks.~~~~
I am not trying to correct your post, I'm just confused.
Please tell me if my memory is wrong...


I thought JBR wore black velvet pants to the White's party/dinner, which PR said came from the GAP and were bought to match the white top w/ black trim that JBR, (after the argument with her mom over the top), also chose to wear to the White's.
I thought the remaining pack of size 12 bloomies were never found by the BPD, but were indeed asked for by LE. I thought that a package w/ bloomies like the size 12's were given to LE by the R's much, much later (like maybe 6 months later ????) when the R's said they had found them in cleaning or something. (which could have been the actual remaining size 12's from the original package or could have been a newly purchased substitute pack). :confused:

I would love to know the answers to all the questions you posed too! If only all transcripts of all interviews were published (Burke's included!) I think we would have a better idea of what really happened.

[gsquared]

What happened to the size 6 Wednesday panties?

[PagingDrDetect]

In the list of items taken from the house it was listed that "7 pairs of children's size panties were removed by LE". Were these additional to or including the pair of size 12's found on JBR's body? What size were these panties and if they were not size 12's why did they take 7 pairs? Were those 7 pairs the total contents found in JBR's underware drawer?
They took more panties on subsequent searches. In the transcript they say they took 15 from JBR's panty drawer... all of which were size 4/6. Obviously, they would have found the mombo panties interesting, and would therefore want to take them into evidence... but they couldn't find any panties of JBR's that were not size 4/6. Seeing as the pair that JBR was found wearing said "Wednesday" on them, they would assume there would be 6 other size 12/14 panties that had the other days of the week printed on them... they couldn't find any. Like us, I think they would have found that interesting... and telling.

From Patsy's 2000 Interview:

11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?25 A. I would say more like six to
0094

1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small.
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.
5 MR. KANE: Okay.
6 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you
7 understand the reason we are asking this, we
8 want to make sure that this intruder did not
9 bring these panties with him, this was
10 something --
11 A. Right.
12 Q. - that was in the house.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And we are clear that, as far as
15 you know, that is something that was in this
16 house?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- that belonged to your daughter,
19 these panties?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,
22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of
23 the underwear that your daughter was found
24 in?
25 A. No.
0095

1 Q. Did Lou Schmidt ever show you a
2 photo?
3 A. No.
4 Q. (By Mr. Kane) I want to follow
5 up with something you said earlier. You
6 said she would have just gone in and gotten
7 a pair herself?
8 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
9 Q. Okay. Was she -- did she usually
10 dress herself?
11 A. She was pretty much able to dress
12 herself.

If you read through the transcript they're trying to find out what if the rest of the day of the week size 12/14 panties would have been in the house. The fact that they're asking reveals that they were not found in the house and they don't know what happened to them. There's much interuption and argueing among the attorneys, so I didn't include all that. You can read the whole transcript here...

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[PagingDrDetect]

PDD, I agree, they are absolutely the theads to read. Great sleuthing going on over yonder! Jayelles is to be commended! :) Top Notch detective work! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Absolutely. I was very impressed with Jayelles experiment, and she documents everything so well. It had to have taken a lot of time and attention. Very top-notch. No question she did a really incredible job with that.

[angelwngs]

Thank you PDD,

I had already read the entire transcript but forgotten the total number taken in that particular interview.

A list of items taken from the house that I found several days ago listed 7 pairs of children's size underware taken from the house. So they must have gotten more on a later search.

Thank you for your reply to my questions!

[PagingDrDetect]

I've posted my thoughts about the panties before and I'm sorry to bore those who have been here awhile with it again but for the sake of the host of returnees and newcomers here I go again. I think JonBenet put those size 12/14s on herself when she was dressing to go to the White's party and she had them still on when she went to bed that night and was re-dressed in them by the killers.

I know what Jayelles is saying about them being far too big and bulky and therefore uncomfortable as well as likely to fall down and I'm sure she is absolutely correct on all those points. On the uncomfortable issue, don't we all know that if a child has a reason to do so, even if that reason is entirely lost on adults, they will wear the most uncomfortable clothes if they want to eg left shoe on right foot, right on left, woolly sweaters midsummer, and Tshirts in winter. It is my belief that JonBenet had a good reason to wear those panties and that is because they were stored in her bedroom cupboard. Never mind that Patsy said in her interview that she was sure they were in the bathroom drawer, that is neither here nor there. I think that in the aftermath of that "little tiff" between Patsy and JonBenet in the bathroom over the red sweater, JonBenet retreated to her bedroom to get ready for the party. I think as she was dressing she realised the panties she had been wearing all day were soiled and she needed to get a clean pair. Rather than go back to the bathroom where all her size 6 panties were stored and having to be confronted again by Patsy who was angrily 'balling' the red sweater and probably a lot more besides, JonBenet chose to get a pair out of her bedroom cupboard, even if they were the wrong size and had all the concomitant problems that Jayelles points out. Others have posted how nasty Patsy could get when she wasn't getting her own way and I think she could also get really nasty at JonBenet (in private, of course). I think the panties would not have fallen down because they were held up by the black tights and the bulkiness would not have shown because she wore a black dress over the top.

So what would be interesting to know is where did BPD find the opened packet of size 12/14s? Was it in the bedroom? Surely there is a record of that somewhere? And was Patsy ever questioned about what JonBenet was wearing under the longjohns that she put on her when she tucked her into bed? I can't find it in any of the interviews and if they really didn't ask her I find it absolutely incredible. Also the clothes JonBenet wore during the day must have been dumped somewhere as she got dressed for the party. I know there were some jeans and soiled panties found on the bathroom floor, but they didn't necessarily have to be the clothes she wore that day, they could have been there for however many days it was since Linda H-P was last there. I would like to know what previously worn clothes were found in her bedroom. I don't think that was made clear in the interviews, although maybe it was and I just missed it. If anyone has read to the end of this lengthy post and knows where it was they will point it out to me, thanks.
The drawer where JBR's panties were kept was IN her bathroom... not in her bedroom. The family had nifty bathrooms with built in drawers and cubards where clothing was kept. Most likely the majority of each person's clothing in the house was kept in their bedrooms, but it seemed as they kept their underclothes in the built-in drawers/cubards in their own bathrooms. Both Patsy and the housekeeper said that the package of size 12/14 bloomies was in JBR's BATHROOM drawer where all her panties were normally kept.

I don't think that JBR chose to wear them herself. Her appearance was important to her, and she even remarked at the White's party that she didn't "feel pretty". I think it's safe to say that Patsy instilled the importance of appearance and attractiveness into her daughter as she is that way herself and with all the pagents and everything that entailed (haircoloring, nail polish, make-up, photo shoots, etc.).

I don't believe that Patsy would have allowed her to wear such outrageous panties especially in that they were going out. JBR was always dressed to the nine's whenever she was in public. Patsy would want her to look perfect out in public at a function (the party). since Patsy and JBR had an altercation about what JBR would wear to the party, and the top that Patsy wanted JBR to wear was found on the bathroom counter, I do believe that Patsy was present when JBR dressed herself despite what she seems to claim in her interviews (which is still up in their air because she changed her story several times on that). Patsy DID indicate that she was present when JBR got dressed as she said that when JBR supposedly selected the giant panties to wear she stated "WE decided to just go with them". I absolutely do not buy that at all... Patsy was fastidious about appearance and clothing and extended that to her daughter.

LE did not find the remaining 6 day of the week panties in size 12/14 in any of their searches and asked Patsy about that in the 2000 interview. Those remaining six panties were turned over by the Ramsey investigators to BDA claiming they were found in the boxed up belongings of JBR in the RAmsey's Atlanta residence. I believe they turned them over because they KNEW they were evidence, and I don't believe they were the actual package of the remaining six panties that was in the Ramsey Boulder house that night. That package of the six remaining panties went missing on the night of the murder for a REASON and were eventually turned in to make the Ramsey's appear innocent.

The ridiculousness of the out-sized panties combined with Patsy's statements being all over the map about them when she was questioned combined with what was known about Patsy and her fastidious fashion and general appearance habits combined with the fact that they couldn't be found in the house and were turned over (or a DIFFERENT package was turned over) to BDA much later is telling.

[PagingDrDetect]

What happened to the size 6 Wednesday panties?
Apparently, they took a disappearing act. We don't even know if there ever WERE any size 6 "Wednesday" bloomies. For all we know, JBR wore any one of her regular panties to the White's and when she was killed. The huge panties are staging, but they don't tell us anything at all about what panties JBR REALLY wore that night. Patsy claims that JBR wore the size 12/14's that night and there never were any others, which is clearly BS. JBR did NOT wear those ridiculously enormous panties to the White's that night and all we need to know about arriving at that decision is because the remaining six huge panties went missing.

[LinasK]

Here is another point of mine for you all to deal with.

IF IF PR wrote the note, which I do believe she either wrote it from scratch or redid the note -that someone else had written- and added some extra familiar family comments to it as part of the staging. Not too much thinking involved in that, just re copy to protect 'someone'. There were enough pages missing from the legal pad to support my thoughts.

IF IF Patsy found someone abusing JonBenet or discovered the situation upon getting up at midnight ORaround 1 AM, to do a bed check, and IF IF she found JonBenet dead at that time AND found the note, and in the hours following she cleaned up JonBenet, dressed her with care and GOT the BIG GIRL panties, thinking that whomever had abused JonBenet previously as in -eroded hymen/incest in the family dictionary/911 call of the 23rd - Patsy may have in her major distress thought that JonBenet had BECOME a BIG GIRL, and put the panties on her baby because JonBenet had earned the title of BIG GIRL in the worst nightmare possible.

IF IF this is what happened 'that' night, then around 3 hours elapsed BEFORE the police were called. Plenty of time to do the cleaning, staging, writing etc.

Camper, I don't think you're that far off what happened...

[denby]

The ridiculousness of the out-sized panties combined with Patsy's statements being all over the map about them when she was questioned combined with what was known about Patsy and her fastidious fashion and general appearance habits combined with the fact that they couldn't be found in the house and were turned over (or a DIFFERENT package was turned over) to BDA much later is telling.
I agree. I think the panties that the Ramseys turned in eventually were from a different package. For all we know the police may have found DNA on this package of panties that was different from the DNA found on the original pair of size12-14 panities thus believing that the DNA was from the killer when in fact the 2 sets of DNA may have been from the different people who packaged the 2 different sets of panites where they were manufactured (if that makes sense).

[PagingDrDetect]

I just realized something interesting about those giant panties after re-reading some of the interview transcripts. Something caught my eye that I didn't notice before. In John Ramsey's 1998 interview with Lou Smit and Mike Kane, Smit says this...

13 LOU SMIT: You notice how the packages seem
14 to be partially opened. Can you explain this?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: No, I can't.

There were presents found in the basement that were apparently meant for Christmas gifts to be exchanged when they went to Michigan and for other people to be sent out before they left. Patsy had stated that she was trying to get together presents to be sent out to other people before they left on their trip and that she did that in the basement. Some of those presents were in the room where JBR was found. Patsy also in her interviews had said that she bought the size 12/14 bloomies as a Christmas gift for her niece, Jenny, and apparently, that was a present to be sent out before they left on their trip... so it stands to reason that the package of the large panties would be in the basement in a package ment to be sent to Jenny.

I always thought it odd that the size 12/14 panties would ever have been put into JBR's panty drawer. Patsy also said that she couldn't remember whether or not she bought a package of the bloomies in size 12/14 for Jenny ONLY or if she ALSO bought a package of 4/6 ones for JBR. I think she did buy both.

The housekeeper remembers seeing a package of the bloomies in JBR's panty drawer, but I think those were the size 4/6 ones meant for JBR, and the size 12/14 package was in the basement in a package ready to be sent to Jenny for Christmas. Patsy was the one who was wrapping the gifts in the basement and would have known that the size 12/14 bloomies were there. That's why I think Smit brought up the fact that one or more of the presents in the basement were partially opened. I think part of the reason to use the size 12/14 panties was because they were there in the basement where the staging took place.

It's important that Patsy not state that there were two packages of bloomies and one of them was in JBR's drawer because an intruder wanting to put a different pair of panties on JBR would not have used panties that came out of a present in the basement... an intruder would have no idea that childrens panties were in a wrapped package in the basement. Only PATSY knew there was childrens panties in a wrapped present in the basement.

Smit doesn't say that those presents were partially wrapped, he says they were partially OPENED. No one puts wrapping paper on a package that isn't already closed up, so these presents weren't just partially wrapped... they were wrapped and then partially unwrapped and partially OPENED to get something out.

I think the reason that Patsy "doesn't remember" whether or not she bought two packages of the panties because if she said she remembered buying one package for JBR and one for her older niece, Jenny, it would be deduced by LE that what the housekeeper saw in the JBR's panty drawer were the size 4/6 panties purchased for JBR and the size 12/14 panties came out of one of those presents in the basement... pointing right at Patsy. Patsy was the only one who knew for certain where those size 12/14 bloomies were, and I think they were in the basement in one of those partially opened presents Smit mentioned.

[Darlene733510]

I bet those panties were in the gift packages in the basement - great sleuthng PDD.

It was months later that PR turned in the sz 12 panties to the BPD. Was that an unopened package, or was there a Wed. pair missing? I bet she bought a new pkg. and it was not opened.

How can anyone not see the lies and deviousness of these people. Pointing to their friends, and other innocent people. Some people will do anything out of desperation it seems.

[packerdog]

I bet those panties were in the gift packages in the basement - great sleuthng PDD.

It was months later that PR turned in the sz 12 panties to the BPD. Was that an unopened package, or was there a Wed. pair missing? I bet she bought a new pkg. and it was not opened.

How can anyone not see the lies and deviousness of these people. Pointing to their friends, and other innocent people. Some people will do anything out of desperation it seems.

Hi Darlene, Your quote about people doing things out of desperation reminded me of a shrink that was on the radio and she was talking about sociopaths. She said she would ask her patients questions to see how they would answer them. One question was : A womans mother dies and she has a big funeral, there she meets the man of her dreams. Two weeks later her her sister dies. How did she die? See what answer you come up with. Answer will be in next post.

[packerdog]

Hi Darlene, Your quote about people doing things out of desperation reminded me of a shrink that was on the radio and she was talking about sociopaths. She said she would ask her patients questions to see how they would answer them. One question was : A womans mother dies and she has a big funeral, there she meets the man of her dreams. Two weeks later her her sister dies. How did she die? See what answer you come up with. Answer will be in next post.


The woman murdered her sister so she could have another funeral and she could see the man of her dreams again. Sociopath!