View Full Version : Size 12 Panties
TLynn
03-08-2004, 04:20 AM
But not one solitary person from amongst all those viewers taped the show that night?
It was before I was following the case. But I usually don't keep a tape in the VCR ready to record anyway. I do wonder about that. It's so strange, but I know what I heard...
LovelyPigeon
03-08-2004, 05:56 PM
TH: "Okay. Anything else on the bed?"
PR: "Well, this looks like a little -- the little pot holder square she was making. This multi-colored thing here. This black thing I can't --. Oh, that sort of looks like it might be the little velvet dress --. Little silver snaps."
TD: "When did she last wear that?"
PR: "She wore that to the White's on the 25th."
TD: "Okay. The evening of the 25th?"
Not a dress. The "--" after the word "dress" indicates that Patsy's voice trailed off, just as it did after the word "can't" in the sentence previous.
Dress pants. Black velvet "dress" pants and a white shirt with a sequined star on the front is what JonBenét wore to the Whites on Dec 25th.
She also wore a black velvet vest.
Patsy described the clothing many times, in several interviews with media and with BPD.
Crime scene photos of JonBenét's room, including a photo of the *extra* bed with the black velvet pants, silver studs and all, can be seen here:
http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/jonbenet_bedroom.html
Shylock
03-08-2004, 09:55 PM
Dress pants. Black velvet "dress" pants and a white shirt with a sequined star on the front is what JonBenét wore to the Whites on Dec 25th.
Well I guess we don't have to worry about the size-12 panties falling down then - if she really did put them (the panties) on that morning.
LovelyPigeon
03-08-2004, 10:01 PM
Exactly, Shylock.
BlueCrab
03-08-2004, 10:41 PM
Well I guess we don't have to worry about the size-12 panties falling down then - if she really did put them (the panties) on that morning.
Yep, JonBenet would have willingly worn panties so big they would have bunched up and caused bulges to be seen under her black velvet pants. NOT! JonBenet normally wore sizes four and six. She was tiny. There's no way she wore size 12 panties to the White's dinner party.
Also, JonBenet didn't put the panties on in the morning that she wore to the Whites that evening. Patsy says JonBenet didn't get a chance to get a bath, but she did change underwear prior to going to the Whites.
Those size 12 panties were obviously put on JonBenet by the person who had just killed her. It was part of the staging to naively try to hide the sexual assault.
JMO
Shylock
03-08-2004, 11:23 PM
Yep, JonBenet would have willingly worn panties so big they would have bunched up and caused bulges to be seen under her black velvet pants. NOT! JonBenet normally wore sizes four and six. She was tiny. There's no way she wore size 12 panties to the White's dinner party.
Also, JonBenet didn't put the panties on in the morning that she wore to the Whites that evening. Patsy says JonBenet didn't get a chance to get a bath, but she did change underwear prior to going to the Whites.
Those size 12 panties were obviously put on JonBenet by the person who had just killed her. It was part of the staging to naively try to hide the sexual assault.
Well you did manage to crack me up, BlueCrab. I really don't think 6-year olds are too concerned about "Visable Panty Lines", (or a "VPL" as it's known in these parts)...LOL
One of the problems is, we don't know what this particular brand of panties is like. Are they made of super-stretch material? If so, it might be possible for a size-12 to be worn by a girl JB's size without much problem.
And I still think that Patsy causing harm to JonBenet because she opened the panties which were to be a gift, is a lot more believable than any bed-wetting theory.
tipper
03-09-2004, 12:00 AM
I don't think she was "tiny." She was tall for her age and she certainly doesn't look thin. My kids never matched the age/size number.
BlueCrab
03-09-2004, 09:05 AM
I don't think she was "tiny." She was tall for her age and she certainly doesn't look thin. My kids never matched the age/size number.
JonBenet wore nothing but size four and size six panties. There were 15 pairs of them in her panty drawer. There were no other sizes in the drawer.
The package of brand new size 12 underwear stored in the bedroom were obviously opened and put on JonBenet after death by someone who couldn't find JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom.
John and Patsy would have known better, so that leaves either Burke or an intruder -- or a combination of Burke and an intruder.
JMO
BlueCrab
03-09-2004, 09:21 AM
Well you did manage to crack me up, BlueCrab. I really don't think 6-year olds are too concerned about "Visable Panty Lines", (or a "VPL" as it's known in these parts)...LOL
It's not the "VPL's" Shylock; it's the excess material bunched up under your pants. Would YOU wear underwear twice the size of your waist? I wear size 36 underwear, but when I die they damned well better not try to bury me in size 72 underwear.
JMO
Shylock
03-09-2004, 09:24 AM
The package of brand new size 12 underwear stored in the bedroom were obviously opened and put on JonBenet after death by someone who couldn't find JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom.
Then what happened the the size-4/6 panties she wore that day?
Why would Patsy put a bed wetting child to bed without underwear on?
And why would Burke or an intruder even bother to put underwear on her?
I think the size-12 panties are an important clue in this case, and may be directly related to her death, but not enough is known to draw any conclusion from.
I tend to think, as the police did, that Patsy (or John) put the size 12s on JonBenet's body when they redressed her. Christmas was on Wednesday in 1996, and the size 12s were the "Wednesday" pair. J&P wanted investigators to think the panties were the same ones she'd worn on Christmas. Why? I think they wanted to draw attention away from that area of the body and the fact that JonBenet had been sexually molested before she died. They wanted everything to appear normal to investigators.
Shylock
03-09-2004, 10:04 AM
Would YOU wear underwear twice the size of your waist? I wear size 36 underwear, but when I die they damned well better not try to bury me in size 72 underwear.
LOL, well THAT would certainly be worth coming back and haunting them for!
BlueCrab
03-09-2004, 10:08 AM
I tend to think, as the police did, that Patsy (or John) put the size 12s on JonBenet's body when they redressed her. Christmas was on Wednesday in 1996, and the size 12s were the "Wednesday" pair. J&P wanted investigators to think the panties were the same ones she'd worn on Christmas. Why? I think they wanted to draw attention away from that area of the body and the fact that JonBenet had been sexually molested before she died. They wanted everything to appear normal to investigators.
Sorry, Ivy, but if the Ramseys didn't want attention drawn to that part of the body they would have dressed her in plain size six underwear -- not underwear twice the size she normally wore.
IMO neither JonBenet, nor John, nor Patsy put those panties on JonBenet. The killer, who couldn't find JonBenet's underwear drawer, put them on her.
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-09-2004, 10:08 AM
I don't think the size 12 panties have any evidence value in this case.
Wearing size 12s, especially underneath pants, would be no challenge for a 6 year old to keep the panties on.
I don't think the size 12 panties have any evidence value in this case. Nor do I. They seem to have alot of entertainment value for posters however and I am beginning to worry about that!
BlueCrab
03-09-2004, 10:24 AM
I don't think the size 12 panties have any evidence value in this case.
Wearing size 12s, especially underneath pants, would be no challenge for a 6 year old to keep the panties on.
Neither JonBenet herself, nor John, nor Patsy would put ridiculous size 12 panties on JonBenet. The size 12 panties are an important item of evidence that leaves Burke as the person who most likely put them on JonBenet.
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-09-2004, 10:42 AM
JonBenét would. She was a 6 year old girl, and they love to emulate older girls. Size 12 day-of-the-week panties would be very attractive to a girl that age.
And they were.
JonBenét chose to wore them, and she did.
why_nutt
03-09-2004, 10:44 AM
Nor do I. They seem to have alot of entertainment value for posters however and I am beginning to worry about that!
You know the principle of "look not only for what is unusual, but what is usual." If it was usual for JonBenet to wear inappropriately-sized underwear, then her wearing of it on Christmas Day is indeed no big issue. But if it was usual for her to wear appropriately-sized underwear, then the fact she was found in something unusual for her is to be considered an artifact of the also-unusual event of her murder.
Shylock
03-09-2004, 10:58 AM
I don't think the size 12 panties have any evidence value in this case.
I'll be happy to explain it to you, LP.
Any Person capable of flying into a harmful rage because of "bed wetting" would also be capable of flying into the same type of rage because someone opened-without asking, a package of clothing that was meant to be given as a gift for someone else.
That's a fact of life LovelyPigeon, not exclusive to just the Ramsey situation.
In the Ramsey case, the timing is also right. If JonBenet opened the "gift panties" and wore them all day, Patsy might not have discovered that (which brought on a rage incident) until she was getting JB undressed and ready for bed.
LovelyPigeon
03-09-2004, 11:07 AM
No evidence of a "flying rage" or even a non-flying rage over wet beds or anything else in the Ramsey family.
why_nutt
03-09-2004, 11:10 AM
JonBenét would. She was a 6 year old girl, and they love to emulate older girls. Size 12 day-of-the-week panties would be very attractive to a girl that age.
And they were.
JonBenét chose to wore them, and she did.
I doubt JonBenet chose them because they were large. Does a six-year-old child really have a sense of commercial clothing sizes and the differences between them? And if JonBenet was that much into wearing "big girl" clothing, why would nobody be claiming that JonBenet was always known to raid Patsy's own underwear drawer? Obviously Patsy was a Big Girl to JonBenet, and Patsy's clothing was available constantly to JonBenet well before the size 12 panties were ever bought. Nobody has even said JonBenet was inclined to dress up in Patsy's high heels or pageant gowns and sashes. No, other than the underwear anomaly, JonBenet is always depicted wearing clothing sized for herself. Sometimes, as in the 1993 and 1994 Christmas videos, JonBenet is seen wearing clothing somewhat too small for her; in 1993 she can be seen wearing a nightgown which fits, while in 1994 she is wearing the same nightgown, now with its sleeves too short and creeping up her arms.
little1
03-09-2004, 11:14 AM
I'll be happy to explain it to you, LP.
Any Person capable of flying into a harmful rage because of "bed wetting" would also be capable of flying into the same type of rage because someone opened-without asking, a package of clothing that was meant to be given as a gift for someone else.
That's a fact of life LovelyPigeon, not exclusive to just the Ramsey situation.
In the Ramsey case, the timing is also right. If JonBenet opened the "gift panties" and wore them all day, Patsy might not have discovered that (which brought on a rage incident) until she was getting JB undressed and ready for bed.
Do you have any evidence tha PR ever "flew into a harmful rage?" Is their even anyone who has said that PR spanked either of her children?
LovelyPigeon
03-09-2004, 04:38 PM
I can't say that I've ever known a case where little girls wanted to dress up in their mother's panties--but other lingerie items would be great fun for them to "borrow" and play in.
Mothers' clothes wouldn't work at all for children to actually wear, but only to play in. An older child's clothing, though--new panties from a package--that would be another story.
I have a friend who has 2 daughters aged 6 and 10. I'll ask what sizes underwear they wear, and if the sizes are 6 and 12, I'll borrow 2 pair to compare the actual measurements of them.
And I don't think JonBenét was tiny for her age. She was "just right".
tipper
03-09-2004, 04:53 PM
I was just at Walmart and had an extra minute. The waist size recommended for size 6 is 22" and for 12 is 25". That seemed to hold true for all manufacturers. Interestingly on the one kind that was on hangers - if you held them against each other the size 12 was about 1/2" longer from end to end across the waist than the 6. The suggested weight ranges were all over the place but there seemed to be a fairly generous span within each size. One size 6 I looked at had a 17lb weight range! Given that for the elastic to work it has to be stretched I think JonBenet could have worn the 12s albeit they would have been somewhat roomy.
Toltec
03-09-2004, 05:07 PM
JonBenet was thin for her age...just look at her in her Vegas outfit. As BlueCrab noted, there were only size 4 and 6 panties in JonBenet's panty drawer, and a normal sized child usually wear age-appropriate sizes...JonBenet was six therefore she wore a size 6 panty. I have umpteenth nieces and have never had to buy panties outside their age group.
I don't know where my post went but I wanted to discuss JonBenet's SOILED play pants found on the floor, turned inside out. Where were the soiled panties...or did JonBenet even change panties when she dressed for the Whites dinner party?
Lets say JonBenet gets home and Patsy gets her ready for bed. She discovers that JonBenet's panties are soiled and decides then to bathe her before bedtime. A fight ensues and JonBenet gets bashed in the head. Patsy removes JonBenet's soiled panties and wipes her down...then decides to put brand new "Wednesday" panties on her?
Why would Patsy put new "Wednesday" panties on? Was it because it was Christmas?
less0305
03-09-2004, 05:49 PM
I have to agree that I think someone inside the home was responsible for the size 12 panties. I just can't see an intruder finding a pack of unopened panties stashed away for a gift and opening the pack and taking one out to put on JB. It just doesn't seem plausible. But I can see PR putting them on JB or JB putting them on herself. That's seems more likely.
tipper
03-09-2004, 06:13 PM
According to the calculator I used JonBent was in the 51st percentile for weight and the 79th for height. That is using Meyer's 45lb weight estimate and the 47" measured height.
Shylock
03-10-2004, 11:40 AM
Do you have any evidence tha PR ever "flew into a harmful rage?" Is their even anyone who has said that PR spanked either of her children?
Why would I need any? Is there some law of nature I don't know about that says a person who doesn't spank their children isn't capable of flying into a harmful rage? Sorry, but people reach a breaking point and act crazy every day. Some of those people have no prior history to indicate they would ever reach that point.
Besides that, we know Patsy was a weird bird. Normal mothers don't put their kids into child beauty pageants. Normal adults don't have open houses and lay out all their old trophy awards for people to see. Normal people don't stage their own personal high school reunion so they can post old photos of themself and display their old pageant trophies for all of their schoolmates to see.
Shylock
03-10-2004, 11:48 AM
I was just at Walmart and had an extra minute. The waist size recommended for size 6 is 22" and for 12 is 25". That seemed to hold true for all manufacturers. Interestingly on the one kind that was on hangers - if you held them against each other the size 12 was about 1/2" longer from end to end across the waist than the 6. The suggested weight ranges were all over the place but there seemed to be a fairly generous span within each size. One size 6 I looked at had a 17lb weight range! Given that for the elastic to work it has to be stretched I think JonBenet could have worn the 12s albeit they would have been somewhat roomy.
Good sleuthing Tipper. It sounds like the key to whether the size-12 would fit her was how much stretch the material would have had.
twilight
03-10-2004, 01:28 PM
As staging those panties do two things:
A) provide a degraded DNA sample
B) set the time of death as Wednesday.
Ask who needed to point to Wednesday as the day she died?
It wouldn't serve any purpose for an intruder. The Rams would already know when they last saw her alive. However, to assist their story of when they last saw her alive, Wedneday helps.
I still say no one saw JB on Xmas day, but JR, PR, BR, (maybe) and the Whites. The Whites are saying nothing, and the Rams are saying too much. Who to believe? Depends on what Whites' story is, other than sealed?
Britt
03-10-2004, 01:47 PM
Why would Patsy put new "Wednesday" panties on?
In order to pass them off as the same panties JonBenet had been wearing all day.
JB "fell asleep in the car," remember? "Zonked" out, came home asleep and "never woke up," remember? And then The Intruder got her.
Naturally she was found wearing the same panties she'd been wearing all day - panties that had been witnessed by who knows how many people who could testify to it. It'd only take one witness to expose a staging lie. How would it look if someone who'd seen JB's Wednesday panties (i.e. anyone who helped her in the bathroom at the Whites) told police she'd been wearing Wednesday panties, but was found wearing different panties? What, the intruder changed her clothes? The RST might buy it, but no one else would. :)
The stager probably figured: who's gonna notice what size the panties are? There's a terrorist kidnap victim here! Who's gonna notice the superficial props - loose wrist cord, useless duct tape, panties that don't fit perfectly - when they're distracted by the horrible crime scene and there's a kidnapper to chase?
And furthermore... what Twilight says about the DNA - excellent point.
BlueCrab
03-10-2004, 03:54 PM
JonBenet apparently had worn two different pair of underwear on the 25th (not including the size 12's) and they may or may not have had "Wednesday" on them since JonBenet didn't care about days of the week :
TOM HANEY: "Did JonBenet have panties with the names of each day of the week on it?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "YES."
TOM HANEY: " OKAY. And did she wear those according to the day of the week or was it just kind of ---"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Just whatever."
TOM HANEY: "Did she know, pay much attention to what day of the week it was?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "No."
TOM HANEY: "So what ever would come out of the drawer?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes."
.....
TRIP DeMUTH: "After she bathed though on the 24th, she would have had clean underwear on after that?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Oh yeah. I am sure she would have had clean underwear on the 25th, though, she'd just not have taken a bath."
TRIP DeMUTH: "She would have changed them Christmas morning?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Or Christmas afternoon, getting dressed."
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-10-2004, 04:43 PM
Neighborhood children came over to the Ramseys house during the day on Dec 25, to look at their Santa gifts and play, and to tell about they'd gotten for Christmas. Both JonBenét and Burke played outside with neighborhood children that day.
The Whites weren't the only ones at the Whites' house for dinner that night, either. They had guests from California, including Priscilla's parents and her sister.
There were also photographs taken by the Whites that night, which Fleet turned over to the police in the form of film and the police had developed.
It's just silly to claim that "no one" saw JonBenét alive and well on Christmas day 1996.
tipper
03-10-2004, 04:43 PM
...
I still say no one saw JB on Xmas day, but JR, PR, BR, (maybe) and the Whites. The Whites are saying nothing, and the Rams are saying too much. Who to believe? Depends on what Whites' story is, other than sealed?
And the others at the White's party and didn't she help deliver one basket on the way home? I can't remember...
LovelyPigeon
03-10-2004, 04:46 PM
Christmas afternoon, when changing clothes to go to the Whites', is when Patsy believes that JonBenét put on the size 12 Wednesday panties.
little1
03-10-2004, 05:06 PM
Why would I need any? Is there some law of nature I don't know about that says a person who doesn't spank their children isn't capable of flying into a harmful rage? Sorry, but people reach a breaking point and act crazy every day. Some of those people have no prior history to indicate they would ever reach that point.
Besides that, we know Patsy was a weird bird. Normal mothers don't put their kids into child beauty pageants. Normal adults don't have open houses and lay out all their old trophy awards for people to see. Normal people don't stage their own personal high school reunion so they can post old photos of themself and display their old pageant trophies for all of their schoolmates to see.
I disagree.
BlueCrab
03-10-2004, 05:13 PM
Christmas afternoon, when changing clothes to go to the Whites', is when Patsy believes that JonBenét put on the size 12 Wednesday panties.
LP,
Do you have a source for Patsy believing that? Or is that a question? Or is it a guess?
Patsy has already stated in other interviews that JonBenet wearing size 12 panties would be out of the ordinary.
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-10-2004, 05:52 PM
Christmas is also "out of the ordinary". Perfect time for wearing some finery--like size 12 Wednesday big-girl panties.
TRIP DeMUTH: "After she bathed though on the 24th, she would have had clean underwear on after that?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Oh yeah. I am sure she would have had clean underwear on the 25th, though, she'd just not have taken a bath."
TRIP DeMUTH: "She would have changed them Christmas morning?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Or Christmas afternoon, getting dressed."
Toltec
03-10-2004, 06:03 PM
Christmas is also "out of the ordinary". Perfect time for wearing some finery--like size 12 Wednesday big-girl panties.
TRIP DeMUTH: "After she bathed though on the 24th, she would have had clean underwear on after that?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Oh yeah. I am sure she would have had clean underwear on the 25th, though, she'd just not have taken a bath."
TRIP DeMUTH: "She would have changed them Christmas morning?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Or Christmas afternoon, getting dressed."
That could be the case...but what I want to address is the soiled panties JonBenet took off. The police noted soiled pants turned inside out...but where are the soiled panties?
Let's say JonBenet changed her underwear...could JonBenet (who could not read) have picked the undies spelled WEDNESDAY????
Did JonBenet KNOW it was WEDNESDAY?
Could JonBenet READ WEDNESDAY?
tipper
03-10-2004, 07:52 PM
I would think so. All she really needed to read was the W to know she had the right day.
tipper
03-10-2004, 07:58 PM
Why would I need any? Is there some law of nature I don't know about that says a person who doesn't spank their children isn't capable of flying into a harmful rage? Sorry, but people reach a breaking point and act crazy every day. Some of those people have no prior history to indicate they would ever reach that point.
Besides that, we know Patsy was a weird bird. Normal mothers don't put their kids into child beauty pageants. Normal adults don't have open houses and lay out all their old trophy awards for people to see. Normal people don't stage their own personal high school reunion so they can post old photos of themself and display their old pageant trophies for all of their schoolmates to see.
Nomal Southern mothers do as well as some in other parts of the country. At our former house we were asked about putting it on the house tour and we're relatively normal and I think the Miss America/beauty pageant stuff was probably considered of potential public interest for the tour. I must have missed the story about staging her own personal high school reunion. It doesn't ring any bells.
LovelyPigeon
03-10-2004, 08:36 PM
I was just at Walmart and had an extra minute. The waist size recommended for size 6 is 22" and for 12 is 25". That seemed to hold true for all manufacturers.
Thank you tipper, for taking the time to compare those sizes.
A 3" difference in the waist certainly wouldn't have the size 12 panties falling off of JonBenét. The panties might have been below her natural waist but they would have "'fit" nonetheless.
JonBenét's weight and height are in the mid-to-slightly- upper-range for children her age. She was, of course, small because she was only 6, but she was not "tiny" for her age. She was normal size for her age group.
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 07:53 AM
Thank you tipper, for taking the time to compare those sizes.
A 3" difference in the waist certainly wouldn't have the size 12 panties falling off of JonBenét. The panties might have been below her natural waist but they would have "'fit" nonetheless.
JonBenét's weight and height are in the mid-to-slightly- upper-range for children her age. She was, of course, small because she was only 6, but she was not "tiny" for her age. She was normal size for her age group.
LP, I respectfully disagree. The over-all size of size 6 vs. size 12 is significant. There's twice as much material in size 12 panties. It's not just the size at the waist that helps keep them up. It doesn't make any sense for JonBenet to put on size 12 when her underwear drawer was full of panties that fit.
Also, if JonBenet had been wearing size 12 underwear, Patsy would likely have noticed it when she pulled the black velvet pants off her and put the longjohns on her before putting JonBenet to bed. Size 12's would have unwantingly slipped off with the pants and Patsy would have noticed it and remembered it.
Those size 12's were obviously put on JonBenet by the killer who wiped her down and tried to hide the sexual aspects of the crime after he killed her. Only a family member would have tried to hide the sexual assault.
JMO
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 08:50 AM
I don't know where my post went but I wanted to discuss JonBenet's SOILED play pants found on the floor, turned inside out. Where were the soiled panties...or did JonBenet even change panties when she dressed for the Whites dinner party?
Good question Toltec. If the turned-inside-out pants were soiled, then the panties she was wearing must have been a real mess. Where are they?
It suggests that JonBenet did indeed have to be significantly cleaned up before going to the White's. It suggests that mom would have been involved in cleaning up her daughter and perhaps dressing her in the proper size panties. Patsy certainly wouldn't have put size 12's on JonBenet.
But time likely running out, they left the soiled pants in the middle of JonBenet's bathroom floor -- stinky and all.
Patsy doesn't remember even seeing the soiled pants on the floor, even though she had to go into the bathroom to get JonBenet's longjohns that night. So where are the soiled PANTIES? They at least would have to be rinsed out, and I doubt JonBenet would do that. Only Patsy would have rinsed out the badly soiled panties, and she would have remembered it.
What is Patsy hiding by "not remembering"? Is she hiding the fact that she herself put size 6 panties on JonBenet before they went to the White's, even though JonBenet was wearing size 12 panties when her dead body was found? I think so. I think she is shielding Burke, the only person in the house who would have put size 12 panties on JonBenet.
JMO
cookie
03-11-2004, 09:04 AM
I really don't understand the reasoning for changing panties at all, even if she was molested. Why would there be a need to change underwear when it would have been pulled down in the first place? What makes anyone think that she was ever wearing another pair at all? Is it because Patsy says that she dressed her in the long johns, and she wasn't wearing the size 12's then? If so, why would anyone who thinks she is guilty, believe her about that?
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 10:08 AM
I really don't understand the reasoning for changing panties at all, even if she was molested. Why would there be a need to change underwear when it would have been pulled down in the first place? What makes anyone think that she was ever wearing another pair at all? Is it because Patsy says that she dressed her in the long johns, and she wasn't wearing the size 12's then? If so, why would anyone who thinks she is guilty, believe her about that?
Why change the panties? My guess is BLOOD! The killer wanted to hide the sexual assault so, when he put the original panties back on JonBenet, blood from her vagina likely seeped onto the panties and he had to change them to hide the blood. He cleaned up that part of the body and put fresh panties on her because he wanted it to look like a kidnapping, not a sex-related murder. He had no way to know that additional blood would seep onto the fresh pair of panties -- the ridiculous size 12 ones he put on her.
JMO
Shylock
03-11-2004, 10:31 AM
I disagree.
Then you must live in an area full of strange birds.
Shylock
03-11-2004, 10:34 AM
PATSY RAMSEY: "Oh yeah. I am sure she would have had clean underwear on the 25th, though, she'd just not have taken a bath."
Remember, we are talking about a woman who wrote a fake ransom note. She's not exactly credible in what she says...
Shylock
03-11-2004, 10:43 AM
Why change the panties? My guess is BLOOD! The killer wanted to hide the sexual assault so, when he put the original panties back on JonBenet, blood from her vagina likely seeped onto the panties and he had to change them to hide the blood. He cleaned up that part of the body and put fresh panties on her because he wanted it to look like a kidnapping, not a sex-related murder. He had no way to know that additional blood would seep onto the fresh pair of panties -- the ridiculous size 12 ones he put on her.
I won't deny that it's possible, BlueCrab. But also keep in mind that of the three Ramseys in the house, John would have been the least likely to know where JB's clean panties were stored. Patsy would have known for sure. Burke may have known, because being a kid, he probably played in that bathroom and had investigated every drawer in the house.
why_nutt
03-11-2004, 10:49 AM
Why change the panties? My guess is BLOOD! The killer wanted to hide the sexual assault so, when he put the original panties back on JonBenet, blood from her vagina likely seeped onto the panties and he had to change them to hide the blood. He cleaned up that part of the body and put fresh panties on her because he wanted it to look like a kidnapping, not a sex-related murder. He had no way to know that additional blood would seep onto the fresh pair of panties -- the ridiculous size 12 ones he put on her.
JMO
Small factoid: In DOI, Patsy made a point of writing that John is very squeamish at the sight of blood. Conveniently, JonBenet's killer made sure that John was spared the sight of JonBenet's blood.
Fact to note: While the crotch of the underwear had blood stains, the crotch of the longjohns did not, indicating the longjohns were separated by some distance from the underwear at the time the blood was deposited, even while both were in contact with JonBenet's body. Supplemental fact: the blood on the underwear had left no equivalent stains or dried blood on JonBenet's labia where, by any reasonable standard of evidence, blood should have been left. Blood cannot leak out of a vagina onto underwear without passing across both the labia majora and labia minora.
Fact: The CBI found bloodstains belonging to JonBenet on her nightgown, her shirt and the blanket. Supplemental fact: It is impossible for JonBenet to have bled onto her shirt, the blanket and the nightgown from her vagina unless all these items were shoved up her crotch at some point.
Theory: The person who assaulted JonBenet did not realize she would bleed as much as she did. I will go with the premise BlueCrab presents that JonBenet was not wearing the size 12 panties at the time of assault. I theorize that JonBenet was assaulted and began to bleed. The killer carried JonBenet's own blood from, let us say, her hands to JonBenet's shirt, the nightgown and the blanket (and as I recall a small smear of blood was found on JonBenet's leg), all in a short time but in such small amounts that the volume of blood on shirt, nightgown and blanket was not easily detectable. The volume of blood on the underwear being worn was, however, obvious. To spare John the sight of blood on his daughter's crotch, the killer removed what underwear were being worn and replaced them with the size 12s. It was only upon seeing that JonBenet's body continued to leak blood (not actively bleed as a living person would, but leak as dead bodies are capable of), that the killer then took one last bit of effort to wipe JonBenet's labia clean and then pull the size 12s up once and for all.
Bonus question: I would like to know if JonBenet owned any dark underwear. It is not impossible. If that were true, the dark fibers on her crotch may represent her very own underwear having been used to wipe her clean of blood, with said underwear being tossed into one of, let us also say, 40 purses in the house, none of which would be an immediate target for a police search for evidence. And if that purse were removed from the house by a grieving mother or, days later, her helpful sister, who would know?
little1
03-11-2004, 12:59 PM
Then you must live in an area full of strange birds.
Oh please, I just disagree, get over it.
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 01:13 PM
Small factoid: In DOI, Patsy made a point of writing that John is very squeamish at the sight of blood. Conveniently, JonBenet's killer made sure that John was spared the sight of JonBenet's blood.
Fact to note: While the crotch of the underwear had blood stains, the crotch of the longjohns did not, indicating the longjohns were separated by some distance from the underwear at the time the blood was deposited, even while both were in contact with JonBenet's body. Supplemental fact: the blood on the underwear had left no equivalent stains or dried blood on JonBenet's labia where, by any reasonable standard of evidence, blood should have been left. Blood cannot leak out of a vagina onto underwear without passing across both the labia majora and labia minora.
Fact: The CBI found bloodstains belonging to JonBenet on her nightgown, her shirt and the blanket. Supplemental fact: It is impossible for JonBenet to have bled onto her shirt, the blanket and the nightgown from her vagina unless all these items were shoved up her crotch at some point.
Theory: The person who assaulted JonBenet did not realize she would bleed as much as she did. I will go with the premise BlueCrab presents that JonBenet was not wearing the size 12 panties at the time of assault. I theorize that JonBenet was assaulted and began to bleed. The killer carried JonBenet's own blood from, let us say, her hands to JonBenet's shirt, the nightgown and the blanket (and as I recall a small smear of blood was found on JonBenet's leg), all in a short time but in such small amounts that the volume of blood on shirt, nightgown and blanket was not easily detectable. The volume of blood on the underwear being worn was, however, obvious. To spare John the sight of blood on his daughter's crotch, the killer removed what underwear were being worn and replaced them with the size 12s. It was only upon seeing that JonBenet's body continued to leak blood (not actively bleed as a living person would, but leak as dead bodies are capable of), that the killer then took one last bit of effort to wipe JonBenet's labia clean and then pull the size 12s up once and for all.
Bonus question: I would like to know if JonBenet owned any dark underwear. It is not impossible. If that were true, the dark fibers on her crotch may represent her very own underwear having been used to wipe her clean of blood, with said underwear being tossed into one of, let us also say, 40 purses in the house, none of which would be an immediate target for a police search for evidence. And if that purse were removed from the house by a grieving mother or, days later, her helpful sister, who would know?
Excellent post Why_Nut. However, I'm convinced Patsy would not have put size 12's on JonBenet. Only Burke or a young accomplice would have done that. Patsy knew where JonBenet's underwear were kept and would have gotten normal size 6's. Also, in my BDI theory I think the accomplice (the intruder who Burke knew and had invited into the house) wore his dark blue shirt out of the house and carried the bloody underwear and all of the other missing crime scene evidence out of the house when he left undetected in the wee hours of the morning. It's the only practical solution to all of the other missing items of evidence (the cord, the duct tape, the nine pages from the notebook, the possible stun gun, the tip of the paint brush handle, the murder weapon, etc.).
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 01:13 PM
Y'all propose that the killer had JonBenét's panties completely off of her or pulled down, sexually assaulted her, noticed that she was bleeding, then put her panties back on or pulled her panties up not realizing that blood would get on the panties when they were pulled back up.
Then the killer checks the pulled up panties to see if blood is on them, sees blood on them, takes them back off, puts them into a purse so the police won't find them.
Then the killer opens a package of new size 12 panties in the drawer, puts those panties on JonBenét, doesn't check to see if blood drops onto the crotch, then pulls on longjohns over the panties.
And the killer does this to spare John seeing blood on his daughter because he's squeamish?
Is that what you've have us to believe?
Nehemiah
03-11-2004, 01:16 PM
Nomal Southern mothers do as well as some in other parts of the country. At our former house we were asked about putting it on the house tour and we're relatively normal and I think the Miss America/beauty pageant stuff was probably considered of potential public interest for the tour. I must have missed the story about staging her own personal high school reunion. It doesn't ring any bells.
I must agree with you, Tipper. I have posted before that I believe the pageant thing to be very cultural, as well as home tours. There are beauty pageants galore where I live for kids (boys and girls) from birth thru college. Home tours are very popular, especially for charity events. Patsy has taken some hits for not finding the right color lipstick in Boulder, and that would be a concern of mine, too. :eek: The South is an island unto itself.
IMO
little1
03-11-2004, 01:44 PM
I must agree with you, Tipper. I have posted before that I believe the pageant thing to be very cultural, as well as home tours. There are beauty pageants galore where I live for kids (boys and girls) from birth thru college. Home tours are very popular, especially for charity events. Patsy has taken some hits for not finding the right color lipstick in Boulder, and that would be a concern of mine, too. :eek: The South is an island unto itself.
IMO
It is true, we live in a seperate world down here....I do love it though!
Britt
03-11-2004, 01:53 PM
It makes sense to me that (a living) JB would wear underwear that fit, and not oversized, baggy ones. It also makes sense that the oversized underwear might be worn over pullups for aesthetic and psychological reasons for a six-year-old beauty queen with toileting problems. Obviously, image is an issue in this family.
The oversized underwear IMO supports a toileting-issue scenario: either the regular-sized Wednesday panties were soiled and replaced with the only other Wednesday panties available... OR the oversized undies were worn over pullups that night prior to the incident that killed JB, with the pullups then being discarded, leaving the undies.
The only reason to switch underwear or discard pullups was to hide the truth of what triggered the incident, i.e. a toileting issue, just like Thomas says.
With any other scenario, I agree with the folks who don't see any purpose in switching the underwear.
LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 02:16 PM
It seems pretty obvious that JonBenét didn't wear size 12 panties everyday, since her drawer was full of size 6 panties. There weren't worn & washed size 12 panties around the house that had been worn over pull-ups, for those who theorize that was the reason for the size 12 package.
JonBenét occasionally wore pull-ups to sleep in, but certainly not every night. We don't even know how often, or when was the last occasion she wore them at night.
The package of new size 12s was in the drawer with the other panties, Patsy had agreed that JonBenét could have them, and JonBenét put on a pair that particular afternoon to wear to the Whites. That makes the most logical sense to me.
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 02:54 PM
It seems pretty obvious that JonBenét didn't wear size 12 panties everyday, since her drawer was full of size 6 panties. There weren't worn & washed size 12 panties around the house that had been worn over pull-ups, for those who theorize that was the reason for the size 12 package.
JonBenét occasionally wore pull-ups to sleep in, but certainly not every night. We don't even know how often, or when was the last occasion she wore them at night.
The package of new size 12s was in the drawer with the other panties, Patsy had agreed that JonBenét could have them, and JonBenét put on a pair that particular afternoon to wear to the Whites. That makes the most logical sense to me.
It makes the lease sense to me. She had a drawer full of 4's and 6's that fit her. JonBenet wouldn't put size 12 panties on herself to go the White's no more than she would have worn Patsy's shoes, or Patsy's slacks, or anything else twice her size. Six-year-olds can be quite fussy about their clothes when getting ready to go somewhere.
Moreover, I think JonBenet had Patsy's help getting ready to go to the White's because it was getting late, as evidenced by the stinky play pants left in the middle of the bathroom floor. Patsy admitted it wouldn't be normal for JonBenet to be wearing size 12 underwear, so I doubt she would have opened a package of size 12 underwear and put them on JonBenet.
JMO
Shylock
03-11-2004, 04:33 PM
The package of new size 12s was in the drawer with the other panties, Patsy had agreed that JonBenét could have them, and JonBenét put on a pair that particular afternoon to wear to the Whites. That makes the most logical sense to me.
There is a big problem though LovelyPigeon. Patsy says the package was in the drawer with the other panties. The BPD took all the panties from that drawer into evidence and the package wasn't there.
That area was well searched even days after the crime when all the detectives knew what panties she was found in. Still the package wasn't found and taken into evidence. Later, the package is handed over to LE by the Ramseys.
It appears Patsy was lying about the entire panty issue. There is no other way the BPD could have missed an open package of panties that match what she was found dead in. Remember that their search was so thorough that they removed the toilet from the floor and checked the sewer line.
Additionally, you say, " Patsy had agreed that JonBenét could have them." Why would Patsy agree JB could have panties that were bought to be given as a gift? Why would Patsy store "gift" panties in JB underwear drawer?
Shylock
03-11-2004, 04:41 PM
Y'all propose that the killer had JonBenét's panties completely off of her or pulled down, sexually assaulted her, noticed that she was bleeding, then put her panties back on or pulled her panties up not realizing that blood would get on the panties when they were pulled back up.
If that's what happened, only a kid would be that stupid--a 10 year old.
little1
03-11-2004, 04:45 PM
If that's what happened, only a kid would be that stupid--a 10 year old.
I dont know Shylock, most adult males are that dumb..... :woohoo:
:dance:
Shylock
03-11-2004, 05:05 PM
I dont know Shylock, most adult males are that dumb..... :woohoo:
Why, because they don't do laundry?
I think most adult males are smart enough to know that if you put any form of cloth over a liquid it's going to be absorbed.
Men DO see commercials for Bounty, ya know! :dance:
little1
03-11-2004, 05:09 PM
Why, because they don't do laundry?
I think most adult males are smart enough to know that if you put any form of cloth over a liquid it's going to be absorbed.
Men DO see commercials for Bounty, ya know! :dance:
Shylock it was a joke.
Shylock
03-11-2004, 05:11 PM
Shylock it was a joke.
My reply was too.
little1
03-11-2004, 05:13 PM
So was mine.
Sorry, I am having a dumb blonde month, (well, lets be honest, life)
Now I feel REAL stupid! My boyfriend does his laundry, he also opens the door for me and brings me flowers. He has got to be an alien or SOMETHING!
Toltec
03-11-2004, 05:23 PM
John was asked if he knew where JonBenet's pajamas were kept. He replied "in a bathroom drawer." If John knew where JB's pajamas were kept then I would think he knew her panties were kept in a drawer there also.
The blood on the size 12 panties did not corrrespond with the blood stains found on JonBenet's vaginal area...suggesting that her panties were changed.
Patsy wiped JonBenet down because only a woman would know to wipe the labia.
Let us say that it was Burke who was molesting JonBenet. Does that mean that he changed her panties? I don't believe so.
IMO
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 05:24 PM
It appears we've been misled once again.
JonBenet was 6 years old, 47" tall, weighed 45 pounds, and wore size 6 underwear. Here's what the packages at Walmart really say:
SIZE 6 ..... 22" waist; 39 to 49 pounds
SIZE 12 ..... 25" waist; 84 to 95 pounds
There is absolutely no way JonBenet could wear size 12 underwear. Size 12's are for a girl TWICE the size of JonBenet.
With respect to pull-ups, underwear are not needed. The pull-up is the diaper and the underwear all in one, so few mothers use underwear over pull-ups on their child. That includes Patsy Ramsey because the only size 12's in the house were in unopened packages.
JMO
Shylock
03-11-2004, 05:31 PM
Patsy wiped JonBenet down because only a woman would know to wipe the labia.
I don't agree with that. I think any man who has ever changed a real messy diaper would know that.
LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 05:32 PM
Of course a 6 year old could wear size 12 panties for a night, and especially with pants over the panties.
And that's exactly what happened.
Shylock
03-11-2004, 05:36 PM
Of course a 6 year old could wear size 12 panties for a night, and especially with pants over the panties.
Too bad Thomas is not still around. He searched the house with the other detectives. It would be interesting to get his take on why the package of remaining panties was not found and taken into evidence.
Toltec
03-11-2004, 05:47 PM
Too bad Thomas is not still around. He searched the house with the other detectives. It would be interesting to get his take on why the package of remaining panties was not found and taken into evidence.
The Ramseys never went back into the home after leaving their precious daughter lying dead on the living room floor. How did they come to possess the package of brand new panties???
The search warrant lasted days...so did the panties go the way of the remaining duct tape, cord, and the red pen?
After conducting a lengthy search of the premises the police turned the property over to the Ramsey representatives. The Ramseys themselves never wanted to set foot in the house again. The Ramsey representatives felt the package of remaining underwear might be important and took it from the dresser drawer and had it saved since they thought it should have been examined forensically, but as with much of the house, the forensic team simply did not bother.
Let us say that it was Burke who was molesting JonBenet. Why on earth would you want to say such a horrible thing?
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 06:39 PM
Of course a 6 year old could wear size 12 panties for a night, and especially with pants over the panties.
And that's exactly what happened.
And that's exactly what DIDN'T happen. It doesn't make sense and therefore likely didn't happen. Those size 12's had to have been put on JonBenet by the killer.
There's no reason for JonBenet to have worn size 12 panties to the White's. She hadn't worn size 12's before that night because the packages were unopened. Size 12's are for a girl 84 to 95 pounds (TWICE JonBenet's body size) and would have fallen down into her pant legs when she tried to walk.
The size 12 underwear point to Burke putting the over-sized panties on a dead JonBenet because John and Patsy would have known better.
JMO
Shylock
03-11-2004, 06:49 PM
Why on earth would you want to say such a horrible thing?
How about because the molestation is best described as childlike.
Shylock
03-11-2004, 06:53 PM
but as with much of the house, the forensic team simply did not bother.
Oh I get it, they took all 15 pairs of panties except the ones that really mattered out of the drawer. Maybe they were just prejudiced against Bloomingdales, huh Toth...
BloodshotEye
03-11-2004, 07:20 PM
I guess the question might be, was JB wearing the size 12s before she was removed to the basement - or after.
Re-dressing seems contrary to the "intruder" theory
It's a very peculiar notion, that someone who attacked, molested, exacted revenge (or whatever you want to call it), would feel the need to waste time effecting a change of underwear for this child.
I would think that an intruder, (a stranger, or individual who may have performed some sort of repair or service in the Ramsey home, and therefor knew the basement and general room layout of the home), would not have wasted time re-dressing the body. But rather - made a quick exit out of the home. In short, I do not believe an intruder would have re-dressed the body.
JB put on the Size 12s, some time after PR changed her?
A long shot, to be sure - however, I wondered if JB herself, did not at some point in the late night or early morning, replace her underwear with the size 12. Perhaps needing to change again some time later (after PR changed her), and wanting the "new pair, in the package", without regard to the size. Considering that JB was independant enough to get up, and get pinapple, without anyone's knowledge, I submit that she did as she pleased. And at some point after PR changed her and bedding, she changed into the new Size 12s. Perhaps, after tugging on a pair of pajamas, they kinda stayed up, enough to wear back to bed, or to wander out to the living room, where presents and such might be. Or perhaps to awaken BR. Isn't that rather typical, that children might get up very early in the morning, to check for presents?
I have this weird notion, that JB awakened on her own, sometime after PR changed her. Maybe her bed was wet again - who knows. In any case, she maybe wandered into BR's room, for a dry bed and changing help, to avoid her mother's impatience with a second bed-wetting incident.
Why not remove other evidence as well?
If the size 12s are believed to be evidence of a "re-dress" and clean up of evidence, wouldn't we expect that other evidence be removed as well? Such as the garrot/noose around neck, with the attached broken piece of paint brush? Could the blue fibers be evidence associated with perp's clothing (fleece shirting, blue flannel underwear, etc.) rather than something used to surreptitiously wipe down the child's body?
I know I am probably in the minority here, but I am just not sure that I can visualize a perp (intruder or not), re-dressing JB without removing other evidence as well. As I have an admitted bias about the strong possibility of BR's involvement (given the screwy information we have to date), I speculate that JB put on the Size 12s herself.
LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 07:25 PM
Toltec, the Ramseys never were in possession of the package of panties. Investigators for their original lawyers collected items from the house as potential evidence after BPD was finished searching. That package was one of the things collected.
When Lin Wood became their lawyer, boxes of stuff was turned over to him from the other lawyers.
LW gave the package, and some other things, to the Boulder DA.
but I am just not sure that I can visualize a perp (intruder or not), re-dressing JB without removing other evidence as well. JonBenet was not 're-dressed', she had her panties pulled down and later the intruder simply pulled them back up, but she was not re-dressed or changed into new panties.
And there is no indication that the intruder was in any way familiar with the layout of the basement rooms.
LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 07:29 PM
I'm not even convinced that her pants and panties were ever pulled down.
I think it's very possible the killer just slid his hand into her underwear and molested her with his fingers.
BloodshotEye
03-11-2004, 07:54 PM
JonBenet was not 're-dressed', she had her panties pulled down and later the intruder simply pulled them back up, but she was not re-dressed or changed into new panties.
And there is no indication that the intruder was in any way familiar with the layout of the basement rooms.
I used the term "re-dressed", as PR's answers to questioning, did not seem to suggest that she dressed JB in the Size 12s. Additionally, I used the term, as my post reflects my thoughts on the speculation that someone "changed" JB's underwear.
If PR cannot seem to account for why JB was wearing the Size 12s, I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty, that JB did not "change" or was not assisted in "changing" her underwear.
I personally, do not believe in the intruder theory. However, in deference to those who do, I speculated that an intruder (handyman, etc.) would have been able to move about quietly, and know where they wanted to go - if they were familiar with the layout of the house.
Whether or not you subscribe to the intruder theory, or the "family member theory", someone appeared to be familiar with the layout of the house, including the basement. So much so, that the basement door latch, was fastened.
blueclouds
03-11-2004, 08:05 PM
Only if you're foolish enough to believe the Ramseys, and find "nothing mysterious" about their lies, excuses, and selective memory recall.
I'm a former researcher and I'm foolish enough to believe in the "intruder" theory. That doesn't mean I "buy" everything regarding the Ramsey's but I think they were railroaded. How is it that so many here believe in their guilt, but did not sit on the grand jury's hearing to hear all the evidence? Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that an intruder could have done this?
I'm not "PRO RAMSEY"..... I'm pro intruder. There's a difference and I do believe that Toth has a lot of valid points.
Another quote of Shylock: "How about because the molestation is best described as childlike."
If this perp was "new" to his experimenting, it would be more childlike than experienced. Many molesters start out with playful little things. I've heard of fathers using crayons on their daughters, chalk, etc.. first.
LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 08:26 PM
bluecloud, I'm both pro-Ramsey and pro-intruder. Not everyone here is convinced one or more of the Ramseys is guilty of JonBenét's murder.
Not every person who molests children is interested in "rape" as in physically, sexually forcing themselves on children. Some aren't capable of sexual intercourse, some are interested in sexual contact that is much less than intercourse.
The sexual assault on JonBenét could have been much worse, but it did cause her to bleed from injury to her vaginal canal and her hymen.
blueclouds
03-11-2004, 08:28 PM
Ok, my mistake Pigeon. I know better than to "generalize" too much. I do realize there are several pro-intruder people here. :)
LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 08:35 PM
Didn't mean it to indicate you were making a mistake, just that others here feel as you do, and that's not "foolish" at all. :-)
BloodshotEye
03-11-2004, 09:10 PM
BlueClouds: Your thoughts on a possible intruder, being very inexperienced, is interesting. Perhaps early on in this aberrant behavior (transitioning from one type of behavior, to that which involved committing acts upon a person), there might be a sense of remorse, which would be consistant with the careful (?) way the body was wrapped in the blanket.
I will try to keep an open mind, and consider this as a possibility. However, I have a tough time overcoming my bias. I too, sided with the "intruder theory", until the amusing "kidnapping" letter, and a few other weird aspects of this case, were released to the public. True, I am not privy to the Grand Jury testimony, or the enhanced 911 phone call. I have tried to make the intruder theory, hang together - in spite of the strange testimony. And I simply cannot string together a liklihood scenario for that theory. Perhaps it is because we are lacking a **** load of information. Don't know.
blueclouds
03-11-2004, 09:17 PM
Thank you Bloodshot. I have to say that I have tried to keep an open mind that they (family members) could be responsible. What makes it hard is the DNA found on the underwear and under her finger nails as well as other things. DNA points away from anyone who's been tested. Also, there's no evidence of prior abuse or anything wrong with the Ramsey's. That makes it a little less chance that they are the perps but not impossible.
Unfortunately, anything is possible with this story. I do hope JB can rest in peace one day.
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 09:43 PM
Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that an intruder could have done this?
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT drag their feet and refuse to cooperate with the police and not spontaneously answer all police questions.
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT lie to the cops about Burke being in bed at 5:52 A.M. when he wasn't, thus destroying the credibility of everything else they said happened that morning.
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT say they didn't search the basement looking for JonBenet before they called 911 when common sense said of course they searched the basement, and if they searched the basement then of course they found JonBenet long before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 A.M.
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT try to fly out of state that afternoon and leave their child lying dead on the floor without family members in town to care for her and take care of the proceedings that had to be done.
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT immediately hire lawyers for every family member and then use the legal system to intimidate those who want to openly discuss the case and the three people who were known to be in the house with JonBenet that night -- John, Patsy, and Burke.
JMO
BloodshotEye
03-11-2004, 09:48 PM
Yes, agreed BlueCloud. The DNA is another bag of worms.
The curious thing about the DNA testing, is how those second hand reports discuss the test results "for those individuals who were tested. I would like to see a reliable document (laboratory documentation), that lists those immediate and extended family members or others, who were tested, and those who were not tested. If some obvious people were not tested, I am only left to wonder why not?
Are we left only to speculate, that the DNA phoresis for the DNA under JB's nails, is so unique, that it can be stated with 100% certainty, that there is absolutely no simularity (similar bands, etc.) with an immediate or extended family member who has not been tested?
The manner in which the DNA test results are reported, is kind of weisel wording to me, and leads to more speculation.
Additionally, is there any liklihood, that the DNA tested, was not present as a result of the event or circumstances that claimed JB's life? I know that's kind of a weird statement, but it has been on my mind.
In any case, you are right - anything is surely possible.
LovelyPigeon
03-11-2004, 09:51 PM
Parents looking for a child who was just plain "missing" would probably look high and low for the child before calling police.
But parents who find a ransom note and a missing child would call police immediately.
blueclouds
03-11-2004, 10:35 PM
Parents were utterly devastated. They DID ANSWER questions on the first, second & third day. THEY DID provide all blood, hair and anything else requested immediately. It is a MYTH that they did not cooperate the first day or two.
AFTER they were being treated like suspects, they lawyered up... and I would too. (although I would take a lie detector test as soon as I felt able) but that even might not be for weeks.
Friends of ours had their child murdered by a serial killer in Canada (clifford olson) and no one saw the mom for almost 6 months. She literally stayed in bed... literally.
Additionally, is there any liklihood, that the DNA tested, was not present as a result of the event or circumstances that claimed JB's life? I know that's kind of a weird statement, but it has been on my mind. Whenever a defendant is linked to dna found at the crime scene his defense lawyer always comes up with weird explanations. I don't quite know what explanation you might accept for a man's dna being in a six year old girl's panties and under her fingernails after she is attacked and presumably scratched him.
on-edit: You can talk about JonBenet touching a playmate or a toilet or something,,, but I think adult rape and murder victims have friends and also use the toilet too. Yet dna tests stand up in court in thier cases.
Oh, and No male Ramsey means just that. Not John Ramsey, Not Burke Ramsey. They DID take samples from Burke too, even though having both Johns and Patsy's dna made it less necessary.
BlueCrab
03-11-2004, 10:41 PM
Parents looking for a child who was just plain "missing" would probably look high and low for the child before calling police.
But parents who find a ransom note and a missing child would call police immediately.
No they wouldn't. They would search the whole house, including the basement and the yard outside, before calling 911. The Ramseys did neither. JonBenet could be suffocating in the basement; or freezing to death outside. Every second counted -- unless they already knew where JonBenet was.
JMO
Upon finding a ransom note, I would never search anywhere. Would only call 911. Ransom note implies she is being held prisoner someplace far away. No thought to search nearby. Would never occur to me.
Britt
03-11-2004, 11:01 PM
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT drag their feet and refuse to cooperate with the police and not spontaneously answer all police questions.
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT lie to the cops about Burke being in bed at 5:52 A.M. when he wasn't, thus destroying the credibility of everything else they said happened that morning.
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT say they didn't search the basement looking for JonBenet before they called 911 when common sense said of course they searched the basement, and if they searched the basement then of course they found JonBenet long before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 A.M.
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT try to fly out of state that afternoon and leave their child lying dead on the floor without family members in town to care for her and take care of the proceedings that had to be done.
Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT immediately hire lawyers for every family member and then use the legal system to intimidate those who want to openly discuss the case and the three people who were known to be in the house with JonBenet that night -- John, Patsy, and Burke.
:clap::clap::clap:
And then there were three. One of them is a killer.
Shylock
03-11-2004, 11:24 PM
If this perp was "new" to his experimenting, it would be more childlike than experienced. Many molesters start out with playful little things. I've heard of fathers using crayons on their daughters, chalk, etc.. first.
Blueclouds, that has to be one of the silliest ideas I have ever read. "Playful little things"??? How "playful" is a garrotte? If we are to believe in some crazy intruder theory, we must believe that an adult was evil enough to choke the life out of a little girl, but mamby-pamby when it comes to sexual pleasure. That's just nuts.
The sexual molestation of JonBenet was either done by a kid playing "doctor", or it was staging by a parent to make it look like a sexual crime along with being a kidnapping. The dictionary being open and dog-eared to the word "incest" tells us it was the kid.
Shylock
03-11-2004, 11:33 PM
Parents were utterly devastated. They DID ANSWER questions on the first, second & third day. THEY DID provide all blood, hair and anything else requested immediately. It is a MYTH that they did not cooperate the first day or two.
You have your facts wrong, Blueclouds. Yes, the Ramseys did FULLY cooperate with the police the first day. How could they not--they were trying to pull off a kidnapping scam. What did you expect them to say to the police, "our daughter has been kidnapped and we're not talking to you".
After the body was found, the Ramseys lawyered up and stopped talking to the police. They were supposedly too doped-up to be interviewed. The lawyers told the BPD that if they had questions they should fax them to their law office. That's HARDLY cooperation.
As far as the blood and hair samples, that is called non-testimonial evidence which their lawyers told them they either had to freely give up or a court order would forced them to.
blueclouds
03-12-2004, 12:32 AM
It was 3 days before they LAWYERED UP. When JB was found, they STILL went and gave samples, answered questions and such. If you're quoting media, a lot of their facts came from tabloids - THAT MUCH IS TRUE! Remember Chris Wolf?
Islander
03-12-2004, 12:58 AM
According to Schiller (page 27 paper back) John asked Mike Bynum to represent him sometime around 7:30 p.m. on December 26, the same day that the body was found. On December 27, when Detective Mason reiterated to John that his and Patsys contribution to the investigation would be vital to finding JBs killer, John responded that he could not set a time and date for the interview. We all have read when Patsy was drugged up on Valium, but John could have walked in to that police station at any time, along with his lawyers if he wished, but he did not do so. That doesnt sound like full cooperation to me.
Shylock
03-12-2004, 02:17 AM
It was 3 days before they LAWYERED UP. When JB was found, they STILL went and gave samples
No, it was about 6 hours. And they didn't go anywhere and give samples, they were taken at the house.
BlueClouds, you really need to do some reading and come up to speed on this case. Everything you've posted so far was either wrong or swamp spin.
The dictionary being open and dog-eared to the word "incest" tells us it was the kid.IF you believe Steve Thomas, this dictionary was open on some PRIOR occasion when a photograph was taken. How many people take photographs of the family dictionary? Or does he claim this is some background object yet he can discern what page the dictionary is open to? Please go through your family photo album and tell us if you find any photos of dictionaries.
Do you really believe Steve Thomas anyway?
Wow. SIX pages of posts on a little girls panties. I wonder sometimes. I surely do.
Barbara
03-12-2004, 07:46 AM
Wow. SIX pages of posts on a little girls panties. I wonder sometimes. I surely do.
Just what is it you wonder about? YOU are the one who seems obsessed with "panties" as evidenced by your inability to mention Fleet White WITHOUT mentioning "panty changing" Fleet White. So we all wonder as well Toth.
BTW, Where is your disclaimer? Blueclouds, Toth?
Those are the rules here. Why do you spit in the face of admininstrative requests?
Shylock
03-12-2004, 11:10 AM
IF you believe Steve Thomas, this dictionary was open on some PRIOR occasion when a photograph was taken. How many people take photographs of the family dictionary?
What are you talking about Toth! Why don't you read Page 263 in Thomas' book and you might learn that it was a poloroid evidence photo that shows the dictionary dog-eared to the word "incest". It wasn't a photo the Ramseys took.
why_nutt
03-12-2004, 01:40 PM
Actually, I would.
We are all supposed to follow the evidence where it leads. In this case, the evidence says you would not, because you have been presented with the opportunity to express offense and you have not. Therefore, action speaking louder than pixels, you would not.
What are you talking about Toth! Why don't you read Page 263 in Thomas' book and you might learn that it was a poloroid evidence photo that shows the dictionary dog-eared to the word "incest". It wasn't a photo the Ramseys took. Irrespective of what may or may not appear in his novel, I was going by the deposition testimony which ofcourse may be a work of fiction also.
LovelyPigeon
03-12-2004, 06:15 PM
Polaroid? POLAROID? what kind of police dept takes crime scene photos in Polaroid rather than 35mm?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Maybe it was a polaroid photo from the family's home collection.
Shylock
03-12-2004, 07:15 PM
Irrespective of what may or may not appear in his novel, I was going by the deposition testimony which ofcourse may be a work of fiction also.
Please post the deposition testimony.
IMO
Shylock
03-12-2004, 07:21 PM
Maybe it was a polaroid photo from the family's home collection.
Yes, the Ramseys are proud of their down-home redneck incestual nature. So they staged the dictionary and took photos to send to their southern kiss'n cousins.
IMOoooooooooooo
What are you talking about Toth! Why don't you read Page 263 in Thomas' book and you might learn that it was a poloroid evidence photo that shows the dictionary dog-eared to the word "incest". It wasn't a photo the Ramseys took.
85KKY is the source of the photo, And as with items 86KKY and 87KKY these were items seized from the home of the Ramseys such as the note in JBR's wastebasket. They were not photos taken by the police..why would a police photo be marked as evidence and seized pursuant to a search warrant?
Can't dredge it up from the brain cells, but I believe it was a deposition wherein he spoke of a magnifying glass looking at a photo ... and glossed over the fact that this was a photo seized by Yamaguchi who was also seizing various other disks and videotapes, ie, things that already existed, not photos that were being taken by the police then. What ST is saying is that a photo in their photo album shows a dictionary which when he looks at it under a magnifying glass he claims is open to the word 'incest'.
Britt
03-12-2004, 09:10 PM
lol... What difference does it make who took the photo? A photo speaks for itself.
An evidence photo would be representative of that night; a prior photo would mean nothing.
why_nutt
03-12-2004, 10:14 PM
Polaroid? POLAROID? what kind of police dept takes crime scene photos in Polaroid rather than 35mm?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Maybe it was a polaroid photo from the family's home collection.
The LAPD take Polaroids, I know NYPD do, Washington DC police do. Basically, most forensic photography incorporates Polaroid film at some point. Do you find this remarkable?
http://www.forensicfocus.net/gallery/
The educational sessions were followed by vendor presentations from Polaroid and Olympus. Polaroid's Dan Cavazos shared with attendees numerous tips on documenting evidence through forensic photography, while forensic chemist Robert Blackledge explained the growing importance of glitter as trace evidence and the ability to view it through new digital microscope technology.
http://www.forensicfocus.net/az_03/agenda.html
Photographic Documentation of Injuries
Instant photography is a reliable and effective tool for first response officers and health care professionals. Receive hands-on practice with two instant camera systems, the Macro 5 SLR Camera and the Spectra Close-up Kit, designed specifically for injury and forensic documentation.
http://www.polaroid.com/global/printer_friendly.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2825744 88338439&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441760341
According to Ms. Coleman, when it comes to capturing extreme close-ups of injuries, such as bite marks, subtle superficial scratches or abrasions, the Polaroid Macro 5 is superb.
The Polaroid Spectra AF cameras also are very effective for close-up photography.
...
For Ms. Coleman and her colleagues, the Polaroid cameras make an emotionally challenging job just a little easier. "What's nice about the Polaroid cameras is, you don't have to be a photographic wizard to get great results. They pretty much do everything for you, including let you know how close to stand. And, they're the type of camera that you can train on, not use for six months, but then just pick up and use immediately without difficulty. To be honest, the cameras are a blessing."
Instant photography also provides two additional advantages to the forensic examiner. By the very nature of it being instant, the examiner can look at the photo and immediately evaluate if they've captured the image they need. This sort of timely inspection of the documentary evidence is simply not possible with traditional 35 mm photography.
http://www.pimall.com/nais/bkp.photo.html
APPLIED POLICE AND FIRE PHOTOGRAPHY
A Bible For Investigative Photography
By Raymound P. Siljander
Here is a college level course on investigative photography long considered the bible on the subject. Contents include: General Aspects Of Forensic Photography, Cameras, Lens And Film, Care Of Photography Equipment, Filters, Exposure Determination, Flash Photography, Crime Scene Photography, Arson And Questionable Fires, Traffic Accident Photography, Deaths, Surveillance Photography, Identification Photography, Close-Up Photography, Photomicography, Copying Techniques, Document Examinations Employing Photographs, Fingerprint Photography, Impression And Tool Mark Photography, Polaroid Photography, Photographic Court Exhibits, Miscellaneous Problems And Considerations.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000mTc
What camera to document assault injuries?
...
Polaroid! Its very hard to re shoot these type photos if you get your film back from the lab and find out that either you or the lab goofed! with a polaroid you will have it now and know if you got it good enough.<br>Now if they were asigning me this duty I would have both a polaroid and a SLR ! I am not so sure about the 50mm lens on the slr though! I suppose it could be made to work but I cant see where distorting a assaulted persons face is any beter than distorting a non assaulted persons face ?
...
Well, my car was just broken into and the police arrived with a Polaroid camera. I think I'd agree with what other people have said, you need to have immediately visible results. You have no chance for a reshoot.
...
Like most of those above, I suggest Polaroid. With 35mm, which is used by a lot of police departments, you would have to do your own processing, to (1) make absolutely sure that the photos were not lost and (2) to protect the privacy of the patients. If the photos wind up in court, Polaroid (or doing your own processing) make it possible to establish that you had continuous possession of the photographs.
...
I would recommend the Polaroid Macro 5 or Macro 3 over any other Polaroid models for this purpose. Both were designed with medical documentation in mind and both have a pretty foolproof focusing and centering mechanism that will allow just about anyone to take usable clinical photographs. Simplicity and immediate verification are needed for this kind of photography and these models are capable of providing both.
...
Christina, Hector's got your answer--Polaroid cameras are an established tool for forensic documentation. Polaroid has a camera called the MACRO 5 SLR, which is designed, among other things, for healthcare and law enforcement uses.
...
I work at a facility for persons with developmental disabilities and we use polaroid to document injuries. We also use a film pack with grid lines already in it to judge the size of the injured area.
...
Christina, the film pack that Blair refers to is the Polaroid GridFilm. Besides the MACRO 5 SLR, there's a Polaroid camera kit set that's specially cater to forensic photography at a cheaper cost: the Polaroid Spectra LE Close-Up Kit (click on the URL and scroll down the page). Here's a website with lots of useful info on forensic photography: http://police2.ucr.edu/photo.htm. Cheers.
LovelyPigeon
03-12-2004, 10:22 PM
I can understand why paid representatives of Polaroid would pitch their products to law enforcement or anyone else. That's what salesperson do.
But why LE would use instant camera photography for crime scene documentation is beyond me.
Britt
03-12-2004, 10:57 PM
An evidence photo would be representative of that night; a prior photo would mean nothing.
Mean nothing? In a family whose daughter was chronically sexually molested (per majority expert opinion) and ends up sexually abused and dead?
Nope, that's not "nothing".... that's a significant clue to solving the crime.
Anyway, we've seen no proof that it wasn't a crime scene photo taken by police.
why_nutt
03-12-2004, 11:01 PM
I can understand why paid representatives of Polaroid would pitch their products to law enforcement or anyone else. That's what salesperson do.
But why LE would use instant camera photography for crime scene documentation is beyond me.
Look at the photonet link. Those people are not paid representatives of Polaroid. They are users of Polaroid cameras for forensic documentation, and they lay out exactly why they use that system. Read closer, you will see Polaroid makes special models of their cameras specifically for law enforcement. Have you seen the movie "Silence of the Lambs"? In the scene where a victim is having the inside of her throat photographed during an autopsy, they are using one of the special Polaroid cameras. We are not talking about a fifteen-dollar Polaroid you buy at the drugstore. And as the search warrants revealed, the Ramseys did not own a Polaroid camera to take pictures with. They owned two 35mm cameras (one a Pentax) and several rolls of 35mm film.
LovelyPigeon
03-12-2004, 11:08 PM
I'm sorry, but search warrants do not indicate, nor are they meant to, every item that anyone owns.
Polaroid and other instant camera films do not elarge by negative like 35 mm cameras do. They also cannot focus and reproduce to prints with the precision that 35mm.
whynutt, if want to endorse instant photos for forensic use, that's fine with me. I don't.
But why LE would use instant camera photography for crime scene documentation is beyond me. I know what you mean, but considering the abilities of the BPD they might not have much choice.
In a family whose daughter was chronically sexually molested (per majority expert opinion) and ends up dead? You seem to ignore the views of the experienced and particularly alert pediatrician who actually saw her and you seem to forget that this was a very personable and assertive young girl who was well protected in a loving family.
Britt
03-13-2004, 12:59 AM
You seem to ignore the views of the experienced and particularly alert pediatrician who actually saw her...
Nah, Toth, it is you who are ignoring what Dr. Beuf said.
I, for one, listened to Dr. Beuf when he said, as he read from his chart notes, that August 1996 was the last time he checked JonBenet's vaginal area:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm
So how could he have known about any abuse inflicted between August and her death four months later?
And, in any case, I also listened to Dr. Beuf when he said he couldn't say definitively if he would've seen an abrasion involving the hymen because he didn't do a speculum exam:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm
So you are still taking the views of those who only saw headlines and the opportunity to make more headlines over the views of the pediatrician who actually examined her.
Shylock
03-13-2004, 09:43 AM
85KKY is the source of the photo, And as with items 86KKY and 87KKY these were items seized from the home of the Ramseys such as the note in JBR's wastebasket. They were not photos taken by the police..why would a police photo be marked as evidence and seized pursuant to a search warrant?
You're right, #85KKY is the envelope which contained the photo. And you're asking me to explain the BPD evidence logging system, who knows that. It seems to me that before anything is put into the evidence room/locker/vault/whatever... it's going to be assigned a sequential number to track it. So I think the number is irrelevant to what the actual evidence is.
When you take an item to a coat check, they give you a numbered tag, and the number is meaningless to whether you checked in a baseball hat or a full length mink coat.
There is only one deposition from Thomas available to us. It's been a while, but I don't remember Lin Wood asking him about the dictionary. The depo is on-line, so it should be easy to check.
Shylock
03-13-2004, 09:52 AM
Polaroid and other instant camera films do not elarge by negative like 35 mm cameras do. They also cannot focus and reproduce to prints with the precision that 35mm.
whynutt, if want to endorse instant photos for forensic use, that's fine with me. I don't.
Why is this an issue? We've seen OTHER crime scene photos from the house which were obviously 35mm because of the detail. The window well is a perfect example.
So the bottom line is the BPD uses BOTH methods of photography. Why poloroid? Two reasons: Obviously so the detectives have access to a visual record RIGHT AWAY. But more importantly, because you know if that photo is going to come out 30-seconds later. With 35mm film, if you get a bad roll, you may not know about it for a couple days while the crime lab processes it. Then it's too late.
Shylock
03-13-2004, 09:59 AM
and you seem to forget that this was a very personable and assertive young girl who was well protected in a loving family.
You said a mouthful, Toth! Yep, she was WELL protected, just like her brother was WELL protected--from of life of being known as the kid who killed his beauty queen sister while playing doctor. HE was protected so well, that they staged an entire crime to keep him from whatever future they couldn't control.
And it sure worked perfectly, didn't it Toth? You and a few thousand others bought into it--hook, line, and sinker.
Britt
03-13-2004, 02:00 PM
So you are still taking the views of those who only saw headlines and the opportunity to make more headlines over the views of the pediatrician who actually examined her.
lol... and you are still taking the views of the Ramseyist presentation over substance approach to spin.
Yeah, Beuf believes JB wasn't abused, just like the Ramsey supporters believe the Ramseys are innocent, without being in a position to know whether it's true or not.
Yes, JB was "personable" and "assertive." She was also a trained performer who no doubt had the poise and self-control to put on whatever presentation she or her stage mother or her beloved daddy wanted Dr. Beuf to see. And that's all Beuf has, since he didn't do the necessary physical exams to know if she was being abused.
Yes, JB was "personable" and "assertive." She was also a trained performer who no doubt had the poise and self-control to put on whatever presentation she or her stage mother or her beloved daddy wanted Dr. Beuf to see. Personable, assertive, poised, exercises self-control... and you think she kept quiet about abuse? Don't you see the contradictions in your own statement?
Stage mother?? Not one of the people who knew her has expressed similar emotions or anything even remotely close to it (save for one woman who sold some stuff to the tabloids).
And that's all Beuf has, since he didn't do the necessary physical exams to know if she was being abused.Don't you realize that doing such an exam without even a hint of probable cause constitutes Child Sexual Abuse !! Are you really and truly saying that is what you would have wanted to have happened?
Britt
03-13-2004, 02:15 PM
Personable, assertive, poised, exercises self-control... and you think she kept quiet about abuse? Don't you see the contradictions in your own statement?
You talk about her as if she had adult awareness.
If JonBenet was willingly playing doctor with Burke, she'd more than likely keep quiet about it.
imo
Britt
03-13-2004, 02:24 PM
Don't you realize that doing such an exam without even a hint of probable cause constitutes Child Sexual Abuse !! Are you really and truly saying that is what you would have wanted to have happened?
Where did I say that? lol
All I want is for Dr. Beuf to be honest. Here's an example:
I (Beuf) didn't examine JB's vaginal area since August of 1996, and I never did a speculum exam at all, so I have no physical findings on which to base an opinion about sexual abuse. I didn't notice any behavioral symptoms and/or none were reported to me by Patsy, but then, I never specifically asked JB about sexual abuse. Was JB being molested? My short answer is: I don't know. I like to think I would've known, but the truth is, I didn't. How could I?
Now, is that so hard? :)
Britt
03-13-2004, 02:26 PM
If JonBenet was willingly playing doctor with Burke, she'd more than likely keep quiet about it.
Right. What Ivy says, too. Excellent point, Ivy. :)
LovelyPigeon
03-13-2004, 05:08 PM
On the few occasions that JonBenét's health warranted a look by Dr Beuf at her genital area, he did no intrustive examination. He examined her as any pediatrician would be expected to examine a patient with her reported symptoms.
Those examinations did not indicate any abuse at that time.
Dr Beuf could not have known about any abuse since at least the last physical examination.
JonBenét did not exhibit any classic symptons of ongoing physical sexual abuse. (we've been that a million times, minimum)
Shylock
03-13-2004, 06:07 PM
JonBenét did not exhibit any classic symptons of ongoing physical sexual abuse.
Except that normal girls her age don't wet a bed almost nightly, and they don't ever soil the bed with solid waste. Both are "classic symptons of ongoing physical sexual abuse" as the victim tries to make herself unattractive to the attacker.
LovelyPigeon
03-13-2004, 07:19 PM
Bedwetting alone is not symptomatic of ongoing sexual abuse. Look it up.
JonBenét was not, by anyone's testimony, wetting her bed everynight or nearly everynight by age 6.
There is no evidence that JonBenét ever defecated in her bed, if that is your inference.
LovelyPigeon
03-13-2004, 07:25 PM
I asked my friend with a 6-year-old daughter and an 11-year-old daughter about panty sizes, as well as whether the 6-year-old might wear size 12 panties instead of her own size.
The answers were as some have posted before: size 12 panties would be big on a 6-year-old, but would not fall off of her.
My friend's daughter would gladly put on her sister's size 12s, or new size 12s, because it would seem to be "acting bigger". Whether or not they bunched up under pants wouldn't be a deciding factor for the daughter to wear them.
why_nutt
03-14-2004, 07:53 AM
Polaroid and other instant camera films do not elarge by negative like 35 mm cameras do. They also cannot focus and reproduce to prints with the precision that 35mm.
whynutt, if want to endorse instant photos for forensic use, that's fine with me. I don't.
I do not have to "endorse instant photos for forensic use." It has already been done at trial. Surely you remember a little thing called the Westerfield trial?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/20020619-9999-pm1.html
A: THE FINGERS THEMSELVES WEREN'T REHYDRATING AS QUICKLY AS I WAS HOPING. AND SO WHAT I DECIDED TO DO WAS REMOVE A SECTION OR ACTUALLY TWO SECTIONS OF THE HAND OR THE FINGERS THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN, A SECTION OF THE LEFT MIDDLE FINGER AND A SECTION OF THE LEFT RING FINGER. WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS GET THOSE THEN SEPARATELY INTO SOLUTION SO THAT -- SO THE SOLUTION CAN GO AT IT FROM BOTH SIDES AND REHYDRATE IT QUICKER.
Q: SO YOU HAD TO CUT THE SKIN OFF?
A: YES.Q: WHICH FINGERS DID YOU CUT THE SKIN OFF?
A: THE LEFT MIDDLE AND THE LEFT RING FINGERS.
Q: ONCE YOU HAD THE SKIN REMOVED, WHAT DID YOU DO TO GIVE YOURSELF SOME KNOWN PRINTS?
A: GRABBED A POLAROID CAMERA, A THREE-TIME ENLARGING POLAROID CAMERA, AND TOOK PICTURES OF THOSE SECTIONS OF SKIN THAT I HAD REMOVED, LAID THEM ON A PIECE OF PAPER, HELD IT DOWN WITH A COUPLE OF SWABS, WOODEN SWABS, AND APPLIED SILVER POWDER TO ADD CONTRAST AND PHOTOGRAPHED IT.
Q: THEN WHAT?
A: FROM THERE I DID A COMPARISON OF -- WITH THE POLAROIDS AS WELL AS THE LATENT PRINT.
Q: LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT I'VE HAD PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT 110, THIS POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH. APPEARS TO SHOW A FINGERPRINT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, MR. GRAHAM?
A: YES, I DO.
(POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 110 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: CAN YOU SHOW IT UP AND TELL US WHAT IT IS.
A: THIS IS A POLAROID OF THE SECTION OF SKIN FROM THE LEFT MIDDLE FINGER OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.
Q: THAT'S AFTER THE SKIN HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM HER HAND?
A: SKIN'S BEEN REMOVED. IT'S BEEN SILVER POWDERED. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO WOODEN STICKS. THOSE ARE SWABS THAT I AM USING TO HOLD THAT SECTION OF SKIN FLAT.
Q: DID YOU PREPARE THIS EXHIBIT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: I'VE HAD MARKED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT 111 WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SIMILAR POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH. WHAT IS IT?
A: IT'S THE SAME ONLY THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE LEFT RING FINGER. ALSO HELD DOWN WITH SWABS, ALSO SILVER POWDERED.
(POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 111FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: THAT CAME FROM THE HAND OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A: YES. YES.
Shylock
03-14-2004, 12:54 PM
Bedwetting alone is not symptomatic of ongoing sexual abuse. Look it up.
JonBenét was not, by anyone's testimony, wetting her bed everynight or nearly everynight by age 6.
There is no evidence that JonBenét ever defecated in her bed, if that is your inference.
Well you missed the ball on all three of the items above, LovelyPigeon.
#1) - Yep, let's look it up:
Several clues are associated with sexual abuse:
-Genital infections, redness, or discharge
-Burning with urination
-Urinary tract infection
-New onset of either bedwetting or stool problems
-Seductive behavior
http://www.drgreene.com/21_1185.html
Well, well, well... Looks like JonBenet had ALL THE ABOVE symptoms. The first three we know about thanks to Dr. Beuf. The fourth thanks to LHP and others. And we have all seen the "seductive behavior" she was taught on pageant tapes, as well as heard the "sexy witch" and other stories.
How about another one, just for fun! - There are PAGES AND PAGES on the net about sexual abuse and bedwetting:
Sexual Abuse Behavioral Indicators & Changes
These are the more pronounced possible changes that can take place in any combination if your child is experiencing sexual abuse:
1. Bedwetting
http://www.safenetwork.org/behavior_indicators.html
#2) Does a child have to wet her bed EVERY NIGHT to show clues of sexual abuse?--Not at all. (Look it up) We know from LHP that the bedwetting was consistant. Even Burke in his interview told the BPD that the bed wetting was a big problem. The bed wetting was enough of a problem that they put Pull-Ups on her at night. The truth is that, (except for occasional far and few between accidents) 6-year old little girls do NOT have a bedwetting problems that require night-diapers. And NO girl that age defecates in her bed.
#3) There IS evidence of bedwetting--HARD EVIDENCE. The sheets off her bed that night tested positive for urine. We also have the testimony of LHP who described the wetting and defecating she found in the bed. At the time LHP told the police about it she was fully supporting the Ramseys and was unaware she had been thrown under the bus. There is no reason to doubt her accounts from that time period.
>The sheets off her bed that night tested positive for urine.
Trace amounts, no more than any other well-laundered bed sheet would have, including yours.
>We also have the testimony of LHP who described the wetting and
>defecating she found in the bed. At the time LHP told the police about it
>she was fully supporting the Ramseys.
At the time she came up with such fanciful nonsense about defecating on the bedsheets she had tabloid/bookroyalty dollar signs in her eyes.
K777angel
03-14-2004, 01:21 PM
>The sheets off her bed that night tested positive for urine.
Trace amounts, no more than any other well-laundered bed sheet would have, including yours.
>We also have the testimony of LHP who described the wetting and
>defecating she found in the bed. At the time LHP told the police about it
>she was fully supporting the Ramseys.
At the time she came up with such fanciful nonsense about defecating on the bedsheets she had tabloid/bookroyalty dollar signs in her eyes.
Lies,lies,lies Toth. This information came out EARLY on in the investigation - not 6 years later when she was working on a book.
You would just like to THINK that it was later with some monetary motivation so that the truth can be squelched.
There was even evidence of old "brown stains" on her white blanket. Or do you think those were BLOOD? Which carries an even more sinister connotation.
You have no idea either what JonBenet Ramsey's personality traits and characteristics were. You did not KNOW her nor her family.
Everything you post of these family members is through rose colored glasses.
WHY????
By the way - it is NOT TRUE that no other mother came forward with concerns about Patsy's stage mother problem and how it was affecting JonBenet. In fact, Schiller reports in his book that a GROUP of mothers were planning on confronting Patsy after Christmas with their concerns over her pushing JonBenet into so much "pagaent" crap and how it was affecting her.
It's called "intervention" - and she needed it. Bless those kind-hearted mothers.
~Angel~
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 05:20 PM
Shylock, you didn't list all the symptoms at drgreen.com. I suspect that is because a complete list doesn't support your point of view.
There is no evidence that JonBenét was sexually abused before the night she was killed. Her behavior gave no indications. When she had common childhood vaginal redness she was examined by a pepdiatrician who saw no indications of sexual abuse. No teacher, no friend, no church person associated with JonBenét saw any indicators in her behavior.
As I said before, bedwetting alone is NOT an indicator of sexual abuse.
The single, ridiculous report by a tabloid regarding a grapefruit sized stool in the bed is singly ridiculous.
Are there children who have never had an accident resulting in stains on their sheets? Probably. Do most children growing up have one or more such accidents? Decidely so.
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 05:37 PM
No, it was about 6 hours. And they didn't go anywhere and give samples, they were taken at the house. - Shylock
What kind of samples are your referring to and at what house do you think those samples were taken?
Both PMPT and ST's book describe how the Ramseys--Burke, John Andrew & Melinda included--went to the Justice Center and gave blood, hair, DNA, handwriting samples. The Ramseys also had pubic hair samples plucked from their bodies.
Shylock
03-14-2004, 05:43 PM
Shylock, you didn't list all the symptoms at drgreen.com. I suspect that is because a complete list doesn't support your point of view.
For brevity, I listed only those that apply to JonBenet. Of course, it would be an extremely lame excuse if you are trying suggest that a victom of child abuse had to meet ALL the symptoms. That wouldn't be what you're suggesting now, would it? If not, then kindly point out which symptom "doesn't support my point of view" by directly contradicting it.
ALL child abuse experts AGREE that bedwetting and other toileting problems can be one symptom of a young girl being molested.
JonBenet exhibited those symptoms as well as several others I previously listed.
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 05:58 PM
Bedwetting alone is not a symptom of sexual abuse.
JonBenét did not exhibit "classic" behaviors of sexual abuse. She was a school student, a student of dance, a church/Sunday School student, among other activities around children and adults. There have been no reports of behaviors that would lead anyone around JonBenét to suspect abuse from her behaviors.
JonBenét's longtime pediatrician saw JonBenét regularly for checkups and for minor medical problems. He saw no signs, either physical, emotional, or behavorial, of abuse.
Shylock
03-14-2004, 06:28 PM
[QUOTE=LovelyPigeon]Bedwetting alone is not a symptom of sexual abuse.
Oh but it can be. Did you read the 2nd page I quoted? It listed bedwetting as the #1 symptom.
Additionally, if the sexual abuse is being done by a young boy playing "doctor" there may be no other symptoms.
BlueCrab
03-14-2004, 06:30 PM
The autopsy revealed JonBenet had acute injuries to the vagina (from the night of the murder) AND SHE HAD CHRONIC INJURIES TO THE VAGINA (from 24 to 72 hours before the murder).
The chronic injuries were affirmed by six medical doctors to be from sexual abuse.
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 06:34 PM
Nope. The autopsy does not state that there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse nor did it indicate that sexual assault had been committed previous to the time of her death.
Some of the experts who were consulted by BPD thought JBR might have been sexually molested/abused before the night she did. Others thought the sexual assault was limited to that night only.
BlueCrab
03-14-2004, 06:53 PM
Nope. The autopsy does not state that there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse nor did it indicate that sexual assault had been committed previous to the time of her death.
Some of the experts who were consulted by BPD thought JBR might have been sexually molested/abused before the night she did. Others thought the sexual assault was limited to that night only.
LP, PLEASE DO NOT MISQUOTE ME! I didn't say the autopsy report stated there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse nor did I say the autopsy report stated there had been previous sexual assault.
I SAID SIX MEDICAL DOCTORS AFFIRMED THAT CHRONIC SEXUAL ABUSE HAD OCCURRED. We've been over this before, and I even named the doctors, but it seems you pay no more attention to the facts now than you have in the past. Why?
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 08:14 PM
I didn't quote you at all, BC. I made a statement. And I stand by it.
As I said, some of the experts consulted by BPD thought there might be evidence of previous sexual assault. Others, like Meyer (correction from stating Werner incorrectly) and Spitz, did not.
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 08:18 PM
Shylock, the second page you url-ed to ends with:
These signs are not in and of themselves, conclusive evidence that your child was sexually abused. They must be looked at in conjunction with other behaviors and factors.
There is no indication that bedwetting is the "#1 cause", either. It is merely listed first, along with a list of other symptoms.
Bedwetting alone is not an indication of sexual abuse.
Britt
03-14-2004, 08:28 PM
As I said, some of the experts consulted by BPD thought there might be evidence of previous sexual assault. Others, like Werner and Spitz, did not.
Werner and Spitz are the same person: Dr. Werner Spitz. :)
That's ONE expert who wouldn't make a definitive statement about prior abuse... versus SIX experts who did definitively state there was prior abuse.
If it were six to one stating the opposite opinion (e.g. that there was no prior abuse) Ramsey apologists would be shrieking to the heavens about the majority expert opinion.
Well, fact is, the majority expert opinion supports the finding of prior abuse.
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 08:37 PM
Thanks for the correction. I meant Meyer (as in Dr. John Meyer) rather than Werner.
Yikes I think I'm getting old :-)
I rather think independent and/or defense experts might find the opposite of those 6, as Dr John Meyer and Dr Werner Spitz did.
Britt
03-14-2004, 08:44 PM
Bedwetting alone is not an indication of sexual abuse.
I agree that, alone, it may or may not be an indication of abuse.
But what you said originally in post #168 was:
JonBenét did not exhibit any classic symptons of ongoing physical sexual abuse.
Which, of course, isn't true because she DID. (emphasis in quotes mine)
But regardless of what symptoms she exhibited when she was alive, the majority expert opinion based on the autopsy findings is clear: she was sexually abused.
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 08:46 PM
Shylock, I think you may have missed my question to you at post #115 on this thread.
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 08:48 PM
Britt, JonBenét did not exhibit any of the classic signs of sexual abuse.
Bedwetting by a young child is not a sign in and of itself.
Britt
03-14-2004, 08:49 PM
I meant Meyer (as in Dr. John Meyer) rather than Werner.
Meyer? When did Meyer make any interpretations or conclusions? He simply reported the autopsy findings.
Britt
03-14-2004, 08:52 PM
Britt, JonBenét did not exhibit any of the classic signs of sexual abuse.
Bedwetting by a young child is not a sign in and of itself.
lol... Oh come on, LP, that's a word game. Bedwetting IS one of the classic signs, which JB did exhibit.
Shylock
03-14-2004, 09:17 PM
Shylock, I think you may have missed my question to you at post #115 on this thread.
Ahhhh, I must have, but I'm not sure. I don't see a question in that post. (shrug)
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 09:41 PM
Yikes! I AM getting old...and not wearing my reading glasses, either.
Post #177, if you please.
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 09:43 PM
Bedwetting is not a sign a sexual abuse.
A series of behaviors (which includes bedwetting) is a sign of sexual abuse.
Millions of American children are bedwetters as a result of immature urinary systems. Bedwetting alone has nothing to do with sexual abuse.
LovelyPigeon
03-14-2004, 10:38 PM
Britt, I am without my old PMPT hardback index, and alas, cannot quickly put my finger on Dr. Meyer's conclusion.
I can provide this, however:
PMPT hardback p 437:
Dr Richard Krugman...injury to the hymen...took place after her death.
Dr Werner Spitz said that JonBenét's vaginal injury dated to the time of her death.
p513:
Detective Harmer...reviewed the medical findings about JonBenét's vaginal injuries. Several well-known experts had concluded that the child's hymen was torn weeks or even months before her murder, Harmer said, but other experts had said the tear was recent. Broken blood vessels inside the child's vagina clearly indicated that she was penetrated that night, but there was no conclusive evidence of a sexual assault before that time.
Britt
03-14-2004, 11:44 PM
PMPT hardback p 437:
Dr Richard Krugman...injury to the hymen...took place after her death.
Dr. Krugman said a whole lot more than that:
From Spade's notes at FFJ, on the "Sexual Abuse" thread:
Dr. Richard Krugman, Dean of the University of Colorado Medical School, an expert first contacted for assistance in the Ramsey case by the D.A.s office, was the most adamant supporter of the finding of chronic sexual abuse. He felt that in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance. He believed that this homicide was an indecent [incident ?] of toilet rage and subsequent cover up. He told the group of experts and detectives about another Colorado case where both parents had been at home and both were charged. The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage," Krugman stated.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3783
And from PMPT:
[Dr. Krugman] told the media that on the basis of what hed read in the report, JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. Then he added, "I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused based on physical findings alone." The presence of semen, evidence of a sexually transmitted disease, or the child's medical history combined with the child's own testimony were the only sure ways to be confident about a finding of sexual abuse, Krugman told reporters.
Physical abuse was another matter. Krugman had occasionally seen injuries to little girls' genitals that were related to toilet training and had nothing to do with sexual abuse. In children, one had to separate sexual from physical abuse. By now the detectives had learned that at age six, JonBenet was still wetting the bed, and was asking adults to wipe her after she was done on the toilet. It was possible that the injury to her vagina was a result of punishment. p. 467 paperback
And from Burden of Proof, Krugman suggested the 'sexual' abuse could have been a cover-up for prior physical abuse in the vaginal area:
COSSACK: Doctor you made a statement which almost made it sound though that you believe that the sexual abuse was a coverup to perhaps hide the amount of physical abuse. Do you have a feel on that area?
KRUGMAN: In my view that's certainly a possibility.
Burden of Proof - Monday, December 29, 1997 (http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/12291997krugmanonbop.htm)
Shylock
03-15-2004, 12:14 AM
Excellent post Britt. Good job of digging out related information!
LovelyPigeon
03-15-2004, 10:13 AM
As PMPT summarizes neatly, Dr Krugman was of the opinion that the sexual injuries were made after JonBenét's death.
I'm not sure how Dr Krugman thinks the wounds bled if JonBenét was already dead, but there you have his expert opinion.
And those are just the range of opinions sought by the BPD. You can well imagine there are varying conclusions by other experts, including those who might be consulted by a defense.
BlueCrab
03-15-2004, 11:22 AM
As PMPT summarizes neatly, Dr Krugman was of the opinion that the sexual injuries were made after JonBenét's death.
I'm not sure how Dr Krugman thinks the wounds bled if JonBenét was already dead, but there you have his expert opinion.
And those are just the range of opinions sought by the BPD. You can well imagine there are varying conclusions by other experts, including those who might be consulted by a defense.
LovelyPigeon,
Dr. Krugman's remarks about possible postmortem injuries concerned the ACUTE injuries to JonBenet's vagina. Krugman did not deny there were also CHRONIC injuries to the vagina.
JMO
Britt
03-15-2004, 11:58 AM
Dr. Krugman's remarks about possible postmortem injuries concerned the ACUTE injuries to JonBenet's vagina. Krugman did not deny there were also CHRONIC injuries to the vagina.
Exactly, BlueCrab.
Dr. Krugman's comments make it clear that he believes JB was being physically abused in the vaginal area and the perp staged an acute injury in order to stage a "sexual attack," to divert from the truth.
Krugman makes a distinction between "physical" abuse and "sexual" abuse - which goes to the motive behind the abuse - but whichever label one uses, the abuse was chronic and was inflicted in the vaginal area.
(Thanks, Shylock :))
why_nutt
03-15-2004, 12:02 PM
I'm not sure how Dr Krugman thinks the wounds bled if JonBenét was already dead, but there you have his expert opinion.
The phenomenon is called "artifactual hemorrhages" or "post-mortem bleeding." It is addressed in MEDICOLEGAL INVESTIGATION OF DEATH as a potentially misleading indicator of assault since, as the picture link shows below, it is possible for small blood vessels to break and leak after death, giving the impression the damage was done while the victim was still alive.
http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/postmortem.gif
Artifactual hemorrhages on the inner aspect of the arm produced by seepage of blood from small veins torn when the body was lifted for the purpose of removal.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/forensics/israel/Israel_accident_3.html
It is possible that death was a few hours before. Movement of the body may cause post-mortem bleeding to start.
Shylock
03-15-2004, 12:05 PM
I'm not sure how Dr Krugman thinks the wounds bled if JonBenét was already dead, but there you have his expert opinion.
Gravity, LP. Just like when they butcher an animal and hang it upside down for the blood to drain out. Not that she was hanging or being held in any perticular position, but blood will always travel to the lowest position in a dead body, seeping from any open wounds along the way.
LovelyPigeon
03-15-2004, 12:47 PM
But we aren't talking about seepage..these were drops of blood on the crotch of the panties.
There were also smears of blood on JonBenét's thighs that had been partially wiped away to the point that it didn't appear to be blood to the naked eye. Remember the detectives at the autopsy thinking that the material on her thighs was semen because it lit up under the black light?
Wasn't there some trace blood on the blanket also, and on the Barbie gown?
Shylock
03-15-2004, 01:29 PM
But we aren't talking about seepage..these were drops of blood on the crotch of the panties.
There were also smears of blood on JonBenét's thighs that had been partially wiped away to the point that it didn't appear to be blood to the naked eye. Remember the detectives at the autopsy thinking that the material on her thighs was semen because it lit up under the black light?
Wasn't there some trace blood on the blanket also, and on the Barbie gown?
I couldn't begin to assume how blood seeping from a wound would "drip" or "stream" from a dead person. I would think everyone would be different, based on their size and the size/location of the wound, so no real conclusion could be drawn. Could the blood have dripped when her body was moved into the wine cellar and held upright?--Who knows.
Yes, the body was cleaned up and blood wiped off her, leaving smeared blood on her leg. That fact has always pointed away from an intruder who wouldn't have been cleaning up his victim for presentation purposes.
And I've never heard about blood on the blanket or nightgown that I can remember.
WolfmarsGirl
03-15-2004, 08:57 PM
...Patsy in my opinion would be correct in stating JBR to wear around a size 8. In my experience with my kids and my niece whom I just took on a weeks vacation, they tend to wear underwear a size larger than their clothing size. My niece was wearing size 8 clothing but her panties were a 10...
Exactly what I have been saying Eliza!
I still contend that a size 12 would not be unheard of for a little girl to accidentally put on by herself.
My little girl insisted on wearing a size 10 leotard last year to gymnastics...we got it in a bunch of clothes from her now teen-aged cousin.
Because the material was stretchy, it didn't look TOO bad...But, we changed it nonetheless.
I think JBR put them on by herself, OR, as you mention, they were over pull-ups.
LovelyPigeon
03-15-2004, 10:09 PM
Cleaning up is usually done in effort to remove evidence, not for appearance sake. The cleaning up by the intruder/killer failed to remove his DNA deposited with or on or over the blood spots on JonBenét's panties. I think he thought his own blood or saliva might have been left behind on her body, so he wiped it off, however clumsily.
I hope we have at least established that little girls are fond of appearing like older girls and are as likely as not to choose a larger size for just that reason if left to their own choice.
And that size 12 panties on a 6 year old girl would be big, but would not be falling-off-big---and especially not under pants as opposed to a dress.
WolfmarsGirl
03-15-2004, 11:06 PM
I don't think she was "tiny." She was tall for her age and she certainly doesn't look thin. My kids never matched the age/size number.
JBR was rather short for a six-and-a-half-year-old girl, imo. My daughter is not yet six and she is 49+ inches tall...Plus, JBR did appear to have a bit of a toddler-tummy left on her and chubby thighs...My kid is lanky and lean and she wears 8 undies...A 6 gets "stuck in the butt..." (Sorry for the graphics...my kid's words, lol)
I think a 12, if it was a 'bikini,' just might be ok for a girl this size to put on by herself and wear all day. Sure, they wouldn't fit quite right, but it would not be impossible to believe.
WolfmarsGirl
03-15-2004, 11:17 PM
The phenomenon is called "artifactual hemorrhages" or "post-mortem bleeding." It is addressed in MEDICOLEGAL INVESTIGATION OF DEATH as a potentially misleading indicator of assault since, as the picture link shows below, it is possible for small blood vessels to break and leak after death, giving the impression the damage was done while the victim was still alive.
http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/postmortem.gif
Artifactual hemorrhages on the inner aspect of the arm produced by seepage of blood from small veins torn when the body was lifted for the purpose of removal....
Not to change the subject, but I will...;) Just for a minute, I promise...
So, Why_Nutt, could this phenomenon account for why the strange abrasions on JBR's body look very dark?
I mean - related to Patsy's rings - could pressure marks, made by squeezing the skin after death result in artifactual hemorrhages?
Would the item causing the pressure leave a dark impression, like the ones we see on JBR due to this type of hemorrhaging after death?
BlueCrab
03-16-2004, 07:08 AM
JBR was rather short for a six-and-a-half-year-old girl, imo. My daughter is not yet six and she is 49+ inches tall...Plus, JBR did appear to have a bit of a toddler-tummy left on her and chubby thighs...My kid is lanky and lean and she wears 8 undies...A 6 gets "stuck in the butt..." (Sorry for the graphics...my kid's words, lol)
I think a 12, if it was a 'bikini,' just might be ok for a girl this size to put on by herself and wear all day. Sure, they wouldn't fit quite right, but it would not be impossible to believe.
It's impossible for me to believe. The only sizes of underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer were 4's and 6's. There were no other sizes. The size 12's were in unopened packages except for the pair found on JonBenet's dead body. Her size 6 panties she had to have been wearing are missing from the crime scene.
Common sense tells me the killer wiped down JonBenet with a dark blue cloth and re-dressed her in size 12 underwear because he couldn't find her underwear drawer in the bathroom. The motive was to try to hide the sexual aspects of the crime and make it look like a kidnapping, fake ransom note and all.
An intruder would have no reason to try to hide the sexual assault -- only a family member would do that. Since John and Patsy would have known better than to put size 12 underwear on JonBenet, it appears the killer was Burke A/O a friend he had in the house that night as a guest.
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-16-2004, 09:00 AM
Her size 6 panties she had to have been wearing are missing from the crime scene.
I don't think there is ANY evidence that ANY panties are "missing". Many pairs of girl panties were collected by several different crime techs on different dates.
It is logical that panties collected for forensic examination would either be "dirty" and found on the floor or laundry, or clean from the laundry or drawer but with old "stains".
JonBenét's bathroom had only one sink set in a cabinet with drawers. It would be impossible not to be able to find the drawer with panties.
BlueCrab
03-16-2004, 09:41 AM
I don't think there is ANY evidence that ANY panties are "missing". Many pairs of girl panties were collected by several different crime techs on different dates.
It is logical that panties collected for forensic examination would either be "dirty" and found on the floor or laundry, or clean from the laundry or drawer but with old "stains".
JonBenét's bathroom had only one sink set in a cabinet with drawers. It would be impossible not to be able to find the drawer with panties.
Of course there's no evidence of the size 6 panties missing. THEY ARE MISSING!
Since the panties were obviously changed by the perp, who put ridiculous size 12 panties on JonBenet, then it means there were stains on the size 6 panties he took off JonBenet. It was evidence against him. The size 6 panties she was wearing are missing -- and probably went out the door with the other missing items of crime scene evidence in the pockets of the fifth person in the house that night.
How many homes have underwear drawers in the bathroom? Not very many. Clothing items are usually kept in the bedroom. IMO the perp looked only in the bedroom for clean underwear, and could find only the packages of size 12's. So he used them.
The reason for changing the underwear was to disguise the sexual assault. Only a family member would have a motive to change the crime scene from a sexual assault to a kidnapping, thus pointing away from family members.
But John and Patsy would have known better than to put size 12's on little JonBenet. Therefore, the evidence points to Burke and an accomplice -- the fifth person in the house that night who was likely older than Burke.
JMO
why_nutt
03-16-2004, 09:44 AM
So, Why_Nutt, could this phenomenon account for why the strange abrasions on JBR's body look very dark?
I mean - related to Patsy's rings - could pressure marks, made by squeezing the skin after death result in artifactual hemorrhages?
Would the item causing the pressure leave a dark impression, like the ones we see on JBR due to this type of hemorrhaging after death?
It would appear to be possible. MEDICOLEGAL INVESTIGATION has this to say:
Depending on the mechanism of abrasion, it may be called a graze, such as when a bullet sideswipes the body, a scratch when caused by a sharp edge or fingernails, or a brush burn if caused by the frictional force of rubbing against a rouch surface, as in dragging on the ground.
A scratch, especially when dry and dark brown, may resemble a burn.
LovelyPigeon
03-16-2004, 10:08 AM
There's not even any evidence that the package of size 12 panties was in the bedroom rather than in the bathroom drawer with all the other panties.
There's no evidence of missing size 6 panties!
The most logical and likely happening is that JonBenét herself put on herself a pair of brand new, day-of-the-week bigger-girl panties to wear to the Christmas dinner/party at the Whites' house that night.
Whatever panties she took off in order to put the size 12s on she probably left on the floor of her bedroom or bathroom.
LovelyPigeon
03-16-2004, 10:13 AM
Depending on the mechanism of abrasion, it may be called a graze, such as when a bullet sideswipes the body, a scratch when caused by a sharp edge or fingernails, or a brush burn if caused by the frictional force of rubbing against a rouch surface, as in dragging on the ground.
Sounds like a close description of a stun gun "burn".
Shylock
03-16-2004, 11:57 AM
There's not even any evidence that the package of size 12 panties was in the bedroom rather than in the bathroom drawer with all the other panties.
There is evidence they were not in the bathroom drawer as Patsy claimed. Although an argument from a negative, the BPD took all the panties from the drawer into evidence, and the size-12's were not in that group--therefore not in the drawer.
LovelyPigeon
03-16-2004, 02:43 PM
The crime techs were taking panties because JonBenét had been sexually assaulted. Used panties might possibly shown signs of previous sexual assault. Brand new, packaged, unworn panties would not. The package of new panties was not collected.
Certainly, if the BPD had wanted to take the package of panties they could have whether the package was in the bathroom or the bedroom. The package of new panties was not collected because it was not thought to have forensic value.
BlueCrab
03-16-2004, 03:20 PM
The crime techs were taking panties because JonBenét had been sexually assaulted. Used panties might possibly shown signs of previous sexual assault. Brand new, packaged, unworn panties would not. The package of new panties was not collected.
Certainly, if the BPD had wanted to take the package of panties they could have whether the package was in the bathroom or the bedroom. The package of new panties was not collected because it was not thought to have forensic value.
But the size 12 panties would not have been in the bathroom underwear drawer.
The packaged size 12's were way too big for JonBenet, even Patsy admits that. JonBenet had never worn a pair of them prior to the night she was murdered. Patsy wouldn't have kept the size 12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom, taking up room in the drawer. She would have kept them stored out of the way somewhere in a drawer in the bedroom or in a closet drawer.
The killer didn't think to look in the bathroom for clean size 4 or 6 underwear. It's the only common-sense explanation for JonBenet to have been wearing size 12's, a size she had NEVER worn before. The killer looked just in the bedroom and the size 12's are the only ones he could find.
JMO
Shylock
03-16-2004, 03:30 PM
Certainly, if the BPD had wanted to take the package of panties they could have whether the package was in the bathroom or the bedroom. The package of new panties was not collected because it was not thought to have forensic value.
The detectives were in the house searching for clues well after they had the chance to read the autopsy report. They knew about the panties she was wearing. Any detective that would have found an open package of panties with the day of the week on them would have raised a red flag and taken them into evidence.
WolfmarsGirl
03-17-2004, 03:03 AM
But the size 12 panties would not have been in the bathroom underwear drawer...
I don't know BC...We keep the size 10 leotard in wolfkid's 'gymnastics and swimsuit' drawer. She will grow into it some day...I actually pulled it out once to loan to a heavier little girl who was visiting from out-of-town. She needed something to use as a swimsuit last year. And, yes, it is still in the drawer.
...The killer didn't think to look in the bathroom for clean size 4 or 6 underwear. It's the only common-sense explanation for JonBenet to have been wearing size 12's, a size she had NEVER worn before. The killer looked just in the bedroom and the size 12's are the only ones he could find.
JMO
Then, how did he just happen to find a 'Wednesday' pair? That is a considerable coincidence, don't you think?
WolfmarsGirl
03-17-2004, 03:09 AM
It would appear to be possible. MEDICOLEGAL INVESTIGATION has this to say:
Depending on the mechanism of abrasion, it may be called a graze, such as when a bullet sideswipes the body, a scratch when caused by a sharp edge or fingernails, or a brush burn if caused by the frictional force of rubbing against a rouch surface, as in dragging on the ground.
A scratch, especially when dry and dark brown, may resemble a burn.
Thanks, why_nutt. But, how about a pressure mark? One made by an indentation in the skin? I know these types of marks are easy to make on live skin. I did it on myself to test my theory. But, what would this type of mark look like after death?
Sorry to keep annoying you with questions...You do have a lot more info on this subject than I do...:)
BlueCrab
03-17-2004, 08:23 AM
Then, how did he just happen to find a 'Wednesday' pair? That is a considerable coincidence, don't you think?
The killer could read. Each package contained seven pair of underwear, one for each day of the week.
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-17-2004, 02:31 PM
There's no reason to believe the package of DOW panties was anywhere except inside the drawer with the other panties.
Crime techs were looking for evidence of prior abuse when they collected panties. Brand new panties, whether in a package or not, wouldn't have such evidence on them.
I doubt it occured to any detectives that the size of the panties JonBenét was wearing were of any evidence value.
Does anyone know when the size of the panties first became of any concern to the BPD?
Perhaps the autopsy report mentioned something about the panties and after that someone noticed the CBI's report on the used panties referred to a different size?
I've never understood why this became an issue on the internet or in the "minds" of the BPD.
Toltec
03-17-2004, 04:43 PM
I can understand why paid representatives of Polaroid would pitch their products to law enforcement or anyone else. That's what salesperson do.
But why LE would use instant camera photography for crime scene documentation is beyond me.
LP...LE needs to use Polaroids to make sure they get the picture they need. If they used 35mm..they cannot be sure they got the correct shot.
Toltec
03-17-2004, 05:00 PM
Where were the size 12 panties kept if not in JonBenet's underwear drawer??? My belief is that LE took all of the panties in JB's drawer?
The largest size underwear JB wears is a six...not an eight, ten, or twelve. She had size 4-6 undies in her drawer for crying out loud!
Why was it important to Ramsey investigators to get the new package of panties to LE? Were the Ramseys aware that JB was found wearing size 12 panties? Or was it that one of the Ramseys placed the panties on JB only to divert attention away from them?
Remember JB's soiled pants that were turned inside out? Where are the panties? Wouldn't they have been soiled too? Did LE remove soiled panties from the home?
IMO
BlueCrab
03-17-2004, 05:27 PM
There's no reason to believe the package of DOW panties was anywhere except inside the drawer with the other panties.
There were no size 12 or size 14 panties in JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom. The size 4's and size 6's were recently put in that bathroom drawer, but not size 12's.
Michael Kane: "And I will just state a fact here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties taken out of, by the police, out of JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is that where she kept them?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Yes."
Michael Kane: "Were you describing that they were just put in that drawer?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Yes."
Michael Kane: "Okay. And every one of those was either a size 4 or a size 6. Okay? Would that have been about the size pair of panties that she wore when she was 6 years old?"
Patsy Ramsey: "I would say more like 6 to 8. There were probably some in there that were too small."
Michael Kane: "Okay, but not size 12 to 14?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Not typically. No."
Thus, it appears the perp couldn't find the panties in the underwear drawer in the bathroom because the underwear were just recently put in there. And Patsy's answers definitely excluded the size 12 underwear coming from the underwear drawer in the bathroom.
This underwear evidence is important because it strongly suggests the killer couldn't find JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bedroom where they used to be, but did find the packages of size 12 and 14 underwear in the bedroom. So he naively took a pair of those and put them on the body while trying to clean up JonBenet in his attempt to hide the sexual assault.
John and Patsy would have known where the size 4's and size 6's were kept, and they would have known better than to put size 12's on JonBenet, so, IMO, the underwear evidence strongly points to Burke as the perpetrator.
JMO
You make a valid point, BlueCrab...but maybe the smaller panties in the bathroom drawer didn't include any Wednesday day-of-the-week ones, so Patsy opted for the too-large, size 12 Wednesday day-of-the-week panties so that JonBenet's body would be found wearing Wednesday panties, to lead investigators to think they were the same panties JonBenet had worn all day Christmas (which was on Wednesday that year).
imo
LovelyPigeon
03-17-2004, 07:23 PM
No, no, no. Patsy didn't say she had "just" put "all" of JonBenét's panties into a drawer in the bathroom. She was answering a question about the Bloomingdale's package of DOW panties. That package had "just" been put into the underwear drawer because they were only bought in November and put into the drawer in December. "Just" meaning "very recently".
11 Q. Why is it that you remember
12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of
13 1996?
14 A. Because --
15 MR. WOOD: Because she remembers
16 it. I mean --
17 MR. KANE: Wait a second, Lin.
18 Would you please let her answer the question?
19 It is a simple question.
20 MR. WOOD: Why is it that you
21 remember something?
22 MR. KANE: Yes, why do you
23 remember --
24 MR. WOOD: Because she remembered.
25 Q. (By Mr. Kane) - that, that
92
1 detail?
2 A. Well, for starters, it has been
3 made such a big detail.
4 Q. Okay, well, that is my question.
5 A. I remember that I -- and I, you
6 know, we were kind of shopping around, and
7 it was close to Christmas season, so we
8 might pick up a little souvenir. I
9 bought -- I think I picked up a little
10 something for a baby-sitter, you know.
11 Q. Where was it that you became
12 aware that this was -- where was it that it
13 was made a big deal? What was the source
14 of your information that Bloomingdale's
15 panties somehow were significant that made
16 you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy
17 those?
18 MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise
19 recollection of that event occurring where
20 all of a sudden something happened and you
21 decided it was some big deal?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 mean, my first thought is something in the
24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything
25 wrong, so --
93
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
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.
BlueCrab
03-17-2004, 09:12 PM
No, no, no. Patsy didn't say she had "just" put "all" of JonBenét's panties into a drawer in the bathroom. She was answering a question about the Bloomingdale's package of DOW panties. That package had "just" been put into the underwear drawer because they were only bought in November and put into the drawer in December. "Just" meaning "very recently".
11 Q. Why is it that you remember
12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of
13 1996?
14 A. Because --
15 MR. WOOD: Because she remembers
16 it. I mean --
17 MR. KANE: Wait a second, Lin.
18 Would you please let her answer the question?
19 It is a simple question.
20 MR. WOOD: Why is it that you
21 remember something?
22 MR. KANE: Yes, why do you
23 remember --
24 MR. WOOD: Because she remembered.
25 Q. (By Mr. Kane) - that, that
92
1 detail?
2 A. Well, for starters, it has been
3 made such a big detail.
4 Q. Okay, well, that is my question.
5 A. I remember that I -- and I, you
6 know, we were kind of shopping around, and
7 it was close to Christmas season, so we
8 might pick up a little souvenir. I
9 bought -- I think I picked up a little
10 something for a baby-sitter, you know.
11 Q. Where was it that you became
12 aware that this was -- where was it that it
13 was made a big deal? What was the source
14 of your information that Bloomingdale's
15 panties somehow were significant that made
16 you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy
17 those?
18 MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise
19 recollection of that event occurring where
20 all of a sudden something happened and you
21 decided it was some big deal?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 mean, my first thought is something in the
24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything
25 wrong, so --
93
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
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.
Nice try to obfuscate matters, LP, with all that unnecessary testimony. But it won't work. Kane and Patsy were discussing the 15 pairs of underwear that "were just put in that drawer", not the 12's and 14's. And where you stopped your Q's and A's in your post you left out the following critical Q's and A's, which nail it:
Q. "Okay. And every one of those was either a size 4 or a size 6. Okay? Would that have been about the size pair of panties that she wore when she was 6 years old?"
A. "I would say more like 6 to 8. There were probably some in there that were too small."
Q. "Okay, but not size 12 to 14?"
A. "Not typically, no."
THERE WERE ONLY 4'S AND 6'S IN THE UNDERWEAR DRAWER IN THE BATHROOM AND "THEY WERE JUST PUT IN THAT DRAWER".
JMO
BlueCrab
03-17-2004, 09:37 PM
You make a valid point, BlueCrab...but maybe the smaller panties in the bathroom drawer didn't include any Wednesday day-of-the-week ones, so Patsy opted for the too-large, size 12 Wednesday day-of-the-week panties so that JonBenet's body would be found wearing Wednesday panties, to lead investigators to think they were the same panties JonBenet had worn all day Christmas (which was on Wednesday that year).
imo
What you suggest Ivy, is possible but not probable. JonBenet didn't follow the day of the week routine when putting on underwear, and that was likely widely known by others. Also, there were probably other "Wednesday" underwear in the drawer.
Tom Haney: "Did JonBenet have panties with the names of each day of the week on it?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Yes."
Tom Haney: "Okay. And did she wear those according to the day of the week or was it just kind of --?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Just whatever."
Tom Haney: "Did she know, pay much attention to what day of the week it was?"
Patsy Ramsey: "No."
Tom Haney: "So whatever would come out of the drawer?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Yes."
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-17-2004, 09:52 PM
That's no attempt to obfuscate. That's showing what was said before the line about "just".
And just as you misinterpreted "dress" in another post to mean a dress rather than dress pants, you misinterpreted that all the panties had just been put into the bathroom drawer.
It was only the package of size 12 DOW panties that had "just" been put into the drawer.
Shylock
03-17-2004, 10:15 PM
you misinterpreted that all the panties had just been put into the bathroom drawer.
It was only the package of size 12 DOW panties that had "just" been put into the drawer.
Is part of this transcript being left out? Where does Patsy say she put the size 12 panties in the drawer?
LovelyPigeon
03-17-2004, 11:28 PM
There are 20 pages of transcript with Patsy about the panties, so, yes, some is being left out here. Trying to address the pertinent part to when the panties were put into the drawer.
And to show that BC's assumption that the bathroom drawer hadn't been the usual place to keep all her panties is an incorrect assumption.
Here's some more:
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.
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?
85
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.
86
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.
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?
87
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.
Shylock
03-18-2004, 12:22 AM
Thank you LP, it's always nice to have the entire transcript to refer to.
This is passage which peaks my interest:
20 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
If Patsy was responsible for JonBenet's death, I place my money on the probability that she flew into a rage after finding JB had opened and worn the panties she (Patsy) was planning on giving as a gift--versus any bedwetting incident.
LovelyPigeon
03-18-2004, 12:26 AM
Flew into a rage over an opened pair of panties...
Nope, doesn't even register on my suspicion meter.
P.S. -that's not the entire transcript, nor even a full page of the 20 pages on panty questions
WolfmarsGirl
03-18-2004, 03:51 AM
It appears we've been misled once again.
JonBenet was 6 years old, 47" tall, weighed 45 pounds, and wore size 6 underwear. Here's what the packages at Walmart really say:
SIZE 6 ..... 22" waist; 39 to 49 pounds
SIZE 12 ..... 25" waist; 84 to 95 pounds
There is absolutely no way JonBenet could wear size 12 underwear. Size 12's are for a girl TWICE the size of JonBenet.
With respect to pull-ups, underwear are not needed. The pull-up is the diaper and the underwear all in one, so few mothers use underwear over pull-ups on their child. That includes Patsy Ramsey because the only size 12's in the house were in unopened packages.
JMO
BC, we buy a lot of Walmart undies.
Like I said before, my daughter is 49", 48-49 pounds. She has been in an 8 since last year when she was just about exactly JBR's size. Wolfkid is very tall and lean. She wears 'briefs,' because she hates the bikinis.
Now, my daughter is very long-waisted, so that might make a difference. I am not sure. She also likes to pull up undies to her belly-button. (Weird, because she pulls all of her pants down to her hips to be like the teenagers, lol!)
When my daughter was little, I was told by another mom to move up one size in underwear as your child approaches the next weight level.
Also, undies shrink SO much.
I personally don't think any male could have redressed JBR. My husband can't even dress Barbies, lol, let alone a grown child. Although, he did fine when she was tiny.
I certainly don't see a little boy and a teen-aged boy dressing a girl this size. It is a difficult task when they are awake (and, alive...)
Have you ever tried to change your grandaughter's clothes while she was asleep? It just can't be done past age 2, lol. Their legs are too long and their middles are too heavy to prop up while you pull on the pants.
Plus, the longjohns were tight and stretchy. I am sure the feet were fitted close to the ankles. There is no way this could have been done.
This is also the point that leads me to believe that Patsy did not dress JBR while she was asleep after they returned from the Whites. Unless the kid was drugged, she would wake up during the changing.
I place my money on the probability that she flew into a rage after finding JB had opened and worn the panties she (Patsy) was planning on giving as a gift--versus any bedwetting incident.
Hardly a likely reaction. Contrary to all known personality traits. And, the decision to keep and use the panties had already been made, it was not something that happened that night.
BlueCrab
03-18-2004, 07:14 AM
So there's confusion between what Mike Kane said and what Patsy Ramsey said, depending where one is reading in the transcript. In my posts above I quoted what Kane said as he recapped his interview with Patsy and cut through the obsfuscations -- there were 15 pair of underwear in the bathroom panty drawer and they were all size 4 and size 6 and none were size 12. Patsy reluctantly agreed.
Mike Kane: "And every one of those was either a size 4 or a size 6."
Patsy Ramsey: "There were probably some in there that were too small."
Mike Kane: "But not size 12 to 14?"
Patsy Ramsey: "Not typically. No."
JMO
Shylock
03-18-2004, 10:05 AM
And, the decision to keep and use the panties had already been made, it was not something that happened that night.
Already been made according to whom?--The primary suspect, that's who. As if we should believe a word she says.
why_nutt
03-18-2004, 10:21 AM
Hardly a likely reaction. Contrary to all known personality traits. And, the decision to keep and use the panties had already been made, it was not something that happened that night.
Contrary to all known personality traits, Patsy was so stressed on Christmas day that she did not send out the family Christmas cards or finish wrapping presents until that day (previous to that day, Patsy was known to all her friends and family as someone who spent a great deal of time preparing well in advance for projects she wanted to accomplish). Contrary to all known personality traits, Patsy sobbed hysterically on the morning of December 26th (previous to that day, Patsy was known to friends and family as someone who took charge of what needed to be done, who kept her calm even in the face of her own death from cancer and the death of her husband's favorite daughter). Contrary to all known personality traits, Patsy turned to the drug Valium to soothe her soul instead of prayer on the evening of December 26th (previous to that day, friends and family have not mentioned Patsy as someone who needed help from drugs to maintain her composure, because, see number two above, she was incapable of losing control of her emotions; she did not even seek out tranquilizing drugs when she had a panic attack during her cancer treatment).
In a period of 24 hours, Patsy did things and behaved in ways she never had before. Even if you want to believe she is innocent, acknowledge that Patsy, on the record, behaved contrary to all known personality traits.
How many posters here would you consider have probably been late with gift giving obligations?
Do you consider sobbing hysterically when your daughter has been kidnapped to be wrong?
Shylock
03-18-2004, 10:58 AM
Do you consider sobbing hysterically when your daughter has been kidnapped to be wrong?
I consider it wrong when the mother of a missing child doesn't get off her butt and run to see why someone in the house is yelling to "call 911"--especially when everyone else in the room runs to see what is happening.
Of course Patsy already knew what they had found in the basement, so there was no reason for her to get up.
why_nutt
03-18-2004, 11:21 AM
How many posters here would you consider have probably been late with gift giving obligations?
Do you consider sobbing hysterically when your daughter has been kidnapped to be wrong?
Patsy is not to be compared to other people like forum members; she is to be compared to herself when utilizing the principle "look not only at what is unusual, but what is usual." For Patsy in 1996, loving Christmas but not engaging in the usual Christmas activities which gave her so much pleasure, like writing out Christmas cards, was indeed unusual. For Patsy in 1996, sobbing hysterically under any circumstances instead of dictating to the police officers what they should and should not be doing to get her daughter back now was indeed unusual. In my opinion, Patsy was not in a mood to celebrate. She did not want to throw her usual Christmas parties for friends, she did not want to go to Charlevoix, she did not want to let JonBenet enjoy herself at the mountaintop Christmas star, and the very best present she had bought JonBenet, the My Twinn doll, was utterly rejected by JonBenet, who loved a paper jewelry toy from a distant relative much more. I ask you a question in response: Do you truly believe that Patsy was having the time of her life and having a great deal of fun while being rejected by her daughter on Christmas morning and then later in the day?
and the very best present she had bought JonBenet, the My Twinn doll, was utterly rejected by JonBenet, who loved a paper jewelry toy from a distant relative much more. And what little girl doesn't reject the expensive present and enjoy more throwing the "peanut" packaging all over the carpet? What kid doesn't from time to time get an expensive present but instead play with the vacuum cleaner hose? Do these things lead to murder?
LovelyPigeon
03-18-2004, 01:55 PM
Patsy was restrained by her friends initially, but entered the room where JonBenét was anyway. JR told her before she came into the room that JBR was dead.
Patsy didn't know why FW was yelling for an ambulance after going into the basement alone with JR. Everyone in the house may have thought something had happened to JR in the basement and that he was in need of medical assistance.
No, you've got it wrong, LP.
PMPT (pb) p. 18
Holding her [JonBenet] by the waist like a plank of wood, he [John] raced down the short hallway and up the basement stairs, yelling that JonBenet had been found. White had preceded Ramsey, shouting for an ambulance.
p. 19
...Patsy sat for a moment on a couch at the rear of the house looking out a window. She did not move despite all the shouting that JonBenet had been found.
p.20
Finally, Barbara Fernie led Patsy by the hand toward JonBenet.
imo
Cypros
03-18-2004, 03:11 PM
Patsy didn't know why FW was yelling for an ambulance after going into the basement alone with JR. Everyone in the house may have thought something had happened to JR in the basement and that he was in need of medical assistance.
Oh Pleeeze. A young child has gone missing during the night; there is a threatening ransom note; the police have been called; everybody is focused on finding this child; the father goes down into the basement and begins screaming.... Are you implying that any normal MOTHER is going to first think that something has happened to her husband?! I don't think so.
As for Patsy's reaction (quietly staring out the window) when her husband began yelling, this does not in itself indicate that she already knew exactly what had happened to her daughter. An innocent mother, considering the disappearance at night and the note, would be fearing for her daughter's life. It depends a lot on WHAT JR was yelling. If he was saying "I found her! I found her!" this could mean she was alive and an unaware Patsy would be expected to run to him hoping her daughter was found safe. If he was yelling "Oh my god! No! No! No! They killed my baby!" (or anything like that), an innocent Patsy, sitting in the rear of the house, could have frozen as her worst fears, her gut feeling, were realized. What were JR's exact words as he ran up the stairs with JBR?
Barbara
03-18-2004, 03:25 PM
And what little girl doesn't reject the expensive present and enjoy more throwing the "peanut" packaging all over the carpet? What kid doesn't from time to time get an expensive present but instead play with the vacuum cleaner hose? Do these things lead to murder?
Apparently!
BTW, children have been murdered for lesser reasons
LovelyPigeon
03-18-2004, 04:20 PM
PMPT had the story wrong about PR. The Ramseys corrected that story themselves in their book. Arndt did also.
White ran upstairs ahead of John, yelling for an ambulance. I think I would have panic over my husband under the same circumstances, afraid he might have had a heart attack under the pressure of the situation.
John screamed when he picked up JonBenét. He didn't shout that JonBenét had been found.
I can remind you that Hunter said publically that the Ramseys book was correct about revelations it made. He never said such a thing about PMPT.
Shylock
03-18-2004, 06:37 PM
PMPT had the story wrong about PR. The Ramseys corrected that story themselves in their book. Arndt did also.
"The panicked Fleet White ran up the stairs, grabbed a telephone and punched in a few numbers, then hung up. He ran back toward the basement, yelling for someone to call an ambulance, as if he had forgotten a detective was standing right there.
Patsy Ramsey was in the den with friends, and when White shouted, Priscilla White and Barbara Fernie hurried toward the sound. Patsy did not move from the couch."
(Steve Thomas P. 28)
Apparently!
BTW, children have been murdered for lesser reasons Usually by drug crazed boozed up single-parent hippies with a file a yard long at CPS and police headquarters.
LovelyPigeon
03-18-2004, 10:21 PM
Was it Arndt who said White ran to the phone in the study?
If so, no one in the study had to "hurry toward the sound" very far.
Much ado about nothing here, once again.
LovelyPigeon
03-18-2004, 10:34 PM
Steve Thomas said in his deposition for the Ramsey vs Thomas case that the "panty investigation" didn't begin til after he had resigned.
I think the crime techs were no focused at all on the size of the panties JBR was wearing or the new package the new panties came from, but only on looking for possible signs of previous abuse that might be found on worn panties.
WolfmarsGirl
03-19-2004, 02:46 AM
Usually by drug crazed boozed up single-parent hippies with a file a yard long at CPS and police headquarters.
No, Toth. There is a first time for everything.
Many would argue that Patsy's religious zeal represented a type of psychosis. And the children who were subjected to the 'Jesus' banter day-in and day-out were emotionally abused by a slightly 'off' parent.
It wouldn't take much for Patsy to snap, imo, if her regular pre-murder personality was anything like her post-murder one. I have never seen that woman act quite right. She seems almost childlike at times.
Shylock
03-19-2004, 10:46 AM
Many would argue that Patsy's religious zeal represented a type of psychosis. And the children who were subjected to the 'Jesus' banter day-in and day-out were emotionally abused by a slightly 'off' parent.
Religious zeal coupled with her beauty queen psychosis. This was not a normal woman.
Shylock
03-19-2004, 11:01 AM
If so, no one in the study had to "hurry toward the sound" very far.
Much ado about nothing here, once again.
It's funny how only the Ramsey supporters find Patsy's behaviour to be "much ado about nothing" while the rest of the world finds it unbelieveable that the parent of a missing child wouldn't get off her arse to see what the commotion was when someone was yelling for an ambulance.
Of course, the majority of us know that Patsy was fully aware of what was eventually going to be found in the basement that day.
LovelyPigeon
03-19-2004, 09:37 PM
If it were true that PR couldn't be bothered to go and see her dead child, it would be worthy of discussion but it's not true.
Shylock
03-20-2004, 05:20 PM
If it were true that PR couldn't be bothered to go and see her dead child, it would be worthy of discussion but it's not true.
LP, you always have a way of twisting the facts to conform to your mindset. It wasn't a matter of "PR couldn't be bothered to go and see her dead child". At that point and time PR supposedly didn't know what the heck was going on.
Fleet could have been yelling because JR was dying on the floor of a heart attack. PR also knew Burke was over at the White's--maybe Fleet received a call from home and something had happened to Burke. Maybe the big-bad intruder was caught hiding in the basement and Fleet himself was hurt after a struggle. Pick a scenerio--Patsy wouldn't have known about it under REAL circumstances.
The point is, PR wasn't worried and didn't react to any of those other possibilities because she had been waiting all morning for the body to be found, and she knew the inevitable had just happened.
LovelyPigeon
03-20-2004, 06:21 PM
If PR didn't react and wasn't worried, that would be worth discussing. Since it's not true, it's not worth the time.
BlueCrab
03-20-2004, 07:07 PM
QUOTE=LovelyPigeon: "If it were true that PR couldn't be bothered to go and see her dead child, it would be worthy of discussion but it's not true."
LovelyPigeon,
Shylock said NOTHING about "PR couldn't be bothered" in his original statement. You reworded the meaning of his statement, and you've reworded mine in the past. Please don't do that.
Patsy didn't come out of the sun room right away and go see what the others were so concerned about, and it made her look suspicious. It made her appear to already know the horrible truth, and thus scared to get out of her seat to look at her dead child. It had nothing to do with "couldn't be bothered".
JMO
LovelyPigeon
03-20-2004, 11:02 PM
I didn't quote anyone directly nor did I address my remark to anyone in particular. I do think I stated the essence of the previous remarks, though.
BlueCrab
03-21-2004, 01:00 AM
I didn't quote anyone directly nor did I address my remark to anyone in particular. I do think I stated the essence of the previous remarks, though.
LovelyPigeon.
If you'd simply include the other person's quote that you're gonna comment on in the little box, as above in this post, there wouldn't be any need to try to capture the "essence" of the other person's remarks. The quote would be right there for you and everyone to see. Just a suggestion. Peace.
JMO
Eagle1
03-24-2004, 09:14 AM
Something could have happened to the proper-sized Wednesday pants BEFORE they left to go to the Whites', and JonBenet could have insisted, when Patsy was changing her, that she needed to wear the new pair, either because it was a special occasion and new would feel more festive, or for some childish (6 yr old) reason.
Even if she wore pants and a vest, maybe she was wearing tights instead of socks, so they knew the too-large underpants wouldn't fall down, and maybe they were pretty elastic. If she was running out of clean ones, seems to me it's the housekeeper's fault, although they probably didn't want her to know. The prior molestation (autopsy report) could have caused bladder irritation or infection and extra urinating, I'd guess. So she may have been crying over her ruined Wednesday panties, partly because she wasn't feeling well, and was unusually demanding and opinionated. Didn't she lie down for a while in Daphne's room? Was probably whiney. If the parents knew at the time she'd been molested, maybe they felt the need for a party, to get their minds off it, and surely it wasn't FW. But then, who knows?
BlueCrab
03-24-2004, 12:00 PM
Eagle1,
Your post reminded me of something. Was JonBenet wearing black pants or black tights at the White's dinner party? If she was wearing tights, wouldn't it be possible she wore a black dress or skirt over the tights?
Patsy is quoted twice in the police interviews about JonBent wearing a black DRESS, but that seems to be contradicted elsewhere when JonBenet is said to be wearing black pants.
JMO
sissi
03-28-2004, 12:32 PM
The reports have clearly stated the urine stains in the panties were consistent with the urine stains in the long johns. This ,IMO,indicates she had the size 12's on,she was not redressed.
Blood was found on the barbie gown,this is "interesting" ,does someone have a scenario in which this could have happened?
IMO
TLynn
03-28-2004, 01:08 PM
Blood was found on the Barbie Gown?! Never heard anything about it.
Where did this come from?
Britt
03-28-2004, 01:23 PM
Blood was found on the barbie gown,this is "interesting" ,does someone have a scenario in which this could have happened?
If there was blood on the nightgown, it is more evidence that a Ramsey did it... JonBenet was killed while getting ready for bed. Blood got on the nightgown via transfer from the perp's hand.
Blood on the nightgown is not consistent with the intruder fantasy. What, did he retrieve the nightie and offer to help JB get ready for bed? Was that before or after he fetched pineapple for her? OR maybe he snatched her from her bed dressed in the nightie, then changed her clothes, then had pineapple? Right.
Face it, Sissi, a Ramsey did it.
BlueCrab
03-28-2004, 06:08 PM
Blood was found on the barbie gown,this is "interesting" ,does someone have a scenario in which this could have happened?
IMO
sissi,
Can you provide the source that states blood was found on the Barbie nightgown? Thanks.
JMO
From Carnes's Order 3-31-03 (Page 13)
JonBenet had black duct tape covering her mouth, a cord around her neck that was attached to a wooden garrote, and her hands were bound over her head in front of her: she was covered by a light-colored blanket. ( SMF 38: PSMF 38.) A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150.) Mr. Ramsey ripped the duct tape off JonBenet's mouth and attempted to untie her hands. {SMF 39; PSMF 39.} He then carried her body upstairs. {SMF 39: PSMF 39.} It was only upon the discovery of JonBenet's body that the Boulder police began to secure properly the home as the crime scene. (SMF 53: PSMF 53.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm
imo
Shylock
03-29-2004, 02:29 AM
Very interesting Ivy, although I wonder if this just isn't one more thing that Carnes got wrong. Notice in the same paragraph you quoted how the garrote is described: "a cord around her neck that was attached to a wooden garrote"
A cord was attached to a garrote?
IMO
BlueCrab
03-29-2004, 09:04 AM
From Carnes's Order 3-31-03 (Page 13)
JonBenet had black duct tape covering her mouth, a cord around her neck that was attached to a wooden garrote, and her hands were bound over her head in front of her: she was covered by a light-colored blanket. ( SMF 38: PSMF 38.) A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150.) Mr. Ramsey ripped the duct tape off JonBenet's mouth and attempted to untie her hands. {SMF 39; PSMF 39.} He then carried her body upstairs. {SMF 39: PSMF 39.} It was only upon the discovery of JonBenet's body that the Boulder police began to secure properly the home as the crime scene. (SMF 53: PSMF 53.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm
imo
Carnes' paragraph above is full of mistakes:
o "a cord was attached to a wooden garrote?" The cord IS the garrote, not the wooden stick.
o "her hands were bound over her head in front of her?" JonBenet's hands were not bound in FRONT of her; they were directly over her head.
o "JonBenet's blood was found ONLY on her body and the Barbie nightgown?" Blood was also found in the crotch of her panties; and I doubt if any blood was found on the nightgown.
o "John attempted to untie her hands?" John succeeded in untying one hand.
o "police began to properly secure the crime scene?" The cops NEVER properly secured the crime scene; they let Pam Paugh rampage through the house on the 28th and carry out potential evidence that filled the trunk and the back seat of the police car.
It's appalling how little that Carnes' knew about the details of the crime, and the importance that some people attach to her uninformed comments.
JMO
BlueCrab:
It's appalling how little that Carnes' knew about the details of the crime, and the importance that some people attach to her uninformed comments.
I agree, BC. I posted the excerpt to show where some posters probably got the "blood on the Barbie nightgown" information...or misinformation. The only info Carnes had was what was fed to her by Smit and Wood, a lot of which was not true.
imo
sissi
03-29-2004, 02:09 PM
We all do choose our sources and decide how much weight to give the info they provide. Having said this,I suspect Lou Smit's information,perhaps not his conclusions,would be the closest to accurate available.
IMO
BlueCrab
03-29-2004, 03:06 PM
We all do choose our sources and decide how much weight to give the info they provide. Having said this,I suspect Lou Smit's information,perhaps not his conclusions,would be the closest to accurate available.
IMO
sissi,
Please provide the source where Lou Smit said that blood was on the Barbie nightgown. Thanks.
JMO
sissi
03-29-2004, 06:37 PM
A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to
JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's
blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150
The Court draws the undisputed facts from "Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material
Facts" ("SMF") and "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts"
(PSMF ), in which plaintiff does not dispute the overwhelming majority of defendants'
factual allegations
An undisputed factual statement in a court of law is about as good as it gets,IMO.
TLynn
03-29-2004, 07:43 PM
The only blood from JonBenet was in her panties.
There was no open wound on her head, neck, or anywhere else (that I know of) that was bleeding.
So, was she wiped with the Barbie gown?
Britt
03-29-2004, 08:05 PM
An undisputed factual statement in a court of law is about as good as it gets,IMO.
Unless opposing counsel is Darnay Hoffman... lol :D
BlueCrab
03-29-2004, 10:59 PM
The only blood from JonBenet was in her panties.
That's correct TLynn. Judge Carnes was disgracefully wrong. Carnes made five significant mistakes about the case in just that one paragraph. She was not qualified to comment on the criminal aspects of the crime, which she didn't understand, while writing an opinion in a separate civil case. There was no blood on the Barbie nightgown. The only blood was the two spots in the crotch of JonBenet's panties, and Carnes didn't even mention that blood.
JMO
sissi
03-30-2004, 09:34 AM
[QUOTE=BlueCrab]That's correct TLynn. Judge Carnes was disgracefully wrong. Carnes made five significant mistakes about the case in just that one paragraph. She was not qualified to comment on the criminal aspects of the crime, which she didn't understand, while writing an opinion in a separate civil case. There was no blood on the Barbie nightgown. The only blood was the two spots in the crotch of JonBenet's panties, and Carnes didn't even mention that blood.
JMO[/QUOTE
You are certain of this? How? How can we determine what information is the "correct" information?
JMO
You can nit pick all you want about minor discrepancies and misspellings in the Carnes opinion and the like, but the bottom line is still the same. Overwhelmingly on the side of an intruder rather than this groundless obsession of the BPD on the parents.
why_nutt
03-30-2004, 10:39 AM
You can nit pick all you want about minor discrepancies and misspellings in the Carnes opinion and the like, but the bottom line is still the same. Overwhelmingly on the side of an intruder rather than this groundless obsession of the BPD on the parents.
There is also overwhelming evidence Patsy should be dead by now of her Stage 4 ovarian cancer, yet she lives. So what does that say about the subject of overwhelming evidence, except that sometimes overwhelming evidence is not ultimately fact?
Barbara
03-30-2004, 10:52 AM
You can nit pick all you want about minor discrepancies and misspellings in the Carnes opinion and the like, but the bottom line is still the same. Overwhelmingly on the side of an intruder rather than this groundless obsession of the BPD on the parents.
The above is only Toth's opinion. It is the opinion that he has been assigned to today.
It seems Toth and Mibro continue to feel they are above following the rules set BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
BlueCrab
03-30-2004, 11:17 AM
BlueCrab: "That's correct TLynn. Judge Carnes was disgracefully wrong. Carnes made five significant mistakes about the case in just that one paragraph. She was not qualified to comment on the criminal aspects of the crime, which she didn't understand, while writing an opinion in a separate civil case. There was no blood on the Barbie nightgown. The only blood was the two spots in the crotch of JonBenet's panties, and Carnes didn't even mention that blood."
sissi: "You are certain of this? How? How can we determine what information is the "correct" information?"
BlueCrab's response: There are certain sources of information that can be considered reasonably reliable. These include first responder police reports, depositions under oath, eye witnesses, transcribed police interviews of witnesses, published reports from respected newspapers and magazines, and autopsy reports. The autopsy report states:
"The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension."
IOW, there was blood in the crotch of JonBenet's panties that Judge Carnes didn't even know about. The blood in the crotch of the panties was significant evidence because it involved the source of the foreign DNA. She wrote in her opinion that the only blood was on JonBenet and on the Barbie nightgown. Carnes was far from being qualified to comment on the details of the murder, she made numerous false comments, and therefore her conclusions should not be given serious weight.
JMO
sissi
03-30-2004, 02:18 PM
BlueCrab's response: There are certain sources of information that can be considered reasonably reliable. These include first responder police reports, depositions under oath, eye witnesses, transcribed police interviews of witnesses, published reports from respected newspapers and magazines, and autopsy reports. The autopsy report states:
"The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension."
IOW, there was blood in the crotch of JonBenet's panties that Judge Carnes didn't even know about. The blood in the crotch of the panties was significant evidence because it involved the source of the foreign DNA. She wrote in her opinion that the only blood was on JonBenet and on the Barbie nightgown. Carnes was far from being qualified to comment on the details of the murder, she made numerous false comments, and therefore her conclusions should not be given serious weight.
JMO
I agree to a point,there are those whose info is more reliable than others, I'm not certain I agree with you on news accounts of any sort(they rely on sources)and Steve has proven to be the most unreliable of the sources,admitting in deposition his info was often second and third hand,and often in error.
I tend to follow the information provided not by ones entrance time into the case but by one's track record of honesty. Example,I don't want someone to say the word incest was apparent in a crime scene photo of a dictionary and discover 7 years later the photo was a Ramsey photo that didn't relate in time to the crime. I don't want to be told renowned experts think it isn't a dna case ,when later it is explained they didn't have access to results and were basing opinions on police "opinions".
I do not dispute the finding of blood and urine in the panties,as I don't dispute any information available from the autopsy. It suggests to me,she wasn't redressed ,that the panties were on her,as were the long johns,which IMO negates any importance found in Jonbenet having on the size 12's.
The finding of blood on the Barbie gown I believe is curious,I believe it is a fact that needs to be considered,it could be simply the murderer placed the broken paint brush on the gown while readying to leave ,or more? Imo it speaks more of a deliberate taking of that gown for some sinister purpose than the claim of static cling. I do consider the murderer taking his own crime scene photos,and have considered the original taking of Jonbenet somewhat in the way of Singular theory.
IMO
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0