The Wine Cellar

I have figured it out.. You can read better if you're in your underwear and on your hands and knees!
 
I don't particulary like to use the word "hide" or "hidden" when it comes to the body being in the wine cellar.

JonBenet's parents needed the body of their child to be found. The body had to be removed from the basement. I can't imagine either of them thought that far ahead to try to get rid of a dead body once the cops left.

I've said over and over that the ransom note was a blueprint to explain why there was a dead body of a child in the house when the cops found it, and we know in time they had to find it.

For all sense and purpose a ransom note addresses a kidnapping. The focus is mainly to get money in exchange for the person who has been taken. But when you get into reading the ransom note (really a letter) the emphsis does not appear to be on how to exchange the child for the money.

There is much detail on how to obtain and prepare the money but little detail on the exchange. For instance the "kidnappers" tell the parents they will be contacted tomorrow. But the letter does not in any way make clear WHAT tomorrow the "kidnapper's" are refering to. There's not date on the letter, and no way in the details within the letterl do the "kidnappers" reference a day of the week that would indicate "tomorrow."

That omission to me means the person composing the letter assumes the people reading the letter know what "tomorrow" means. The frame of reference for tomorrow, if this were a real kidnapping would be when the note is found and read by the parents, not when was written, if you are truly kidnapping a child and wanting money in exchange.

Also in this ransom "letter" there is a lot written about how much hate there is toward John Ramsey. The letter goes above and beyond in the description of how John is the target for punishment by a "foreign" faction. To me, that part of the letter goes toward explaining why the child will be found dead.

There was a great need by the Ramsey's for the body to be found. It is my opinion, very telling that we get one story from Fleet about his search and failure to see, smell or sense a dead body when he looked into the area. And yet when an official search is set up under the direction of LE, John finds his daughter almost immediately in an area that had been searched by another person.

I can only draw one conclusion when I consider the different outcomes between the two seperate searches: the body was not in the wine cellar when Fleet went looking. Common sense tells us this. jmo
 
I have figured it out.. You can read better if you're in your underwear and on your hands and knees!

Agatha_C,
:great:

Thats it the Ramsey reading method. Only canine posture and clean underwear required, perfect vision restored immediately.


On page 88 of Steve Thomas' book he states that " When Cataracts diminished his vision, JR had to hire a private pilot."
Yes, I remembered the cataracts, but did not trust my memory, bad cataracts seemed too severe.

I knew someone who had bad cataracts and as the years went by his vision deteriorated to the point he had tunnel-vision only, and required help in reading the small print.

So these claims about John seeing JonBenet instantly are similar to Patsy placing the size-12's into the underwear drawer, plausible yes, but dont quite match the physical evidence.

So I reckon its safe to suggest, if John has impaired sight then, him redressing JonBenet in those size-12's is plausible?


.
.
 
Agatha_C,
:great:

Thats it the Ramsey reading method. Only canine posture and clean underwear required, perfect vision restored immediately.



Yes, I remembered the cataracts, but did not trust my memory, bad cataracts seemed too severe.

I knew someone who had bad cataracts and as the years went by his vision deteriorated to the point he had tunnel-vision only, and required help in reading the small print.

So these claims about John seeing JonBenet instantly are similar to Patsy placing the size-12's into the underwear drawer, plausible yes, but dont quite match the physical evidence.

So I reckon its safe to suggest, if John has impaired sight then, him redressing JonBenet in those size-12's is plausible?


.
.


To me it makes perfect sense of many things.
 
I don't particulary like to use the word "hide" or "hidden" when it comes to the body being in the wine cellar.

JonBenet's parents needed the body of their child to be found. The body had to be removed from the basement. I can't imagine either of them thought that far ahead to try to get rid of a dead body once the cops left.

I've said over and over that the ransom note was a blueprint to explain why there was a dead body of a child in the house when the cops found it, and we know in time they had to find it.

For all sense and purpose a ransom note addresses a kidnapping. The focus is mainly to get money in exchange for the person who has been taken. But when you get into reading the ransom note (really a letter) the emphsis does not appear to be on how to exchange the child for the money.

There is much detail on how to obtain and prepare the money but little detail on the exchange. For instance the "kidnappers" tell the parents they will be contacted tomorrow. But the letter does not in any way make clear WHAT tomorrow the "kidnapper's" are refering to. There's not date on the letter, and no way in the details within the letterl do the "kidnappers" reference a day of the week that would indicate "tomorrow."

That omission to me means the person composing the letter assumes the people reading the letter know what "tomorrow" means. The frame of reference for tomorrow, if this were a real kidnapping would be when the note is found and read by the parents, not when was written, if you are truly kidnapping a child and wanting money in exchange.

Also in this ransom "letter" there is a lot written about how much hate there is toward John Ramsey. The letter goes above and beyond in the description of how John is the target for punishment by a "foreign" faction. To me, that part of the letter goes toward explaining why the child will be found dead.

There was a great need by the Ramsey's for the body to be found. It is my opinion, very telling that we get one story from Fleet about his search and failure to see, smell or sense a dead body when he looked into the area. And yet when an official search is set up under the direction of LE, John finds his daughter almost immediately in an area that had been searched by another person.

I can only draw one conclusion when I consider the different outcomes between the two seperate searches: the body was not in the wine cellar when Fleet went looking. Common sense tells us this. jmo

azwriter,
Seems more likely to me. I'm going to factor it into my RDI theory, along with the barbie nightgown and doll. For me its a staged homicide thats gone wrong. This why I use the word hide its in the same sense as JonBenet's molestation and assault is hidden beneath the longjohns and size-12's.

Someone initially staged JonBenet postmortem. John comes along and changes certain features of the staging e.g. removes the barbie-nightgown and doll. Eventually wrapping her up in the blanket and moving her to the wine-cellar where she is hidden. e.g. she is not lying in a bedroom beneath a sheet or blanket. If being found is the rationale then why place her at the bottom of the house in a wine-cellar?

It seems as if the original staging may have portrayed JonBenet as assaulted and killed in bed hence the barbie nightgown and doll. This might favor PDI as the correct theory. With John cleaning up with an ulterior motive?

.
 
Bits removed from above quote...

DeeDee, do you really think that given "they" said in their ransom letter not to talk to anyone or her remains wouldn't be returned that any "kidnapper" would risk returning to the house with a dead child and "deliver" her?

This just strikes me as overkill...especially if the police were going to be keeping an eye on the place and then there's the neighbours who would supposedly keep a closer eye on things. Wouldn't someone notice a LACK of car delivering the body?

Nah...I don't think they thought much beyond what happened to be honest.
Smart in that they've got away with it, dumb in that it almost entirely relied on the incompetence of others to work.


Well, REAL kidnppers wouldn't return to "deliver" a child or body- but I feel this is what the R planned to SAY. They planned to call LE and say that JB had been returned, but she was returned dead. It was a way of explaining both her disappearance (she was kidnapped) and death (she was killed because the defied the RN).
 
So JR had bad eye site and needed reading glasses to boot. Yet he saw his daughters lifeless body on the floor of a pitch dark room and was able to read the RN in poor lighting without his glasses. OMG, JR is really Clark Kent/Superman and he was living right there in Boulder and no one knew it. Maybe we should call the Daily Planet.

What a bunch of liars the Rs are. I wonder what it must be like to have to live with the reputation those two gave themselves, all while trying to save that very same reputation. Guess what JR, not only do we still see you and yours as guilty and liars. We now see you as Dumb A$$'s, idiots, jerks, slime and worse than beer can collectors, your the scum left in the bottom the trash cans used for recycling. You are/were dung beetles and human trash. I would rather be homeless than rich if this is what money makes of you.

Sorry, I suddenly had to get that out of my system. The only thing that would feel better is knowing that he reads this.

JR didnt need his eyes, he already knew she was in the WC (he helped to stage) and knew what was in that RN (He helped to write).

Not only did he see her in the dark, but through a wall and door! He yelled out prior to even entering the room enough to see where the body was placed. I think you should call the daily planet and the National Enquirer. lol

As for helping write the RN, it makes sense, as the style changes throughout the note. Written by one person, engineered by two.
 
azwriter,
Seems more likely to me. I'm going to factor it into my RDI theory, along with the barbie nightgown and doll. For me its a staged homicide thats gone wrong. This why I use the word hide its in the same sense as JonBenet's molestation and assault is hidden beneath the longjohns and size-12's.

Someone initially staged JonBenet postmortem. John comes along and changes certain features of the staging e.g. removes the barbie-nightgown and doll. Eventually wrapping her up in the blanket and moving her to the wine-cellar where she is hidden. e.g. she is not lying in a bedroom beneath a sheet or blanket. If being found is the rationale then why place her at the bottom of the house in a wine-cellar?

It seems as if the original staging may have portrayed JonBenet as assaulted and killed in bed hence the barbie nightgown and doll. This might favor PDI as the correct theory. With John cleaning up with an ulterior motive?

.

You have a point, but I'm sticking with the idea of the nightgown being attached to the blanket by static when taken from the dryer. There's a dryer in the basement, along with paint brushes. I think the staging was done in the basement using what could be found there. jmo
 
You have a point, but I'm sticking with the idea of the nightgown being attached to the blanket by static when taken from the dryer. There's a dryer in the basement, along with paint brushes. I think the staging was done in the basement using what could be found there. jmo

I have to say this makes about the most sense to me, too. But the bloodstains on the pink nightie are troubling to me. If the static cling theory is correct, how did the blood get there? The only way is if she was wiped down when lying ON the white blanket in the WC and some blood inadvertently splattered on the nightie. JR saw the photo and the first thing he said was "that wasn't supposed to be there" when he saw the nightie. I have always been amazed that LE didn't jump all over that statement. Of COURSE it wasn't suppose to be there. Neither was the white blanket and neither was the dead little girl.
 
The blood on the nightgown was a small amount. I would imagine, because of that blood, it was supposed to have disappeared along with JonBenets undies, that actually fit her, as well as the remaining piece of the paintbrush.

The fact that John made the statement that he did, proves prior knowledge, which also is proof of obstructing justice by disturbing the evidence of a crime. Either that, or he is guiltier than I think. Either way, he should have been interrogated, as well as Patsy.

BPD should have leaked the truth as the DA's office leaked their bullpucky! It may have been a much different outcome and justice for JonBenet.
 
You have a point, but I'm sticking with the idea of the nightgown being attached to the blanket by static when taken from the dryer. There's a dryer in the basement, along with paint brushes. I think the staging was done in the basement using what could be found there. jmo

azwriter,

That makes sense if you are thinking that the main objective of staging is driven by the eventual placement of JonBenet into the wine-cellar?

I do not think that this was the original plan, someone changed it, and moved JonBenet along with some crime-scene artifacts into the wine-cellar.

I have never ever thought that the barbie nightgown arrived in the wine-cellar accidentally, then when you include the barbie doll, and note that the barbie nightgown is bloodstained then the probability that both these items arrived, by accident, in the course of a cleanup/staging event starts falling to close to zero!

It is possible that the nightgown bloodstains are a result of cross-contamination, the extent of any bloodstains on the white blanket has not been detailed?

Someone else staged JonBenet's death wearing the barbie nightgown, with her barbie doll lying close by.

This was then changed, probably as a result of opting for the abduction scenario, for some reason, the nightgown and doll could not be left at the prior location, either because it was bloodstained or simply out of context e.g. the kitchen?

This is hinted at by the removal of the size-6 underwear but not the nightgown or doll.


.
 
I have to say this makes about the most sense to me, too. But the bloodstains on the pink nightie are troubling to me. If the static cling theory is correct, how did the blood get there? The only way is if she was wiped down when lying ON the white blanket in the WC and some blood inadvertently splattered on the nightie. JR saw the photo and the first thing he said was "that wasn't supposed to be there" when he saw the nightie. I have always been amazed that LE didn't jump all over that statement. Of COURSE it wasn't suppose to be there. Neither was the white blanket and neither was the dead little girl.

DeeDee249,
Exactly, so how come? static cling along with John's poor eyesight might, at a stretch, explain the nightgown away, but the barbie doll. Was that also transferred by static cling?

Blood may have transferred from the white blanket to the nightgown, but I have never seen any analysis of any bloodstains on the white blanket. This is why I have asked previously was the blanket urine stained?

Applying occam, this is a staging gone wrong, with JonBenet quickly bundled into the blanket along with associated items, and hidden in the wine-cellar.

As you suggest either she was to be discovered by one of the parents later that day or even dumped somewhere outdoors to be found?

If the nightgown and doll can be left behind why not her size-6 underwear? What distinguishes them, say in the stagers mind, not much, both might be bloodstained. They may even be urine-stained alike the longjohns and size-12's, so why bother?

What would be interesting would be knowing if the source of the bloodstains on JonBenet's white top/shirt are the same as that on the barbie nightgown?


.
 
I have never ever thought that the barbie nightgown arrived in the wine-cellar accidentally
.

ITA

JOHN RAMSEY: It wouldn't be, no,
6 it would be unusual for her to have those on.
7 Leggings, kind of just a regular nightgown. She
8 didn't always wear a nightgown to bed. If she
9 was awake when she went to bed, she got into a
10 nightgown
and brushed her teeth, got into bed.
11 But if she was asleep, we usually just tried to
12 make her comfortable, make sure she was warm.
13 Didn't go into the trouble of getting her into a
14 nightgown, necessarily. Sometimes she had a tee
15 shirt on.


JOHN RAMSEY: I laid her on the
21 bed. I didn't -- I don't remember the cover,
22 if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on
23 the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up
24 to put her nightgown
on and get her ready for
25 bed.
0498



LOU SMIT: We have heard
16 that a Barbie nightgown was one of her
17 favorite nightgowns. What can you tell us
18 about that?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: I think she had a
20 Barbie nightgown, yeah, as I recall. Pink,
21 maybe.
22 LOU SMIT: The night you put
23 her in bed, do you remember anything about
24 a Barbie nightgown?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: When I put
0686
1 her to bed she had on, when I laid her
2 down in the bed, she had on what she had
3 worn to the Whites. She had that same
4 shirt on when I found her.






why does JR feel the need to reassure us that


"when I laid her
2 down in the bed, she had on what she had
3 worn to the Whites. She had that same
4 shirt on when I found her."


it's either she was put to bed in her nightgown and something happened during the night
or
she never went to bed


when she was redressed in the basement,they/he/she didn't only change her panties but the bloody nightgown as well (is this why JR said it shouldn't have been down there?why if it was taken to the laundry,normal for it to have been there......IMO they forgot to get rid of it)
blood on the panties,blood on the gown but not on the clothes she wore the night before at the party nor on the blanket


IMO part of the staging are the blanket and the clothes she was found in
 
So, did they ask Patsy if she ever went in and got JB ready for bed, put on her nightgown, etc., as JR says he knew she was going to do:

JOHN RAMSEY: I laid her on the
21 bed. I didn't -- I don't remember the cover,
22 if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on
23 the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up
24 to put her nightgown on and get her ready for
25 bed.
0498

If JR said she was found in those same clothes, then PR supposedly couldn't have done that. What did Patsy say she did when she got home?
 
If JR said she was found in those same clothes, then PR supposedly couldn't have done that. What did Patsy say she did when she got home?

Patsy said she took off JB's black velvet pants. She did not mention socks or the black velvet vest JB was also said to have worn that day. Patsy claimed she looked around for the pink pajama bottoms JB had worn on Christmas Eve (she is seen wearing the top in the Christmas Morning photos) but couldn't find them. There is a pink garment said to be the pink pajama top seen on JB's bed in the crime photo. Patsy said JB kept pajamas under her pillow (a lot of girls do this). Also seen in the crime photo of the bed is that the pillow is pulled away from the head of the bed- a very expected sight if Patsy had pulled the pillow away to get the pajamas. Yet, the R's (and LS) jumped all over this as a way of saying "look- she was pulled from her bed- look at the pillow" when it was Patsy who pulled that pillow away.
After not finding the pink pajama bottoms, Patsy said she looked in a drawer and found the longjohns. They are thin cotton thermal weave, so they are perfect for sleeping anyway.
Patsy said she left JB in the shirt she wore to the White's, after first saying she wore a red turtleneck. But when shown photos of the White's party by police, she had to admit that JB was wearing the white top.
There has been confusion about the pink pajama bottoms- they were said to have been found in BR's room- an indication she may have actually put THOSE on Christmas night instead of the longjohns. As far as I know, I have seen nothing written about the pink pajama tops OR bottoms, do not know if police found them, took them or anything. And I have not seen that the pink garment seen on JB's bed actually was the pink top. Police took the sheets- that we know. Anything else- not sure.
The pink bottoms are a key piece of evidence. If they were found with urine stains, it would mean that she had to have put them on THAT night when she got home, and had an accident in them. Because if she had wet them the previous night, she wouldn't have had them on the next morning for the Christmas morning photos. I'd also like to know if THEY had any blood on them. Where are they NOW? Anyone know?
 
So but she was found though wearing those same longjohns and the top that Patsy said she put her to bed in that night right? Except for the larger underwear?

Trying to wrap my head around what she was wearing before bed, redressed into to get ready for bed, and what exactly she was changed into after that.
 
Patsy said she took off JB's black velvet pants. She did not mention socks or the black velvet vest JB was also said to have worn that day. Patsy claimed she looked around for the pink pajama bottoms JB had worn on Christmas Eve (she is seen wearing the top in the Christmas Morning photos) but couldn't find them. There is a pink garment said to be the pink pajama top seen on JB's bed in the crime photo. Patsy said JB kept pajamas under her pillow (a lot of girls do this). Also seen in the crime photo of the bed is that the pillow is pulled away from the head of the bed- a very expected sight if Patsy had pulled the pillow away to get the pajamas. Yet, the R's (and LS) jumped all over this as a way of saying "look- she was pulled from her bed- look at the pillow" when it was Patsy who pulled that pillow away.
After not finding the pink pajama bottoms, Patsy said she looked in a drawer and found the longjohns. They are thin cotton thermal weave, so they are perfect for sleeping anyway.
Patsy said she left JB in the shirt she wore to the White's, after first saying she wore a red turtleneck. But when shown photos of the White's party by police, she had to admit that JB was wearing the white top.
There has been confusion about the pink pajama bottoms- they were said to have been found in BR's room- an indication she may have actually put THOSE on Christmas night instead of the longjohns. As far as I know, I have seen nothing written about the pink pajama tops OR bottoms, do not know if police found them, took them or anything. And I have not seen that the pink garment seen on JB's bed actually was the pink top. Police took the sheets- that we know. Anything else- not sure.
The pink bottoms are a key piece of evidence. If they were found with urine stains, it would mean that she had to have put them on THAT night when she got home, and had an accident in them. Because if she had wet them the previous night, she wouldn't have had them on the next morning for the Christmas morning photos. I'd also like to know if THEY had any blood on them. Where are they NOW? Anyone know?

DeeDee249,
Where are they NOW? Anyone know?

Nobody is saying, not the Ramsey's, not the police. Another thing not known is was any of the size-6 underwear removed from JonBenet's underwear drawer, a Wednesday pair?

Anyway I think the dots can be joined, but without any hard evidence knowing what took place cannot be confirmed.

I'm just tossing this one in. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why the remaining clean size-12's were removed or hidden?

Here are some other responses to the pink top and nightgown.

John seems to know quite a bit about JonBenet's clothing arrangements
From JonBenet: The Police Files; pp. 353-354, Excerpt
MK: ...There was a nightgown that was found down in the wine cellar (the pink Barbie nightgown that was wrapped up in the blanket covering JonBenet).

JR: I have heard about that...I had never seen that. I didn't see it when (I) was down (there)...sounds very bizarre. I don't know why that would be there....

MK: Could have been brought down in the blanket?

JR: I suppose, I don't know....

LS: ...We have heard that a Barbie nightgown was one of her favorite nightgowns. What can you tell us about that?

JR: I think she had a Barbie nightgown. Yeah, as I recall. Pink, maybe.

LS: The night you put her in bed, do you remember anything about a Barbie nightgown?

JR: ...When I laid her down in the bed she had on what she had worn to the Whites. She had that same shirt on when I found her.

LS: What I am trying to say, John, is where would that Barbie nightgown have been?

JR: It would have either been in her bathroom drawer here, where a lot of them were kept...by the sink, I believe. It could have been on the floor, or it would have been in the washing machine. That's probably only three places it would have been.

John on the pink top
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-crime-photos.htm
(0679-03) MIKE KANE: Yeah. This is a photograph and it's numbered 3, actually if I could have that one too. Just for the record, these are photographs number 2 and number 3 of JonBenet's bed, and that, there is a pink nightgown top in there. Does that look like one that she was wearing Christmas morning? JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. It was kind of a knit long sleeve, long -- like long underwear kind of top it looks like. MIKE KANE: I think it's the same thing that's pictured in photo number 2?

Patsy on the pink top
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-crime-photos.htm
(0242-16) TRIP DeMUTH: You can see it better on photo 3. PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, okay. That's the -- looks like a little pink pajama top, with long underwear. THOMAS HANEY: Was that part of a set of -- PATSY RAMSEY: Yes. THOMAS HANEY: -- tops and bottoms? PATSY RAMSEY: Top and bottom, yeah. THOMAS HANEY: And that, does that appear to be one or the other? PATSY RAMSEY: It looks sort of like the top, because there is a little tag, might be at the neck, you know. It may be inside-out. THOMAS HANEY: And if you can, do you know when JonBenet would have last worn that? PATSY RAMSEY: I know she wore it, she had this on Christmas Day.
[/QUOTE}


It appears JonBenet was playing in Burke's room
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-crime-photos.htm
(0289-18) THOMAS HANEY: Number 40. PATSY RAMSEY: That's Burke's room, that's the entry to Burke's room. This is where if the kids were there that day, JonBenet was sitting in here making a little jewelry thing. That's a little jewelry kind of case thing and jewelry art thing. TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. The pink -- PATSY RAMSEY: The pink box. TRIP DeMUTH: -- is the jewelry thing? PATSY RAMSEY: Jewelry. TRIP DeMUTH: Does that look normal? PATSY RAMSEY: Yes. I remember. That's why I kind of looked down at the floor where they were playing.



.
 
So but she was found though wearing those same longjohns and the top that Patsy said she put her to bed in that night right? Except for the larger underwear?

Trying to wrap my head around what she was wearing before bed, redressed into to get ready for bed, and what exactly she was changed into after that.

Whaleshark,
Nobody knows, except Patsy, John and Burke. Remember Burke likely sipped tea as he watched JonBenet snack on pineapple.

Since JonBenet snacked pineapple, she was patently not placed directly into her bed as described by the parents.

So there are various scenarios which you can construct that consider what JonBenet may have worn or not. It seems quite likely that JonBenet was redressed multiple times. My favorite count is three, with a minimum of two.


.
 
So but she was found though wearing those same longjohns and the top that Patsy said she put her to bed in that night right? Except for the larger underwear?

Trying to wrap my head around what she was wearing before bed, redressed into to get ready for bed, and what exactly she was changed into after that.

We only know for sure what she wore to the White's. There is photographic evidence of that. We also know that Christmas morning, she was photographed in a pink pajama top. (presumably the one seen on her bed). To the White's she wore the white top with silver star she was found in, along with black velvet pants and a black velvet vest.
As for what she wore before she went to the White's- possibly play clothes of some type, or maybe she went from her pajamas right into the outfit she wore to the White's.
It is what she was changed into when she got home from the White's that seems to be uncertain. Was she put into the longjohns as Patsy said, was she put into the pink pajama bottoms that were allegedly found in BR's room? Or was she put into the pink Barbie nightie that was found on the white blanket in the basement, splattered with drops of blood? We just don't know, and it seems we will never know.
 
Yeah I know we don't know for sure, but trying to see if what Patsy and/or she and JR said they did in regards to changing her before bed -- how that coincides with what she was wearing when she was found. I'm going to check candy rose and refresh for a moment....
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
2,432
Total visitors
2,511

Forum statistics

Threads
590,013
Messages
17,928,987
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top