1191 users online (240 members and 951 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    1,446

    A couple of ???

    Whilst perusing the various posts, a couple of questions have come to mind. It is possible that these have been discussed before, so I apologize in advance if that is the case.

    1. How thoroughly were the housekeeper and her family investigated? It seems reasonable to me that she (they) would be very jealous of the Ramseys, and would probably have knowledge of the $118K bonus JR received. Obviously, she would also be trusted by the children, and would have a key to the house.

    2. Has it been determined if the size 12 panties found on JBR were hers? Why would she have such big underwear? Did she wear pull-ups b/c of her potty issues, and then size 12 panties over them? Why are her underwear referred to as Wednesday's panties? Does this mean that she wore special underwear on each day???

    Thanks.
    Last edited by bensmom98; 03-08-2005 at 03:54 PM. Reason: typos

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Your questions may have been gone over thousands of times, however no one has ever given a solid answer . The housekeepers, babysitters, gardener, and others were "looked at" but how deeply? How deeply does a police department check out others when they are CERTAIN the parents did it?

    The size 12's, are a mystery as well. Why would a parent put them on a child, how would a parent not notice they are "falling off " of a child.
    IMO they weren't on her when she went to bed.

    This police department screwed up, and the Ramseys continue to pay the price. No one can find the murderer, and that cloud of suspicion will hang over them ,forever.

    my fact for the day, the cops sent the cord to the lab, the report sourced it as polyester...later it was matched to nylon cord...amazing stuff..

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    fire away

    Quote Originally Posted by bensmom98
    Whilst perusing the various posts, a couple of questions have come to mind. It is possible that these have been discussed before, so I apologize in advance if that is the case.

    1. How thoroughly were the housekeeper and her family investigated? It seems reasonable to me that she (they) would be very jealous of the Ramseys, and would probably have knowledge of the $118K bonus JR received. Obviously, she would also be trusted by the children, and would have a key to the house.

    Good question. It's one that we've been attempting to answer for a long time. The Hoffman-Pugh's were prime suspects early on, for a host of reasons, some of which you've mentioned, but were apparently downgraded to persons of interest eventually. I don't know what their official status is these days. One or more of them could fit the intruder theory quite well. John Ramsey himself mentioned them as good candidates for the perpetrators of his "inside job".

    2. Has it been determined if the size 12 panties found on JBR were hers? Why would she have such big underwear? Did she wear pull-ups b/c of her potty issues, and then size 12 panties over them? Why are her underwear referred to as Wednesday's panties? Does this mean that she wore special underwear on each day???

    Thanks.
    Yes, it's been determined that the size 12-14's were hers; that is, they came from a package in a drawer in her bedroom. Patsy said she purchased them for a niece, but never got around to giving them to her so tossed them into JB's drawer. JB's regular size panties were kept in a drawer in her bathroom, I think. Why would she be wearing such big underwear? Another GOOOOD question. Maybe you can figure it out.

    She sometimes wore pull-ups because of her potty issues as you call it. Recently she hadn't been wearing them to bed; Patsy had fitted the bed with a plastic protective sheet and laundered the bedclothes as necessary; quite a lot we're told. I don't think she was in the habit of wearing the big panties over her pull-ups. It appears that the big panties that she was found dead in were the only panties removed from the package which had apparently been only recently opened. Do girls wear panties over pull-ups?? This I don't know.

    I'm not sure that she wore Wednesday panties of her normal size (4-6) or that she wore special underwear each day. This I have been unable to ascertain. You might find this information in one of the interviews. The size 12-14's were Wednesday panties; presumably the ones remaining in the package were day-of-the-week too. Someone opined that the child might have been able to recognize the Wednesdays because of the unique floral print. She couldn't read. So, maybe each pair of the seven in the package had it's own unique decoration (for lack of a better word) as a key to the day of the week.

    Full speed ahead.

    sissi, If Merv is a Pugh, why isn't he listed under Pugh in PMPT? He's listed under Hoffman-Pugh.

    Thanks...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,804
    I've ALWAYS wondered about those underwear. This is more detail than I heard before - I'd just always heard they were huge.

    12 is HUGE for that little child. To have only one pair removed, and on her, it just doesn't sound like she did that.

    I work at a facility that hands out free clothing to children, and I've seen a LOT of little girls pick underwear packages. The thought of a little girl putting huge panties on HERSELF is really out of the spectrum of what I've seen, over years of watching little girls choose underwear. They choose cute, little underwear. It's really hard to believe JonBenet would open this package, and put this one pair of underwear on herself. It sounds very much like somehow, someone couldn't find her real underwear drawer and picked these for her.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    gargantuan

    Quote Originally Posted by KatherineQ
    I've ALWAYS wondered about those underwear. This is more detail than I heard before - I'd just always heard they were huge.

    12 is HUGE for that little child. To have only one pair removed, and on her, it just doesn't sound like she did that.

    I work at a facility that hands out free clothing to children, and I've seen a LOT of little girls pick underwear packages. The thought of a little girl putting huge panties on HERSELF is really out of the spectrum of what I've seen, over years of watching little girls choose underwear. They choose cute, little underwear. It's really hard to believe JonBenet would open this package, and put this one pair of underwear on herself. It sounds very much like somehow, someone couldn't find her real underwear drawer and picked these for her.

    "couldn't find her real underwear.." Yes, KatherineQ, that's what we're thinking...most of us. That the size 12-14's were way too big for her, seems to be the concensus. And we have Patsy saying no problemo; the child could have put them on. Why do you suppose she didn't say, "Heavens to Betsy; she would never dress herself in those! This proves it was an intruder." Maybe she was caught off guard?

    I get the feeling that the Ramsey parents are covering for someone and having to ad-lib their way through some of these interviews; and, sometimes, not faring very well.
    Last edited by RedChief; 03-09-2005 at 12:52 AM. Reason: typo

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief
    "couldn't find her real underwear.." Yes, KatherineQ, that's what we're thinking...most of us. That the size 12-14's were way too big for her,o seems to be the concensus. And we have Patsy saying no problemo; the child could have put them on. Why do you suppose she didn't say, "Heavens to Betsy; she would never dress herself in those! This proves it was an intruder." Maybe she was caught off guard?

    I get the feeling that the Ramsey parents are covering for someone and having to ad-lib their way through some of these interviews; and, sometimes, not faring very well.

    RedChief,

    Patsy wants JonBenet to have been the one who put on the size 12/14 underwear because she knows if it wasn't JonBenet then it must have been Burke who put them on JonBenet.

    No adult, not even an intruder, would put size 12/14's on a six-year-old little girl. But two nine-year-old boys might.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    You guys really think Patsy is covering?
    IMO you give them far too much credit. They aren't that smart, especially while drugged. IMO they are clueless , and likely know less than any one of us about the backgrounds of the people they allowed around that child. If anyone thinks I feel they are responsible for their daughter's death, I do. I do, because I have seen people like them, own a few myself, who really are too damn busy being socially wonderful to keep an eye out for the wolves.
    Can it happen to any of us? Sure , but ya work on trying to lessen the opportunities. I can not imagine sleeping that far away from my children . Hell they could die in their sleep choking on a piece of bubble gum!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    You guys really think Patsy is covering?
    I think she definitely gives the appearance of covering. Plus, they've had nine years to change that appearance and I still think they give that appearance.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Nehemiah
    I think she definitely gives the appearance of covering. Plus, they've had nine years to change that appearance and I still think they give that appearance.


    The title of this thread is, "A couple of ???". The thread beginner implied the Pugh's were suspects. But the Ramseys are carrying out a coverup that, as Nehemiah points out, is approaching nine years in length. Why would the Ramseys be covering up for the Pughs or anyone else other than a family member? The obvious answer is, THEY WOULDN'T!

    IMO the Ramseys are covering up for one boy, and perhaps two boys, who were nine years old at the time of the crime. But these boys are 18-year-old adults now, and no longer "innocent little nine-year-old boys". It's time to treat them as adults and ask some of the kinds of questions that perhaps couldn't have been asked years ago. For instance:

    Did you kill JonBenet, or do you know who killed her?

    BlueCrab

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    no longer "innocent little nine-year-old boys". It's time to treat them as adults and ask some of the kinds of questions that perhaps couldn't have been asked years ago. For instance:

    Did you kill JonBenet, or do you know who killed her?

    BlueCrab
    yep. but who's going to ask Burke this?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    The title of this thread is, "A couple of ???". The thread beginner implied the Pugh's were suspects. But the Ramseys are carrying out a coverup that, as Nehemiah points out, is approaching nine years in length. Why would the Ramseys be covering up for the Pughs or anyone else other than a family member? The obvious answer is, THEY WOULDN'T!

    IMO the Ramseys are covering up for one boy, and perhaps two boys, who were nine years old at the time of the crime. But these boys are 18-year-old adults now, and no longer "innocent little nine-year-old boys". It's time to treat them as adults and ask some of the kinds of questions that perhaps couldn't have been asked years ago. For instance:

    Did you kill JonBenet, or do you know who killed her?

    BlueCrab
    BlueCrab-

    I wasn't implying that the Pugh's were suspects in JonBenet's murder. I was merely asking how well they had been investigated, as it seems plausible to me that they could have potentially committed this deed.

    IMO the Ramsey's are NOT covering for anyone especially Burke. Why would they cover for Burke? If it were me and I had already lost one child I would make sure that my remaning child, even if he committed the murder, got all the help he needed. In such an elaborate cover-up as you and others are proposing, that would be impossible.

    As I understand it, his behavior that morning was termed "strange" considering what had happened in that house. Maybe he was in shock? I'm sorry but I don't think a 9 (almost 10) year old child has the emotional maturity to deal with such a horrible thing, do you? If he were involved how in the world has he (and his accomplice) not blabbed after all these years?

    Could you, or any other posters, clarify this for me?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by bensmom98
    BlueCrab-

    I wasn't implying that the Pugh's were suspects in JonBenet's murder. I was merely asking how well they had been investigated, as it seems plausible to me that they could have potentially committed this deed.

    IMO the Ramsey's are NOT covering for anyone especially Burke. Why would they cover for Burke? If it were me and I had already lost one child I would make sure that my remaning child, even if he committed the murder, got all the help he needed. In such an elaborate cover-up as you and others are proposing, that would be impossible.

    As I understand it, his behavior that morning was termed "strange" considering what had happened in that house. Maybe he was in shock? I'm sorry but I don't think a 9 (almost 10) year old child has the emotional maturity to deal with such a horrible thing, do you? If he were involved how in the world has he (and his accomplice) not blabbed after all these years?

    Could you, or any other posters, clarify this for me?
    bensmom98,

    I tend to agree that Burke has some knowledge of the crime...perhaps even a second boy. Perhaps Burke saw the perp and recognized him??? I just can't put my finger on how he's involved but there's something going on there, I feel.

    I agree with you completely that two kids that age would have let their knowledge of killing JonBenet slip out and would have revealed it...most especially if another adult were involved with them.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    I recently asked a friend (who has not followed this case at all) to read PMPT and give me his thoughts. His first question was "for whom are the Ramseys covering and why?"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief
    "couldn't find her real underwear.." Yes, KatherineQ, that's what we're thinking...most of us. That the size 12-14's were way too big for her, seems to be the concensus. And we have Patsy saying no problemo; the child could have put them on. Why do you suppose she didn't say, "Heavens to Betsy; she would never dress herself in those! This proves it was an intruder." Maybe she was caught off guard?

    I get the feeling that the Ramsey parents are covering for someone and having to ad-lib their way through some of these interviews; and, sometimes, not faring very well.
    I'm an "on the fence" person my self, believe in intruder theory BUT PASTY seems like a perfectionist. WHY would JB's underwear drawer be empty but these oversized panties? I've purchased clothing for my children that were either far too big or I grabbed the wrong package.

    I would keep the package in the drawer for future use. BUT considering they also had a housekeeper, the drawer should be full of regular size panties.

    This is strange. So hard to put all these pieces together to make complete sense of it.

  15. #15
    IrishMist's Avatar
    IrishMist is offline You can't control the wind - but you can adjust your sails
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Southeastern Tennessee
    Posts
    7,469
    Quote Originally Posted by blueclouds
    I'm an "on the fence" person my self, believe in intruder theory BUT PASTY seems like a perfectionist. WHY would JB's underwear drawer be empty but these oversized panties? I've purchased clothing for my children that were either far too big or I grabbed the wrong package.

    I would keep the package in the drawer for future use. BUT considering they also had a housekeeper, the drawer should be full of regular size panties.

    This is strange. So hard to put all these pieces together to make complete sense of it.
    I believe that JonBenet's regular panties were kept in a drawer in her bathroom... which an intruder wouldn't know.

    I'm a fence-sitter, too. I lean toward intruder, but it doesn't seem like one scenario fits all the elements. The behavior of the Ramseys after the crime seems suspect to me. But then again, I think that's why this case still has such strong interest... the mystery of it all is compelling.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast