View Poll Results: Was Burke involved in JB's death?

Voters
634. You may not vote on this poll
  • Burke was involved in the death of JBR

    377 59.46%
  • Burke was totally uninvolved in her death

    257 40.54%
Page 11 of 114 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202161111 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 2826

Thread: Was Burke involved?

  1. #251
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by jaded cat View Post
    I don't think Burke could have done the whole thing from start to finish but I always had a small suspicion he was involved. That would answer a lot of questions about the staging and the obviously fake ransom note, but it opens the door for other questions.

    If Burke could not be charged for the death of JBR, why bother to stage the whole ridiculous thing? To protect him from the consequences of what he did? Possible. To keep him from being labeled a murderer? Also possible.

    All I know for sure is that 4 people were alive in that house on the 25th and one of them was found dead on the 26th. The Rams did it or they know who did, I've never believed anything else.
    jaded cat,
    Without listing it all again, the evidence tells you Burke was involved. The big question is was it him who assaulted JonBenet?

    Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet prior to her death both chronically and acutely. The phrase genital trauma is politically correct phrasing for the likely staging that occured after JonBenet was apparently dead.

    This is why reading Holly Smith's opinion would be revealing, she would distinguish between any staging and prior molestation.

    .

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  3. #252
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,752
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    jaded cat,
    Without listing it all again, the evidence tells you Burke was involved. The big question is was it him who assaulted JonBenet?

    Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet prior to her death both chronically and acutely. The phrase genital trauma is politically correct phrasing for the likely staging that occured after JonBenet was apparently dead.

    This is why reading Holly Smith's opinion would be revealing, she would distinguish between any staging and prior molestation.

    .
    Absolutely right. The changes in cells and tissue that occur after death should allow any coroner or medical examiner to tell whether an injury occurred before or after death, making it obvious as to whether some of her injuries are staging and the staging lends credence to a cover up of abuse, something no intruder would need to do and no pedophile/sexual sadist would WANT to do.
    The injuries are noted in the report, but nothing was put in that stated specifically that any are postmortem. We do know there was some bruising and bleeding, both of which can happen only while alive. Blood can ooze in a dead person, though, and it "gels" after death (was this the "semi-liquid" blood noted in the autopsy?). Blood is oxygenated in a living person, but not in a dead one. Coroners can tell (if they test) whether blood was from a living or dead person.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  5. #253
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    400
    The blood in the panties are reported to be from a live donor as proof she was still alive when the injuries occurred. The blood under her skull cannot be determined as the event happened so very close to the time of or shortly after the time of death. I imagine in this case both types were found. The wounds to her neck are bloodless so I see the ME's logic in placing it as the determining cause of provable death.

  6. #254
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,752
    I saw no report stating any blood found was from postmortem leakage. The coroner, when noting the subdural blood, did not say it was postmortem leakage. Nor have I seen where any blood was ever tested to indicate whether it was from a living or dead donor- it was simply noted in the autopsy as "blood" or "semi-liquid blood" or "watery red fluid".
    If anyone has a link to any report specifically mentioning testing the blood to prove it was from a living or dead person, please post it if you can.
    The tests may have been done, but not made public.

    CathyR- do you have information as to whether this testing was done?

    The origin of the blood AND urine in her panties is something I have always been uncertain about. We know that JB suffered a vaginal injury severe enough to cause bleeding in sufficient quantity to require wiping off. I believe that AFTER she was wiped, the panties that were found on her (the size 12) were put on her. The stagers were unaware that a few drops of blood had dripped/oozed onto the panty crotch. This poses a problem. There is urine on BOTH these panties and the longjohns. If she was wearing both garments and the urine was postmortem release at death, then the size 12s were put on her when she was still alive. If they were put on her after the wiping but after her death (the wiping could have been done after she died even if the blood was from an injury while she was alive) then the urine got onto the panties from being in contact with the already-wet longjohns.
    We STILL have the missing puzzle piece of panties in her usual size that may have blood, urine or both on them.
    Evidence of postmortem blood in the panties could lend support to the vaginal injury being staging- forceful enough for some blood to ooze.
    To me, the testing of any blood found in JB or on her clothing should have been done to see if it was shed while she was alive or dead. The staging points to a coverup. Postmortem injury points to a coverup. A sexual sadist killer does not need nor want to cover up his act. A parent/family member would.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  8. #255
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I saw no report stating any blood found was from postmortem leakage. The coroner, when noting the subdural blood, did not say it was postmortem leakage. Nor have I seen where any blood was ever tested to indicate whether it was from a living or dead donor- it was simply noted in the autopsy as "blood" or "semi-liquid blood" or "watery red fluid".
    If anyone has a link to any report specifically mentioning testing the blood to prove it was from a living or dead person, please post it if you can.
    The tests may have been done, but not made public.

    CathyR- do you have information as to whether this testing was done?

    The origin of the blood AND urine in her panties is something I have always been uncertain about. We know that JB suffered a vaginal injury severe enough to cause bleeding in sufficient quantity to require wiping off. I believe that AFTER she was wiped, the panties that were found on her (the size 12) were put on her. The stagers were unaware that a few drops of blood had dripped/oozed onto the panty crotch. This poses a problem. There is urine on BOTH these panties and the longjohns. If she was wearing both garments and the urine was postmortem release at death, then the size 12s were put on her when she was still alive. If they were put on her after the wiping but after her death (the wiping could have been done after she died even if the blood was from an injury while she was alive) then the urine got onto the panties from being in contact with the already-wet longjohns.
    We STILL have the missing puzzle piece of panties in her usual size that may have blood, urine or both on them.
    Evidence of postmortem blood in the panties could lend support to the vaginal injury being staging- forceful enough for some blood to ooze.
    To me, the testing of any blood found in JB or on her clothing should have been done to see if it was shed while she was alive or dead. The staging points to a coverup. Postmortem injury points to a coverup. A sexual sadist killer does not need nor want to cover up his act. A parent/family member would.
    DeeDee249,
    I reckon the urine-staining is postmortem release, and although not conclusive, likely eliminates the bed wetting theory, since JonBenet will have already released urine.

    The critical assumption to be considered is: are the size-12's clean on JonBenet? If yes then the blood is probably postmortem since it is coincident with the urine-staining.

    Patsy's ignorance about the size-12's suggests someone else redressed JonBenet. So is the discovery of fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt simply coincidental?

    It could be that John wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in the size-12's and longjohns with Patsy then applying the garrote, not realizing she was still alive?

    Under this scenario Patsy does not see the size-12's, only John knows she is wearing them.

    .

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  10. #256
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,752
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,
    I reckon the urine-staining is postmortem release, and although not conclusive, likely eliminates the bed wetting theory, since JonBenet will have already released urine.

    The critical assumption to be considered is: are the size-12's clean on JonBenet? If yes then the blood is probably postmortem since it is coincident with the urine-staining.

    Patsy's ignorance about the size-12's suggests someone else redressed JonBenet. So is the discovery of fibers from John's Israeli manufactured shirt simply coincidental?

    It could be that John wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in the size-12's and longjohns with Patsy then applying the garrote, not realizing she was still alive?

    Under this scenario Patsy does not see the size-12's, only John knows she is wearing them.

    .
    Don't believe for one minute that Patsy was ignorant about the size 12 panties. Her "ignorance" was feigned. Even if she was not the one who put them on JB (I actually believe it was JR- his wool shirt fibers were found INSIDE the panties), she knew where they were, wrapped up in the basement with Jenny's other gifts. If JR put them on JB, Patsy told him where they were or got them out. This staging was not a solo event, both parents were involved.
    Not sure what you mean by the panties being "clean"? If you mean were they previously worn, the answer is no. They were new from the package. Unlaundered, new clothing can be verified- detergent and fabric softener leave residue in fabrics. II believe LE described the panties as being new. Also, the panties are both blood and urine stained, so how can they be "clean"?
    EVERY pair of JB's panties in the house were found (by LE) to have fecal stains. The ones she was wearing did not. Fecal staining will not always come out in the washer- usually chlorine bleach is needed and if used, it will ruin colors and prints on fabric. Most little girls' panties have floral or novelty prints that bleach would ruin, so my guess is that no bleach was added to her laundry. That explains the fecal staining. The stained panted had been washed, but detergent alone did not remove the stains.
    So if that's what you mean by "clean" i.e. lack of fecal staining, then the size 12's were clean until they were soiled that night with urine and blood.
    Last edited by DeeDee249; 04-04-2011 at 07:41 PM.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  12. #257
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Don't believe for one minute that Patsy was ignorant about the size 12 panties. Her "ignorance" was feigned. Even if she was not the one who put them on JB (I actually believe it was JR- his wool shirt fibers were found INSIDE the panties), she knew where they were, wrapped up in the basement with Jenny's other gifts. If JR put them on JB, Patsy told him where they were or got them out. This staging was not a solo event, both parents were involved.
    Not sure what you mean by the panties being "clean"? If you mean were they previously worn, the answer is no. They were new from the package. Unlaundered, new clothing can be verified- detergent and fabric softener leave residue in fabrics. II believe LE described the panties as being new. Also, the panties are both blood and urine stained, so how can they be "clean"?
    EVERY pair of JB's panties in the house were found (by LE) to have fecal stains. The ones she was wearing did not. Fecal staining will not always come out in the washer- usually chlorine bleach is needed and if used, it will ruin colors and prints on fabric. Most little girls' panties have floral or novelty prints that bleach would ruin, so my guess is that no bleach was added to her laundry. That explains the fecal staining. The stained panted had been washed, but detergent alone did not remove the stains.
    So if that's what you mean by "clean" i.e. lack of fecal staining, then the size 12's were clean until they were soiled that night with urine and blood.
    DeeDee249,
    Don't believe for one minute that Patsy was ignorant about the size 12 panties.
    So why her statement about the size-12's residing in JonBenet's underwear drawer?

    (I actually believe it was JR- his wool shirt fibers were found INSIDE the panties),
    This is what I reckon also. The evidence suggests he may have wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in the size-12's.

    This staging was not a solo event, both parents were involved.
    This I've assumed for a long time, but were they both present at all phases of the staging or did one do something while the other was upstairs searching for or cleaning up something?

    Not sure what you mean by the panties being "clean"?
    Clean on as fresh out of the plastic wrapping. Contrast that with worn on a prior occassion or worn that night, as claimed by some!

    Assuming they are clean on firms up the blood arriving in the same time-frame as the urine-voiding.

    So an obvious sequence could be, JonBenet alive, has size-12's and longjohn's placed upon her, blood seeps onto the size-12's, JonBenet is asphyxiated, JonBenet voids her bladder, Size-12's and longjohns become urine stained.

    Unless you have some curious combination of the above its difficult to construct another sequence that fits so neatly?


    .

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  14. #258
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,752
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,

    So why her statement about the size-12's residing in JonBenet's underwear drawer?


    This is what I reckon also. The evidence suggests he may have wiped down JonBenet and redressed her in the size-12's.


    This I've assumed for a long time, but were they both present at all phases of the staging or did one do something while the other was upstairs searching for or cleaning up something?


    Clean on as fresh out of the plastic wrapping. Contrast that with worn on a prior occassion or worn that night, as claimed by some!

    Assuming they are clean on firms up the blood arriving in the same time-frame as the urine-voiding.

    So an obvious sequence could be, JonBenet alive, has size-12's and longjohn's placed upon her, blood seeps onto the size-12's, JonBenet is asphyxiated, JonBenet voids her bladder, Size-12's and longjohns become urine stained.

    Unless you have some curious combination of the above its difficult to construct another sequence that fits so neatly?


    .
    Patsy's statements cannot be considered gospel, I am sure you realize that. Her saying the panties were in the drawer doesn't make it so. Actually, she proved her statement wrong when they later sent the remaining panties along, still in the plastic package, years later.
    I believe the blood and urine staining contaminated the panties in the same time frame.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  16. #259
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Patsy's statements cannot be considered gospel, I am sure you realize that. Her saying the panties were in the drawer doesn't make it so. Actually, she proved her statement wrong when they later sent the remaining panties along, still in the plastic package, years later.
    I believe the blood and urine staining contaminated the panties in the same time frame.
    DeeDee249
    Patsy's statements cannot be considered gospel, I am sure you realize that. Her saying the panties were in the drawer doesn't make it so. Actually, she proved her statement wrong when they later sent the remaining panties along, still in the plastic package, years later.
    Thats my point! So if you know someone else redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and that you never placed them into her underwear drawer, why in a homicide investigation do you tell your interviewer that you did do this, only to be rebutted with the claim that only size-6 underwear was found in the drawer.

    In other words why would Patsy set herself up to be knocked down, whats the rationale?

    I believe the blood and urine staining contaminated the panties in the same time frame.
    IA.

    .

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  18. #260
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    367
    Maybe, at that time, Patsy wanted to distance herself and JR from wine cellar stagery by stating that as far as she knew the size 12's were in the panty drawer in JB's bathroom and not on hand in the WC where JB was wiped down and then the size 12's were frantically grabbed and put on her along with the longjohns, and then leakage occurred. The remaining package of size 12's could have been put in the nearby golf bag that was so important to get out of the house and delivered to a friend in the middle of winter.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to EastCoast For This Useful Post:


  20. #261
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,898
    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoast View Post
    Maybe, at that time, Patsy wanted to distance herself and JR from wine cellar stagery by stating that as far as she knew the size 12's were in the panty drawer in JB's bathroom and not on hand in the WC where JB was wiped down and then the size 12's were frantically grabbed and put on her along with the longjohns, and then leakage occurred. The remaining package of size 12's could have been put in the nearby golf bag that was so important to get out of the house and delivered to a friend in the middle of winter.
    ITA, EastCoast. I really dont believe Patsy was expecting to be questioned about the large panties and, as usual, lied her way around them. Gotta give her credit, she always had a lie handy!
    "This Time We Get it Right!"

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to joeskidbeck For This Useful Post:


  22. #262
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,752
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249

    Thats my point! So if you know someone else redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and that you never placed them into her underwear drawer, why in a homicide investigation do you tell your interviewer that you did do this, only to be rebutted with the claim that only size-6 underwear was found in the drawer.

    In other words why would Patsy set herself up to be knocked down, whats the rationale?


    IA.

    .
    I suppose her rationale was that she had to say they were somewhere! She had already admitted buying them. She had already told LE that the panties on JB were the ones she bought in NYC. So where did they come from? Well, from the basement, still wrapped up to be given to her niece. But how could she admit that? To admit that would indicate that the panties were found by the intruder IN the gifts box and how would an intruder know there were panties in the box? She HAD to say she'd given them to JB and that JB herself put them on.
    For those of you who are not mothers and have never dressed a little girl- you just would not put panties on a child that were that big. Would a child put them on herself? Well kids are not as aware of perfect fit as adults would be, but THOSE panties would have been so big and droopy that under pants they'd have bunched up uncomfortably and under a dress they'd be useless as panties, leaving the entire genital area uncovered and exposed through the huge leg openings.
    Kids are quirky about undies and how they fit and feel. They can be like that with socks, too. Some kids have to have socks with a very flat toe seam or made of orlon or thin cotton so they don't bunch in socks.
    I think Patsy said the only thing she could day, having already admitted the panties were in the house.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  23. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  24. #263
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249

    Thats my point! So if you know someone else redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and that you never placed them into her underwear drawer, why in a homicide investigation do you tell your interviewer that you did do this, only to be rebutted with the claim that only size-6 underwear was found in the drawer.

    In other words why would Patsy set herself up to be knocked down, whats the rationale?


    IA.

    .

    UK, I have long been of the belief that Patsy checked out some time around the chemo and Sandy Stranger moved in along with the rest of Jean Brodies cast of characters. One does not always tell the others what she is doing, hence gaps in memory and confusion....
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Agatha_C For This Useful Post:


  26. #264
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I suppose her rationale was that she had to say they were somewhere! She had already admitted buying them. She had already told LE that the panties on JB were the ones she bought in NYC. So where did they come from? Well, from the basement, still wrapped up to be given to her niece. But how could she admit that? To admit that would indicate that the panties were found by the intruder IN the gifts box and how would an intruder know there were panties in the box? She HAD to say she'd given them to JB and that JB herself put them on.
    For those of you who are not mothers and have never dressed a little girl- you just would not put panties on a child that were that big. Would a child put them on herself? Well kids are not as aware of perfect fit as adults would be, but THOSE panties would have been so big and droopy that under pants they'd have bunched up uncomfortably and under a dress they'd be useless as panties, leaving the entire genital area uncovered and exposed through the huge leg openings.
    Kids are quirky about undies and how they fit and feel. They can be like that with socks, too. Some kids have to have socks with a very flat toe seam or made of orlon or thin cotton so they don't bunch in socks.
    I think Patsy said the only thing she could day, having already admitted the panties were in the house.
    DeeDee249,
    She could have said it was the intruder who redressed her, he must have had an underwear fetish?

    For those of you who are not mothers and have never dressed a little girl- you just would not put panties on a child that were that big.
    So why when she was fetching the longjohns did she not reach over and open JonBenet's underwear drawer and remove a pair of size-6's?

    The size-12's alone force the redresser to say JonBenet redressed herself, assuming it is the day of the week that is being preserved.

    I doubt very much that Patsy would consider the size-12's as appropriate staging, if you have to claim JonBenet redressed herself then make that claim about non-wednesday day of the week underwear, here any inconsistency is minimised by not being able to verify if someone else redressed JonBenet.

    I still think Patsy was lying on behalf of someone else, someone else redressed JonBenet and she was ignorant JonBenet was wearing those size-12's.

    .

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  28. #265
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Agatha_C View Post
    UK, I have long been of the belief that Patsy checked out some time around the chemo and Sandy Stranger moved in along with the rest of Jean Brodies cast of characters. One does not always tell the others what she is doing, hence gaps in memory and confusion....
    Agatha_C,

    You could be correct. Lack of evidence has prevented me from developing a theory that has Patsy mentally challenged by prior abuse, with John managing the important household affairs.

    The coping mechanism for abuse is sometimes misdiagnosed as schizophrenia, in general a flawless persona is presented to the world, whilst other personae may inhabit the deeper reaches of the psyche.

    In JonBenet you can see the flawless persona being developed as a mirror to Patsy's. e.g. the talking up of JonBenet's achievements, starting her in pageants so young, the clothes, the dolls, the makeup etc etc.


    The flawless persona is intended to mask the abused persona, this coping mechanism flows from the recognition that any flaw in your normal persona may reveal your abused persona.





    .

  29. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  30. #266
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    8,131
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    also,in this interview she says she screamed for John AFTER she checked JB's room
    this is not what she says in the police interviews,is it?

    It was just very early in the morning, and I started to read it, and it was addressed to John. It said "Mr. Ramsey," And it said, "we have your daughter." And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. I can't -- "we have your daughter." and I don't know if I got any further than that. And I immediately ran back upstairs and pushed open her door, and she was not in her bed, and I screamed for John.


    http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/01011997ramseysoncnn.htm
    I've always wondered how all of that screaming never woke Burke.
    * * * * * *
    Websleuths.com, LLC Co-Owner
    WSSoSueMe@aol.com

  31. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to SoSueMe For This Useful Post:


  32. #267
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by SoSueMe View Post
    I've always wondered how all of that screaming never woke Burke.
    The most likely answers?

    1) There wasn't any screaming. OR
    2) Burke was already awake.

  33. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to horatio For This Useful Post:


  34. #268
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,898
    Quote Originally Posted by horatio View Post
    The most likely answers?

    1) There wasn't any screaming. OR
    2) Burke was already awake.

    3) All of the above!
    "This Time We Get it Right!"

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase

  35. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to joeskidbeck For This Useful Post:


  36. #269
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,752
    I still maintain that whoever put the panties on JB (and it was not JB herself) never thought that the size of the panties would become an issue. They were under the longjohns where they weren't visible, they were not on a conscious child who would mind the bulky fit. They would not be seen on her in the way a live child wearing them would be seen- where the too-large size would be VERY apparent. While they may have felt that her clothing was going to be removed at the morgue, I feel they really were not thinking about having to explain the size. To Patsy, it was simple- she bought them for her older, larger niece, JB wanted them, she gave them to her, and that was why JB was wearing them. She said she put the rest of the set away in JB's panty drawer. We know she did not. The (alleged) rest of the set was sent along years later, still in the package, so no way were they ever put into the drawer and worn. Not that she'd have had much time to wear them- she died only a few weeks after they were bought. I often wonder if those remaining panties were ever matched to the ones on JB (hopefully still in evidence) as to style, any tags, fabric, does the waistband script match, etc? Bloomies sold those sets over the course of years- Day of the Week panty sets for girls have been around for decades. Bloomingdale's didn't actually manufacture them- they were made by an outside vendor for sale by Bloomingdale's. And the prints and colors were updated from time to time- a set sold in 1996 might have different prints, colors and script styles from one purchased 4-5 years later. Good investigative practices would also have traced the vendor, where they were made, and whether the remaining 6 pairs would have come from the same set as the ones on JB.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  37. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  38. #270
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I still maintain that whoever put the panties on JB (and it was not JB herself) never thought that the size of the panties would become an issue. They were under the longjohns where they weren't visible, they were not on a conscious child who would mind the bulky fit. They would not be seen on her in the way a live child wearing them would be seen- where the too-large size would be VERY apparent. While they may have felt that her clothing was going to be removed at the morgue, I feel they really were not thinking about having to explain the size. To Patsy, it was simple- she bought them for her older, larger niece, JB wanted them, she gave them to her, and that was why JB was wearing them. She said she put the rest of the set away in JB's panty drawer. We know she did not. The (alleged) rest of the set was sent along years later, still in the package, so no way were they ever put into the drawer and worn. Not that she'd have had much time to wear them- she died only a few weeks after they were bought. I often wonder if those remaining panties were ever matched to the ones on JB (hopefully still in evidence) as to style, any tags, fabric, does the waistband script match, etc? Bloomies sold those sets over the course of years- Day of the Week panty sets for girls have been around for decades. Bloomingdale's didn't actually manufacture them- they were made by an outside vendor for sale by Bloomingdale's. And the prints and colors were updated from time to time- a set sold in 1996 might have different prints, colors and script styles from one purchased 4-5 years later. Good investigative practices would also have traced the vendor, where they were made, and whether the remaining 6 pairs would have come from the same set as the ones on JB.
    DeeDee249,
    I still maintain that whoever put the panties on JB (and it was not JB herself) never thought that the size of the panties would become an issue.
    Really! So does this mean they did not replace the size-6 pair on the basis of a [i]day of the week[i] match?

    It was like: any clean pair will do, just make them a wednesday pair, and if [i]day of the week[i] was not a motive then why not fetch a size-6 pair?

    For us the the size-12's are very much the issue, personally I reckon its one big red flag signaling staging big time.

    Whichever Ramsey put those size-12's on JonBenet must have known questions would be raised about the size, but JonBenet wearing underwear was deemed more important than what size they were?

    .

  39. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  40. #271
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,752
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,

    Really! So does this mean they did not replace the size-6 pair on the basis of a [i]day of the week[i] match?

    It was like: any clean pair will do, just make them a wednesday pair, and if [i]day of the week[i] was not a motive then why not fetch a size-6 pair?

    For us the the size-12's are very much the issue, personally I reckon its one big red flag signaling staging big time.

    Whichever Ramsey put those size-12's on JonBenet must have known questions would be raised about the size, but JonBenet wearing underwear was deemed more important than what size they were?

    .
    I see nothing in my comments that would infer that I was ruling out replacing the size 6 panties for a day of the week match. ALL I said was that I believed they did not think anyone would notice the SIZE.
    Actually, they could have needed another Wednesday pair- Christmas day that year WAS a Wednesday. Despite Patsy's comment that JB put them on herself- she forgot that it was already known that JB couldn't read yet. Someone would have picked that pair out for her.
    There are more than one reason why the panties that were supposed to be for Jenny ended up on JB. One could be the need to match the day- certainly, especially if there was any chance that someone at the White's had helped her in the bathroom (a common thing for JB) and would have noticed a novelty panty that said "Wednesday" as opposed to a plain pair.
    There is also the possibility that they did not wish to go upstairs to get a pair of her own because of the risk of BR hearing them or coming in to see what they were doing. I also feel that, despite what was happening, they didn't want to put a pair of her own panties on her because, as LE reported, ALL of the panties belonging to JB had fecal stains in them and, as unlikely as this may seem to people, they just didn't want her to be found in stained undies.
    Last edited by DeeDee249; 04-06-2011 at 10:13 PM.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  41. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  42. #272
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I see nothing in my comments that would infer that I was ruling out replacing the size 6 panties for a day of the week match. ALL I said was that I believed they did not think anyone would notice the SIZE.
    Actually, they could have needed another Wednesday pair- Christmas day that year WAS a Wednesday. Despite Patsy's comment that JB put them on herself- she forgot that it was already known that JB couldn't read yet. Someone would have picked that pair out for her.
    There are more than one reason why the panties that were supposed to be for Jenny ended up on JB. One could be the need to match the day- certainly, especially if there was any chance that someone at the White's had helped her in the bathroom (a common thing for JB) and would have noticed a novelty panty that said "Wednesday" as opposed to a plain pair.
    There is also the possibility that they did not wish to go upstairs to get a pair of her own because of the risk of BR hearing them or coming in to see what they were doing. I also feel that, despite what was happening, they didn't want to put a pair of her own panties on her because, as LE reported, ALL of the panties belonging to JB had fecal stains in them and, as unlikely as this may seem to people, they just didn't want her to be found in stained undies.
    DeeDee249,

    I see nothing in my comments that would infer that I was ruling out replacing the size 6 panties for a day of the week match. ALL I said was that I believed they did not think anyone would notice the SIZE.
    mmm, well if you do not notice the size, should the day of the week be at all relevant?

    ALL of the panties belonging to JB had fecal stains in them and, as unlikely as this may seem to people, they just didn't want her to be found in stained undies.
    Now you can never rule anything out, but this explanation ranks well beneath a day of the week reason. How about the urine staining?

    Personally I reckon JonBenet is wearing those size-12's because whomever redressed her, their staging scenario required underwear.

    I do not think the size-12's are an arbitrary choice e.g. they were conveniently close to hand so on they went.

    The person redressing JonBenet had a motive for doing so, maybe this conforms to cynic's suggestion of undoing, and if we add in your thought that underwear without stains were required then we are done.

    At this point I think I'll opt for day of the week as being the motive for redressing JonBenet in those size-12's.


    .

  43. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  44. #273
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,752
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,


    mmm, well if you do not notice the size, should the day of the week be at all relevant?


    Now you can never rule anything out, but this explanation ranks well beneath a day of the week reason. How about the urine staining?

    Personally I reckon JonBenet is wearing those size-12's because whomever redressed her, their staging scenario required underwear.

    I do not think the size-12's are an arbitrary choice e.g. they were conveniently close to hand so on they went.

    The person redressing JonBenet had a motive for doing so, maybe this conforms to cynic's suggestion of undoing, and if we add in your thought that underwear without stains were required then we are done.

    At this point I think I'll opt for day of the week as being the motive for redressing JonBenet in those size-12's.


    .

    UK Guy, I already SAID that there is a possibility that the panties were needed because they said "WEdnesday". IF JB had been wearing a pair that said "Wednesday" in her own size, there was a possibility that someone at the White's may have helped her in the bathroom and noticed the panties. However, this would mean that Patsy bought a set for JB (size 6-8) as well as Jenny (size 12-14). And the small set would have been in JB's panty drawer. Police removed ALL of JB's panties that were there. NO "day of the week" panties. There is a possibility that they were not in the drawer, but already packed for the trip(s). They were recently bought, so would be newer than her other pairs. Lots of people pack new undies for a trip.

    The urine staining was from urine released at the time of death. They were not stains that were already present on the panties. This is very different from all her other panties, which showed fecal stains that did not wash out, and were evidence of poor wiping or soiling one's pants.
    I maintain the panties were not random either. The Wednesday pair would be in the middle of the package. If it was a matter of simply pulling out a pair, it woudn't be THAT pair.
    JB didn't read yet. IF she wore a Wednesday pair that day at all- someone picked it out for her to put on.

    I said they though no one would make a big deal of the size. This is different then not noticing the panties were too large. They were larger than she usually wore- so what? THIS was the parents' thinking. Again (and this is getting tiring)- JB was NOT walking around in the huge panties. She was unconscious and they were UNDER her snug-fitting lonhjohns. Had she not been undressed in the morgue, NO ONE would have noticed she was wearing such large panties, because not apparent when she was brought up from the basement or when the coroner first examined the body.
    Last edited by DeeDee249; 04-08-2011 at 03:22 PM.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  45. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  46. #274
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    UK Guy, I already SAID that there is a possibility that the panties were needed because they said "WEdnesday". IF JB had been wearing a pair that said "Wednesday" in her own size, there was a possibility that someone at the White's may have helped her in the bathroom and noticed the panties. However, this would mean that Patsy bought a set for JB (size 6-8) as well as Jenny (size 12-14). And the small set would have been in JB's panty drawer. Police removed ALL of JB's panties that were there. NO "day of the week" panties. There is a possibility that they were not in the drawer, but already packed for the trip(s). They were recently bought, so would be newer than her other pairs. Lots of people pack new undies for a trip.

    The urine staining was from urine released at the time of death. They were not stains that were already present on the panties. This is very different from all her other panties, which showed fecal stains that did not wash out, and were evidence of poor wiping or soiling one's pants.
    I maintain the panties were not random either. The Wednesday pair would be in the middle of the package. If it was a matter of simply pulling out a pair, it woudn't be THAT pair.
    JB didn't read yet. IF she wore a Wednesday pair that day at all- someone picked it out for her to put on.

    I said they though no one would make a big deal of the size. This is different then not noticing the panties were too large. They were larger than she usually wore- so what? THIS was the parents' thinking. Again (and this is getting tiring)- JB was NOT walking around in the huge panties. She was unconscious and they were UNDER her snug-fitting lonhjohns. Had she not been undressed in the morgue, NO ONE would have noticed she was wearing such large panties, because not apparent when she was brought up from the basement or when the coroner first examined the body.
    DeeDee249,
    OK it was pragmatic redressing, the size was ignored, in favor of some other feature.


    .

  47. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  48. #275
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,898
    It was obviously important to someone that she have Wednesday panties on. From there it's also pretty obvious that someone knew there was Wednesday panties in the cellar. For me, this implies that it was Patsy who either redressed her or obtained the panties for whoever did. I really can't see John either knowing about or caring about what kind of panties were put on. If he did the staging alone he would have gotten a pair (in her size) out of her drawer and put them on. Like the rn this was an example of overkill. Had they put any pair on in her size no one would have noticed. It screams PATSY.
    "This Time We Get it Right!"

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase

  49. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to joeskidbeck For This Useful Post:


Page 11 of 114 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202161111 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •