Also, its widely accepted that Patsy never went to bed as her clothes were the same as the previous night, and her makeup was perfect. John woke up first, so Patsy must have been sleeping still. If that were the case, why would she not change clothes?
When I first read about this tidbit in Steve Thomas's book, it chilled me to the bone.
Here is a woman hellbent on perfection and appearances. She gets out of her Christmas morning clothes and into an outfit that she wears to the Whites' dinner party. She gets home somewhere around 9:30 or 10:00 pm, packs for a time, then undresses for bed. Then she gets up the next morning she wears the same clothing? This hardly seems likely.
Sure, she could argue that with so many other clothes being packed away and the hectic nature of that holiday that she didn't want to bother putting together another outfit that morning or laying one out that night. But is it really believable for PR to do something like that, especially when she took the time to do her hair and makeup (which she admits)? And would she really wear a dressy outfit like that on an early morning flight to their lake house, especially when candid photos of the family show them in more casual and even athletic outfits there?
Really?
Even if you can get past all of that, here comes the chilling part...
Steve Thomas questions her about her clothing on April 30, 1997, specifically her habits about wearing the same outfit two days in a row. On May 1, 1997, the Ramseys do another televised interview with the press and
she wears the exact same outfit as the one she wore to the interview on April 30.
http://bit.ly/2d2zo1k And let's not forget that her clothing was so critical because fibers from PR's 12/25-12/26 outfit were located in incriminating places, most notably the sticky side of the duct tape that covered JBR's mouth. Nor should we forget that the only reason PR knew about this fiber evidence was because her legal team had been provided all of the police reports as a condition of submitting to the interview in the first place. And oh yeah, it took many, many, MANY months for LE to ever receive PR's clothing for evidence after they requested it, and once they did it was apparent (according to Steve Thomas) that it was brand new and not what PR had actually worn in December 1996.
So even if you can buy PR's explanation for this evidence during the interview and disregard the importance of her foreknowledge of the fiber evidence (or deny it altogether), you cannot reasonably argue that her wearing that outfit on 4/30 and 5/1 was not intentional. That was no coincidence, and so you have to then ask yourself why. Is it an innocent woman who feels persecuted by the BPD and wants to prevent adding fuel to their fire? Or, given the totality of the evidence in this case - forensic and behavioral - is this another key in confirming PR's guilt in some form or another?
