The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
Lets put it this way: If the pants on the floor are too big for her, then applying the same reasoning used with the size-12's, they belong to someone else.

if Kolar reckons They were too big for her and were thought to belong to Burke.

Then a good starting point is that they were the correct size for Burke.

Another option is that JonBenet was cross-dressing and soiled those pants, is that a runner?

An alternative is that like the size-12's JonBenet was wearing over sized pajamas through choice.

I'll go with the pants being Burke's since this can be dis-confirmed via dna analysis and the parents telling us who owned the pants.

We cannot confirm JonBenet elected to wear both over sized pants and underwear, then changing into Burke's long johns.

.

Can you state with absolute certainty that the pajama pants weren't too small for Burke, yes or no?

 

[UKGuy]

From /u/Fr_Brown:
Where in JonBenet's room were the feces-smeared pajama bottoms "thought to belong to Burke" found? If they were in plain sight, is there a crime scene photograph of them? Were they collected?
Was the "feces-smeared candy box" collected? If not, do you know why not?
permalinkembed

[–]jameskolar 17 points 1 year ago
It is my recollection that the pj bottoms were on the floor but I didn’t see that they or the box of candy were collected. It was an odd observation noted by investigators, but I don’t think they grasped the significance of those items at the time. Interviews were still being conducted with family employees and friends during and well after the completion of the execution of the search warrants.
permalinkembedparent

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/

So, according to Kolar, it looks like neither the pajama pants nor the candy box was collected. Therefore, the fecal material on each item cannot be tested to determine origin.

icedtea4me,
For your delectation, it gives me great pleasure to suggest that it is quite likely that the pajama bottoms found on the floor belonged to BR. Just as the long johns found on JonBenet patently belong to BR. Say no more!

.

 

[UKGuy]

Can you state with absolute certainty that the pajama pants weren't too small for Burke, yes or no?

icedtea4me,
I would say they were not too small. The then current correct size for BR, i.e. his waist size, is an unknown factor.

BR may or may not have had ongoing scatological issues which were expressed during the assault on JonBenet by BR defecating into his own pajama pants.

Along with the smearing of JonBenet's candy box with feces it fits a neat behavioral pattern, which might simply be coincidental, but given BR's history on this subject it becomes more likely.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
I would say they were not too small. The then current correct size for BR, i.e. his waist size, is an unknown factor.

Is the length of the pants known, yes or no?

BR may or may not have had ongoing scatological issues which were expressed during the assault on JonBenet by BR defecating into his own pajama pants.

Are you saying that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have been skid marks, yes or no?

Along with the smearing of JonBenet's candy box with feces it fits a neat behavioral pattern, which might simply be coincidental, but given BR's history on this subject it becomes more likely.

Are you stating that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have gotten on the candy box by means of accidental transfer, yes or no?

 

[kanzz]

Is the length of the pants known, yes or no?

Are you saying that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have been skid marks, yes or no?

Are you stating that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have gotten on the candy box by means of accidental transfer, yes or no?

C'mon, icedtea4me. Let's think about this.
Do you really think that anyone can say that nearly anything in this world is absolutely, positively 100% impossible?

That's just too much to ask, for Pete's sake.

I will say this - Using common sense to interpret the terminology that was used leads me to believe:
the material was not skid marks
the material on the candy box was not merely accidental transfer

 

[Miz Adventure]

C'mon, icedtea4me. Let's think about this.
Do you really think that anyone can say that nearly anything in this world is absolutely, positively 100% impossible?

That's just too much to ask, for Pete's sake.

I will say this - Using common sense to interpret the terminology that was used leads me to believe:
the material was not skid marks
the material on the candy box was not merely accidental transfer

'"skid marks" :lol:


I think anyone who can happily touch human faeces with their bare hands has to have some kind of mental problems.

I can't even pick up dog poo with a plastic bag.

 

[UKGuy]

Is the length of the pants known, yes or no?



Are you saying that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have been skid marks, yes or no?



Are you stating that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have gotten on the candy box by means of accidental transfer, yes or no?

icedtea4me,

Is the length of the pants known, yes or no?

Yes, the length of the pants is known.

Are you saying that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have been skid marks, yes or no?

Yes.

Are you stating that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have gotten on the candy box by means of accidental transfer, yes or no?

No.


.

 

[digginin]

wow! This is fantastic work. There is just no way that Jobenet was so stupid to put on too big panties. Neither Patsy - she knew about the panties. This is a stupid and minor thing for John and he was a little bit drunk. So BURRRRRRRKEY COULD BE THE ONE. YES. I don't think the little idiot should be left out, and I think it was him. Finish. No, Patsy was downstairs and the two kids as well. Remember she was packing. Knowing Patsy this would have been a PACKING and a half. She might have been upstairs for a few minutes and spoiled vindictive brat was busy with his own thing. JB must have tried to get some attention by snatching the pineapple. But...says who? Could that not have been prepared for her? Or for them both? For sure THE PINEAPPLE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE LITTLE GIRL'S DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!! FINISH. I don't think she snatched a piece at all. She might have been sitting down to eat some. BR could have asked her for some and SHE refused and the little pest grabbed the torch and slammed her from behind. Another Theory.He could never have made the garotte, never. So he had help. JB was already "dead". There was no reaction due to the brain injury. THEY HAD TO DO SOMETHING! just imagine how terrible it must have been to "finish" the killing. Still I say that JR was not so emotional as he should have been. Can nobody ever "catch" the truth from Burkey? :maddening::maddening::rollercoaster::doh::websleuther:

 

[SS 396 SS]

wow! This is fantastic work. There is just no way that Jobenet was so stupid to put on too big panties. Neither Patsy - she knew about the panties. This is a stupid and minor thing for John and he was a little bit drunk. So BURRRRRRRKEY COULD BE THE ONE. YES. I don't think the little idiot should be left out, and I think it was him. Finish. No, Patsy was downstairs and the two kids as well. Remember she was packing. Knowing Patsy this would have been a PACKING and a half. She might have been upstairs for a few minutes and spoiled vindictive brat was busy with his own thing. JB must have tried to get some attention by snatching the pineapple. But...says who? Could that not have been prepared for her? Or for them both? For sure THE PINEAPPLE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE LITTLE GIRL'S DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!! FINISH. I don't think she snatched a piece at all. She might have been sitting down to eat some. BR could have asked her for some and SHE refused and the little pest grabbed the torch and slammed her from behind. Another Theory.He could never have made the garotte, never. So he had help. JB was already "dead". There was no reaction due to the brain injury. THEY HAD TO DO SOMETHING! just imagine how terrible it must have been to "finish" the killing. Still I say that JR was not so emotional as he should have been. Can nobody ever "catch" the truth from Burkey? :maddening::maddening::rollercoaster::doh::websleuther:

Really don't think it was the pineapple. Its a possibility but if it was somethin this minute that made Burke fly off the handle it could be almost anything.

 

[buggiegirl]

Are you stating that it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for the fecal material to have gotten on the candy box by means of accidental transfer, yes or no?

The pajama pants sure, could have been skidmarks presumably. But if someone SAW poop on candy, it was probably NOT accidental transfer. Accidental poop transfer is like particles from not washing your hands, not something you'd see in a photo or walking by a box of candy. I haven't read about anyone testing the candy and finding poop particles that way, just that it was seen on the candy. Plus, and this is nasty, if the candy was chocolate, you're going to have to look VERY closely to see any kind of poop on them.

 

[digginin]

Good one there? Where was this poop?

 

[digginin]

Seems both had the bedwetting problem - go deeeeeeeeeeper here. both maybe molested? Maybe this was his attention scheme, not that he needed it, his tantrums on JB was still there to reckon with.

 

[digginin]

As I said maybe the panties was still under the Christmas tree and quicker to get hold of. Surely we all wrapped gifts in our time, just trying to avoid curious eyes. But if JB picked this out - it was known that they were there. This mistake can never be reversed. PR died with that info and mayyyyyyyyybe one day BKEY will sell info - smiling!:fence:

 

[UKGuy]

The pajama pants sure, could have been skidmarks presumably. But if someone SAW poop on candy, it was probably NOT accidental transfer. Accidental poop transfer is like particles from not washing your hands, not something you'd see in a photo or walking by a box of candy. I haven't read about anyone testing the candy and finding poop particles that way, just that it was seen on the candy. Plus, and this is nasty, if the candy was chocolate, you're going to have to look VERY closely to see any kind of poop on them.

buggiegirl,
The importance of the pajama bottoms lies in the possibility that they belonged to Burke Ramsey.

Kolar suggests this was the case in his book. Fueling speculation that Burke Ramsey was in JonBenet's bedroom on the night of her death?

JonBenet was found dead wearing a pair of Burke Ramsey's long johns, this has been explained away as JonBenet wearing Burke Ramsey's cast offs.

if so then JonBenet appeared to have a fetish over her brothers clothing, possible but I doubt it.

More likely Burke Ramsey after or during his assault on JonBenet defecated into his pajama bottoms, then removed them and left them on her bedroom floor?

The breakfast bar is not the primary crime-scene, otherwise it would have been cleaned up.

The children arrived home, had their respective snacks then moved to JonBenet's bedroom to hang out for the night, just as they did on Christmas Eve, why should Christmas Night be any different?

Except that according to Kolar Burke Ramsey harbored a violent sexual fantasy, which he enacted that night, whilst indulging in his poo smearing fetish?

.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM

Did you enjoy writing that? It wouldn't surprise me if you did.

icedtea4me,
Not quite. I took extreme pleasure in elucidating Kolar's implied BDI.

Noting your concern, if there are any details which I omitted that you consider might elevate my future enjoyment, please do not hesitate to communicate them to me.

.

 

[andreww]

buggiegirl,
The importance of the pajama bottoms lies in the possibility that they belonged to Burke Ramsey.

Kolar suggests this was the case in his book. Fueling speculation that Burke Ramsey was in JonBenet's bedroom on the night of her death?

JonBenet was found dead wearing a pair of Burke Ramsey's long johns, this has been explained away as JonBenet wearing Burke Ramsey's cast offs.

if so then JonBenet appeared to have a fetish over her brothers clothing, possible but I doubt it.

More likely Burke Ramsey after or during his assault on JonBenet defecated into his pajama bottoms, then removed them and left them on her bedroom floor?

The breakfast bar is not the primary crime-scene, otherwise it would have been cleaned up.

The children arrived home, had their respective snacks then moved to JonBenet's bedroom to hang out for the night, just as they did on Christmas Eve, why should Christmas Night be any different?

Except that according to Kolar Burke Ramsey harbored a violent sexual fantasy, which he enacted that night, whilst indulging in his poo smearing fetish?

.

Actually just finished reading Kolar's book for a second time and I don't believe I read where he said that? Do you have a quote?

 

[UKGuy]

Actually just finished reading Kolar's book for a second time and I don't believe I read where he said that? Do you have a quote?

andreww,
No, since as I said to icedtea4me, its part of Kolar's implied BDI.

Kolar is suggesting BDI All, i.e. premeditation, he tells you about BR's movements Christmas Day, e.g. Wine-Cellar, etc. He tells you about BR's alleged behavioral issues, e.g. books from the Paughs. He suggests the soiled pajama bottoms found on JonBenet's bedroom floor belong to Burke Ramsey.

JonBenet was sexually assaulted, q.v. AR & Meyer's verbatim remarks, putting it all together, Kolar is implying Burke Ramsey planned a violent sexual assault upon JonBenet, actual homicide is another question, in which he was successful. The contusions, abrasions, blunt force trauma, left on JonBenet are evidence of this.

JonBenet's injuries are not accidental, they patently result from some kind of struggle, Meyer is saying she was sexually assaulted, you have forward planning.

In other words a Violent Sexual Assault motivated by his particular behavioral issues, which Kolar categorizes with a label appropriate for a child.

.

 

[CircuitGuy]

I said 'anger' because I think the couple must have been incredibly angry with BR. Incandescent with rage, as they say.

I also think each parent blamed the other for not keeping BR away from his sister. They probably knew he hated her and harboured mean intentions towards her.

This could be the reason why they sat in separate rooms, not comforting one another - they even left the house in separate cars.

They blamed each other for allowing this to happen. For not putting BR in a special secure place (when they had the chance) where he could have received treatment and therapy. Instead they continued to allow him to live in their home knowing what he was like.

There's no reason to think the Ramsey's think in any way similar to how I think, but I cannot imagine reacting this way. I think I would have hope JBR could be resuscitated. Even if I thought my wife was negligent, I think the tragedy would overwhelm me. I would be sad and shocked. I would not be thinking about who was responsible. If they were blaming one another, it's amazing neither one of them ever cracked and told the true story. I wonder if there was some kinky or illegal thing JB and/or PR were involved with related to the crime that made them not want to go to the authorities.

 

[BoldBear]

andreww,
No, since as I said to icedtea4me, its part of Kolar's implied BDI.

Kolar is suggesting BDI All, i.e. premeditation, he tells you about BR's movements Christmas Day, e.g. Wine-Cellar, etc. He tells you about BR's alleged behavioral issues, e.g. books from the Paughs. He suggests the soiled pajama bottoms found on JonBenet's bedroom floor belong to Burke Ramsey.

JonBenet was sexually assaulted, q.v. AR & Meyer's verbatim remarks, putting it all together, Kolar is implying Burke Ramsey planned a violent sexual assault upon JonBenet, actual homicide is another question, in which he was successful. The contusions, abrasions, blunt force trauma, left on JonBenet are evidence of this.

JonBenet's injuries are not accidental, they patently result from some kind of struggle, Meyer is saying she was sexually assaulted, you have forward planning.

In other words a Violent Sexual Assault motivated by his particular behavioral issues, which Kolar categorizes with a label appropriate for a child.

You painted the narrative well here. It's a good argument for premeditation and this could be what happened.

There can, however, be other explanations for the injuries on her shoulder, neck and face. A struggle would lead to defensive posturing. Her arms would have been involved. If not the arms, then the legs. She might kick and suffer busing to her shins. There might be busing on her arms and wrists. And then, of course, there was the lack of evidence under her finger nails--just one well placed fingernail and there would have been skin--not just degraded DNA. The main injuries are in one location other than some scratches on the back of her leg and the two marks on her back. If there was a struggle between Burke and JB, wouldn't there be injuries in other locations?

 

[BoldBear]

[Snip]

The children arrived home, had their respective snacks then moved to JonBenet's bedroom to hang out for the night, just as they did on Christmas Eve, why should Christmas Night be any different?

[Snip]

Because this was Christmas night and Burke had new toys to keep him occupied. He also got up early that day (not actually early for him) to open presents.

I don't see a sexual rage as much of an issue as sibling rage. JB was known to annoy Burke when he was playing with his legos. Imagine you're trying to master a great new toy, you're all excited about getting it done, and your stupid baby sister decides to play Godzilla again.