Great question! I wonder that myself- did she know the red turtleneck was found balled up in JBR's bathroom and/or that she would be questioned about it and that's why she volunteered that info?
0n the 25 December, John heads for the airport to load Christmas gifts going to Michigan, and to check on the plane which would be piloted by Mike Archuleta.
Returning from the aiport, the children were called in to get ready for the White's party. Patsy wanted JonBenét to wear a red turtleneck with her black velvet pants, so that mother and daughter would be dressed alike. JonBenét rebelled, and had chosen her own outfit. Patsy gave in and JonBenét wore her own outfit complete with boots trimmed with animal print.
Det Trujillo asks what JonBenét wore to bed. Patsy states JonBenét wore a shirt from the Gap - white with rhinestoned star. States JonBent rebelled about wearing a red sweater to match her Mom, and they had a little riff about that.
Patsy said JonBenet went to sleep wearing long white underwear and a red turtleneck top.
20 TRIP DeMUTH: This might be the
21 drawer open slightly.
22 THOMAS HANEY: Number 18?
23 TRIP DeMUTH: How about the red
24 item in the upper right-hand corner?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's a
0266
1 little turtleneck, a little cotton turtleneck,
2 and I had wanted her to wear it to the Whites
3 and she didn't want to wear it.
4 TRIP DeMUTH: How did it end up
5 there?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Don't remember. A
7 crown. Oh, God.
8 THOMAS HANEY: It's about 10:25.
9 Do you want to take about a ten-minute break,
10 how's that sound? We will come back.
On the bathroom counter lay a balled-up child's red turtleneck sweater. Although Patsy said JonBenet had gone to bed wearing a red turtlneck. The body was discovered in the same white pullover worn the evening before. Who had changed her clothes?
In his chat with crimenews2000 Steve Thomas said that indeed JonBenet wore the white gap shirt to the Whites.
Then we found some nuggets of useful information in the written replies to the sixteen questions that Detective Arndt had faxed to the Ramseys.
It was obvious that lawyers wrote the answers, which were crafted in stilted legalese... ... ...
The Question: "What was JonBenét wearing when she went to bed on Christmas Day night? was obliquely answered: "The best recollection is that she was wearing long underwear pants and a polo shirt when she went to bed." It did not mention the color the shirt was - the white one on the body, or the red, as Patsy had said on December 26. It did not mention the word turtleneck, which she had told the police on the morning the body was found.
It was an extremely evasive answer to a simple question.
Nedra Paugh becomes evasive when asked by Steve thomas about bed wetting history of JonBenet. Patsy had told Police the child had gone to sleep in a red turtleneck although the body was found in a white top. The turtleneck had been discovered rolled up on the bathroom sink.
Good question --I just thought of this: is it possible that PR lied about when this argument occurred? What if this argument occurred the night after the family got home (on Christmas)? Remember, PR stated that she would wear clothes to bed if she were waking up early the next day (which I don't believe, but I digress) -- but what if she was planning on dressing JBR up in the clothes she wanted her to wear for the flight the next morning (to save time)? She obviously would want to move the argument prior to that night, in that it could have been the catalyst for the murder. Just brainstorming on the spot.
I feel like, JBR was dressed in that red sweater that (Christmas) night, but after wetting the bed (perhaps multiple times), that's when it was removed and when PR flew into a rage. She wanted to move the event up to before the White's Christmas party because she knew it was the catalyst.
Userid,
If the red turtleneck was a catalyst for JonBenet's death and Patsy redressed JonBenet in the white gap top, then why ever advance this information, she knew how important it was to hide this?
i.e. why would Patsy just not leave JonBenet in the red turtleneck since she is going to claim she redressed JonBenet in the long underwear, so where is the percentage in confusing us all with a redundant change into the white gap top?
IMO different people redressed JonBenet at different times then others forgot who did what, where and when?
.
There's this case currently in the States where a husband murdered his wife and 2 children. After the morning when he buried them, he was on TV imploring them to come home. In this interview, he admitted that he and his wife had an "emotional conversation, I'll just leave it at that" the last time he saw her. My point is, your question applies to this situation too: why would he volunteer this information? Of course, I can't say why PR would feel she needed to volunteer the fact that there was some sort of argument/confrontation (i.e. emotional conversation), but she did, just like the husband. Perhaps she thought that this information would be volunteered by BR? Or JR? So she wanted to get "ahead of it" so to speak? Your guess is as good as mine.
Userid,
BBM: That's my point, so why bother compounding an unknown by redressing JonBenet in the White Gap Top?
Patsy does not need to redress JonBenet in the White Gap Top, she can leave her wearing the Red Turleneck, since she is going to say she redressed JonBenet in the long underwear.
i.e. Patsy is using the Tiff or argument to explain why the Red Turleneck is lying balled-up on the bathroom counter?
Looks like Patsy is explaining away someone elses staging with her own invented causes, leaving us to infer Patsy or JonBenet placed it there?
If the Red Turleneck is just incidental crime-scene artifact then Patsy can just ignore it, just as she ignores all JonBenet's dolls and toys lying scattered on her bedroom floor.
In fact when Patsy allegedly removed the Red Turleneck from JonBenet she has the option of putting it back in JonBenet's Turleneck drawer in the bathroom, see LHP's remarks, thereby sidestepping any need for a Tiff?
Occam says Patsy dressed JonBenet in the Red Turleneck then when the crime-scene was revised to that of a Kidnapping the White Gap Top was put back on to match the straight to bed version of events?
Columbo says JonBenet was completely naked in her own bedroom and that her killer redressed her there, e.g. long underwear, size-12 underwear, Red Turleneck?
.
I'm not really following you in all honesty.
If the red turtleneck was "wet," and it was removed before JBR was attacked (i.e. it was the catalyst for the attack), why would PR (or whoever) redress her in the turtleneck? She wouldn't use the garment simply because it was wet; and she would have used what JBR ended up wearing in order for her to not be naked (a motherly instinct, as was wrapping her in the blankets).
I refer to a catalyst, since I think there might be other factors present.i.e. it was the catalyst for the attack
Userid,
Steve Thomas never produced forensic evidence to back up the claim that the Red Turtleneck was wet, its just an assumption made by Steve Thomas in his PDI theory.
I refer to a catalyst, since I think there might be other factors present.
Meaning the Red Turtleneck could have been put back in its drawer in JonBenet's bathroom, then there is no need to cite a Tiff, etc.
Patsy can leave JonBenet in the Red Turtleneck as she is going say she put the long underwear on JonBenet, but that does not happen, its the white gap top that is put on JonBenet.
Is it not obvious that the person who assaulted JonBenet then redressed her, say in the long underwear, size-12's, and Red Turtleneck then afterwards this was revised to include the White Gap Top?
Patsy is offering an after the fact explanation as to why the Red Turtleneck is lying on the counter in her bathroom, but this need not be a truthful account.
If you consider the size-12 underwear, the Red Turtleneck and the Long Underwear and that JonBenet wore none of these items to the White's party, why should the addition of the White Gap Top, alone, confirm Patsy's version of events, e.g. redressing JonBenet?
Patsy might simply be offering explanations that cover up another family members involvement.
If the case is PDI then Patsy is in the business of crime-scene staging and she would like it to look realistic and compelling.
A scene resembling Sleeping Beauty in the manner of a pageant would not cut it, as JonBenet has been violently assaulted, hence the need to pose JonBenet naked from the waist down as envisaged by Columbo
In the PDI Patsy did not do this, allegedly, she redressed and normalized JonBenet, leaving her own forensic markers all over the wine-cellar crime-scene thereby invalidating her original objective, i.e to hide her involvement in her daughters death.
All of which really means the case is not PDI.
Although there has been a crime-scene staging, JonBenet's death is self evident, it cannot be hidden, but what was attempted to be masked was that she was sexually assaulted!
I do not think Patsy was abusing JonBenet.
.
All due respect, I think you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
Can you just answer the following question directly as opposed to using multiple 2 sentence paragraphs about 6 or 7 different subjects? I'm not trying to be snooty -- I really am trying to follow you, but you're a bit all over the place. Here is the question: so you're saying the JBR was "re-dressed" (after being attacked) twice that night? Once by BR (who dressed her in the red turtleneck), then once by JR (who dressed her in the white top). Is that the jist of what you're getting at?
Forget about whether it's PDI or BDI for a second, and just focus on your argument about the red turtleneck.
Userid,
Patsy's initial account to officers was that JonBenet was put to bed wearing the Red Turtleneck, later revised to the White Gap Top.
Yes I'm speculating that the Red Turtlenck played a role, i.e. that JonBenet was redressed in it by the person who assaulted her, then someone else changed it for the White Gap Top?
The size-12 underwear, long underwear and the White Gap Top are difficult to reconcile, whereas the size-12 underwear, long underwear and the Red Turtleneck seem of a kind.
In any PDI Patsy has the option of leaving JonBenet wearing the Red Turtleneck or putting the Red Turtleneck back in its drawer or just tossing it in the dirty washing basket, it does not need to be left lying on the bathroom counter.
The reason for the sentence count is to show that Patsy's account of redressing JonBenet might be false and that she is covering for another family member.
Okay, thanks -- I think I understand now.
I'm unsure that it's any easier to reconcile that the red turtleneck would go with the bloomies and the long underwear. That is just as odd to me -- odder even.
Why would BR redress her at all, let alone in this specific red turtleneck (that PR was wearing)? Why would JR redress her in the white gap top? It just doesn't make much sense to me.
PR was wearing the red turtleneck of hers; JBR's turtleneck was found on the bathroom counter (for whatever reason -- nevertheless, it was there). Was it mere coincidence that BR picked the very sweater that his mom was also wearing? Was it purposeful, and if so, why?
Why would he use a sweater of JBR's, but use his own longjohns? He obviously knew where to find the turtleneck, so it's safe to assume he knew where he clothes were located -- so why wouldn't he just use one of her pajama pants?
Where you and I differ is that, I don't believe that JBR was redressed twice after her attack that night. I suppose anything is possible, but there's really no evidence of that at all.
Also consider this: even if the red turtleneck was "dry," it would still be removed all the same if she had wet the bed. I think any parent would do that, just in case it did get wet somewhere; you wouldn't just change her below the waist.
Lastly: if she was redressed twice, and the second re-dresser changed her top from the turtleneck to the white top, why wouldn't he (JR) also change everything (i.e. her pants and underwear)? There would be zero reason to only change her top.
I agree, but we have Patsy saying Jonbenet was put to bed in the Red Turtleneck then saying they argued over it earlier, could be Patsy said to JonBenet put the Red Turleneck on for an early rising tomorrow?I'm unsure that it's any easier to reconcile that the red turtleneck would go with the bloomies and the long underwear. That is just as odd to me -- odder even.
Because he is enacting a childish attempt at staging, e.g. minimizing the damage, so to speak.Why would BR redress her at all, let alone in this specific red turtleneck (that PR was wearing)? Why would JR redress her in the white gap top? It just doesn't make much sense to me.
Was it mere coincidence, yes it might be, so why does Patsy have to tell us all about the Tiff, silence would be sufficient.PR was wearing the red turtleneck of hers; JBR's turtleneck was found on the bathroom counter (for whatever reason -- nevertheless, it was there). Was it mere coincidence that BR picked the very sweater that his mom was also wearing? Was it purposeful, and if so, why?
He might use the Red Turtleneck as it was to hand discarded earlier by JonBenet?Why would he use a sweater of JBR's, but use his own longjohns? He obviously knew where to find the turtleneck, so it's safe to assume he knew where he clothes were located -- so why wouldn't he just use one of her pajama pants?
You could be right but why does Patsy say JonBenet was put to bed wearing the Red Turtleneck?Where you and I differ is that, I don't believe that JBR was redressed twice after her attack that night. I suppose anything is possible, but there's really no evidence of that at all.
Sure, so then it could be put back into JonBenet's Turtleneck drawer in her bathroom?Also consider this: even if the red turtleneck was "dry," it would still be removed all the same if she had wet the bed. I think any parent would do that, just in case it did get wet somewhere; you wouldn't just change her below the waist
Because her underwear are blood-stained and the long underwear urine-stained, by putting on the White Gap Top Patsy can claim the redressing sequence was reversed, e.g. Size-12's, White Gap Top with Patsy just adding the long underwear?Lastly: if she was redressed twice, and the second re-dresser changed her top from the turtleneck to the white top, why wouldn't he (JR) also change everything (i.e. her pants and underwear)? There would be zero reason to only change her top.
If BR used the red turtleneck, PR would have never brought it up at all.
I respect your thoughts but I disagree with your reasoning as to why BR would use the red turtleneck and why the parents would change it but not her bottom attire. I just think you give way too much credit for a nine year old boy to even realize what "staging" is. Also, you're omitting the fact that she was clearly "wiped down," which most likely occurred by the second re-dresser in your scenario -- and that towel was never found all the same -- so no, if the towel wasn't a concern, the bottoms and/or particularly the underwear wouldn't be either (as far as disposal). It just doesn't add up for me.
We call it staging, to BR he is just trying hide whatever took place.I just think you give way too much credit for a nine year old boy to even realize what "staging" is.
Nope, I've already cited that, suggesting it was JR, e.g. see Coroner Meyers remarks and BPD's claim regarding Israeli fibers found on JonBenet's pubic area.Also, you're omitting the fact that she was clearly "wiped down," which most likely occurred by the second re-dresser
That's fine but it does not invalidate a BDI, since you can still have one redressing from the waist down leaving JonBenet in her White Gap Top?why BR would use the red turtleneck and why the parents would change it but not her bottom attire
There's no way a toilet roll could have been used -- that's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Flimsy tiny toilet-paper remnants would have been left behind. You couldn't flush an entire toilet paper roll down the toilet without it clogging (even if you did it in stages), etc.
If JR was the one who wiped her down (I can agree with this one point), again, there would have been absolutely no reason why he wouldn't have changed the underwear and long-johns in order to better stage a more cohesive story. The more plausible scenario would have been to simply keep everything (including the red turtleneck, as in your scenario) on her. The red turtleneck would have been the last item of clothing he would have worried about (in relation to the oversized underwear and the boys' long johns), if his concern was changing the clothing -- yet in your scenario, this is the only thing he changes? That doesn't make much sense.
I never said John was concerned with the clothing, only that I think he wiped JonBenet down, if this is correct then knowing John never opted to redress JonBenet, e.g. just pulled the size-12's down, then someone else possibly dressed JonBenet in the size-12's and longjohns.if his concern was changing the clothing -- yet in your scenario, this is the only thing he changes? That doesn't make much sense.
Now I'm just more confused about your theory. You're saying JR wasn't concerned about the clothes, but that he re-dressed her out of the red turtleneck, in order for them to say PR put her to bed wearing the white top. That's contradictory. If he wasn't concerned, he wouldn't have bothered changing the red turtleneck; if he was concerned, he wouldn't have only changed the red turtleneck.
I guess my overall point is: your theory falls apart based on the notion that JR would want to "correct" BR's re-dressing of JBR, but he (JR) only ends up changing the one item that BR actually got "right" so to speak (i.e. the red turtleneck). It's the one item that fits and belongs to her -- so why that would be JR's one and only "change" in the second re-dressing, before the other items, doesn't jive.
JBR was not wearing the red turtleneck to the Whites, so no, it wouldn't have indicated that she was up all night had she been found wearing it; and would have easily been explained away that PR dressed her in the next day's clothes before bed to save time.
The red turtleneck might be incidental. Then again, you can say that about anything.
I don't buy the grand majority of PR's version of events, but do admit that, she may have been truthful about things that she felt would either be revealed by someone else or things that she deemed irrelevant.
