Pink Barbie Nightgown

New Posts

U

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
11,136
Reaction score
3,903
Just thought I would add the latest information on the Gowns status.

I was listening to Tricia's interview, where Steve Thomas and James Kolar were answering questions.

James Kolar stated that what allowed him to come to a different conclusion from that of Steve Thomas or the then current DA, i.e. IDI, was that there was multiple samples of foreign touch-dna found on JonBenet's person.

So if one sample of touch-dna found in JonBenet's underwear allowed you to assume there was an intruder then surely multiple samples of touch-dna would allow you to assume more than one intruder was pesent when JonBenet was killed?

The latter conclusion Kolar thought conflicted with an absence of forensic evidence elsewhere at the crime-scene.

On the subject of the Pink Barbie Nightgown, he stated that the Gown had both Patsy's and Burke Ramsey's touch-dna on it.

Now given the prevailing wisdom regarding the Gown, i.e. it arrived in the wine-cellar via statically clinging to the White Blanket in the washing machine?

So the Gown has presumably been washed then stuck to the White blanket, i.e. no intermediate contact, so how come Burke Ramsey's touch-dna has arrived on the Gown?

Then there is the bloodstain on the Gown, sourced by DNA to JonBenet, again how come after JonBenet has been cleaned up, redressed etc, does blood arrive on the gown, because JonBenet is now dressed and wrapped in the White blanket?

I have always thought the static cling theory, to be just that, and with the latest evidence regarding Patsy and Burke Ramsey's touch-dna, its time for it to be discontinued.

As an aside James Kolar also confirmed that after JonBenet's death both Patsy and Burke Ramsey were prescribed some form of medication.


.
 
BR's DNA being on that nightgown is an admission we rarely have seen. It is not something that LE has been forthcoming about. I read Kolar's book, but don't recall reading this. Was in in there? If not, why not? I assume if he did know about it, it is part of what led him to his BDI conclusion. Skin cells would probably not survive a session in the washer/dryer. This indicates that the skin cells on the pink nightie were deposited that night. I have to consider the possibility that the pink nightie may not have been stuck by static cling. I have to consider that she may have been originally wearing it. Patsy's forearm hair was found on the blanket, Patsy's skin cells indicate she helped dress JB in the pink nightie, BR's skin cells indicate he may have UNdressed her. I cannot imagine another scenario where BR's DNA got on the nightie.
The rogue male DNA on the panty and longjohns waistbands indicate likely transfer from one the parents.
I'd put my money on JR because he had been PROVEN to have had his hands around her waist- likely touching both garments in that exact same place. While ML says that DNA must only be the result of the "killer" pulling them up and down, she ignores a police detective's EYEWITNESS account of JR carrying his dead daughter upstairs with his hands in that exact place on her clothes.

If it is true that Patsy dressed JB in the pink nightie first, then the clothes she was found in are pure staging. JB's own blood on both the nightie and blanket indicate it had to have gotten there that night.
 
I was thinking about the pink Barbie nightie yesterday, and I also think she had it on, and it was removed. She was in the wine cellar, which was probably quite cool. Did PR really think that JB should be dressed in clothing that would keep her warm, even though her child was dead
The covering of her with the blanket? The ideology of these people is like non I have ever seen.
I mentioned before that I seem to remember that JBR spent most of the day in her room - wasn't it Patsy who said she did not feel well? Was that the 24th. If JB was sexually molested on the 23rd, and it was serious enough to call 911, that could be why Patsy said she was ill and spent most of the day in bed.
 
Darlene733510 said:
I was thinking about the pink Barbie nightie yesterday, and I also think she had it on, and it was removed. She was in the wine cellar, which was probably quite cool. Did PR really think that JB should be dressed in clothing that would keep her warm, even though her child was dead
The covering of her with the blanket? The ideology of these people is like non I have ever seen.
I mentioned before that I seem to remember that JBR spent most of the day in her room - wasn't it Patsy who said she did not feel well? Was that the 24th. If JB was sexually molested on the 23rd, and it was serious enough to call 911, that could be why Patsy said she was ill and spent most of the day in bed.
Click to expand...

Darlene733510,
Well JonBenet was out playing on her bike Christmas Day. I do remember reading something about JonBenet being unwell and staying in her room.

Confirmation that this did indeed happen adds another link to events of 12/23/96 and makes me think that what happened on Christmas Night was linked with the Ramsey Christmas Party, i.e. someone felt they were losing control over JonBenet?


.
 
DeeDee249 said:
BR's DNA being on that nightgown is an admission we rarely have seen. It is not something that LE has been forthcoming about. I read Kolar's book, but don't recall reading this. Was in in there? If not, why not? I assume if he did know about it, it is part of what led him to his BDI conclusion. Skin cells would probably not survive a session in the washer/dryer. This indicates that the skin cells on the pink nightie were deposited that night. I have to consider the possibility that the pink nightie may not have been stuck by static cling. I have to consider that she may have been originally wearing it. Patsy's forearm hair was found on the blanket, Patsy's skin cells indicate she helped dress JB in the pink nightie, BR's skin cells indicate he may have UNdressed her. I cannot imagine another scenario where BR's DNA got on the nightie.
The rogue male DNA on the panty and longjohns waistbands indicate likely transfer from one the parents.
I'd put my money on JR because he had been PROVEN to have had his hands around her waist- likely touching both garments in that exact same place. While ML says that DNA must only be the result of the "killer" pulling them up and down, she ignores a police detective's EYEWITNESS account of JR carrying his dead daughter upstairs with his hands in that exact place on her clothes.

If it is true that Patsy dressed JB in the pink nightie first, then the clothes she was found in are pure staging. JB's own blood on both the nightie and blanket indicate it had to have gotten there that night.
Click to expand...

DeeDee249,
BR's DNA being on that nightgown is an admission we rarely have seen. It is not something that LE has been forthcoming about. I read Kolar's book, but don't recall reading this. Was in in there? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
I do not have the book, so cannot answer that one. Also Kolar said he will publish the book as an eBook on Kindle. and that he cannot service foreign orders due to the site presumably only dealing in US Dollars?

I agree with your analysis, what other way could you read it. Now Burke Ramsey is directly linked to the wine-cellar. To date he has never been cited, this now means all three Ramseys are directly linked to the forensic evidence in the wine-cellar.

Also JonBenet wearing the Pink Barbie Nightgown is consistent with the speculation regarding the lint on JonBenet's feet.


Another nugget to be served up by Kolar was that male pajamas were found on the floor in JonBenet's bedroom, probably Burke Ramsey's. I forget if he confirmed this though?

You can listen to whole interview at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2012/12/24/websleuths-radio

its approximately one hour long.

or you can download MP3 file directly here:http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2012/12/24/websleuths-radio.mp3


.
 
DeeDee249 said:
BR's DNA being on that nightgown is an admission we rarely have seen. It is not something that LE has been forthcoming about. I read Kolar's book, but don't recall reading this. Was in in there? If not, why not? I assume if he did know about it, it is part of what led him to his BDI conclusion. Skin cells would probably not survive a session in the washer/dryer. This indicates that the skin cells on the pink nightie were deposited that night. I have to consider the possibility that the pink nightie may not have been stuck by static cling. I have to consider that she may have been originally wearing it. Patsy's forearm hair was found on the blanket, Patsy's skin cells indicate she helped dress JB in the pink nightie, BR's skin cells indicate he may have UNdressed her. I cannot imagine another scenario where BR's DNA got on the nightie.
The rogue male DNA on the panty and longjohns waistbands indicate likely transfer from one the parents.
I'd put my money on JR because he had been PROVEN to have had his hands around her waist- likely touching both garments in that exact same place. While ML says that DNA must only be the result of the "killer" pulling them up and down, she ignores a police detective's EYEWITNESS account of JR carrying his dead daughter upstairs with his hands in that exact place on her clothes.

If it is true that Patsy dressed JB in the pink nightie first, then the clothes she was found in are pure staging. JB's own blood on both the nightie and blanket indicate it had to have gotten there that night.
Click to expand...

Here's the info from Kolar's book re the DNA talked about above:

pg 413: There had been trace DNA samples located in the crotch and waistband of her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male. This became known as Distal Stain 007-2.
pg 414: The new technology of Touch DNA identified trace samples in the waistband of the leggings that matched the unidentified male DNA (Distal Stain 007-2) in the underwear.
Also pg 414: Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the Body of JonBenet. This Touch DNA belonged to Patsy and Burke Ramsey. No surprise there: they all lived in the same house.

So, whichever male left trace DNA in the blood mixture also left touch DNA on the waistband of the leggings. And Kolar does point out the touch DNA on the nightgown, but then diminishes it's importance since they all lived in the house. ??

I'm led to believe the nightgown DID NOT stick to the blanket by static cling after all.
 
Not sure how BR's touch DNA would end up on the nightie. I know skin cells are so easily transferrable, but it is still troubling that they are on a blood-spattered nightie found next to his dead sister.
Patsy's are easier to explain- she dressed her daughter for bed every night. Although her touch DNA could still have been part of the crime. We can't just say "oh well they all lived in the same house, so it's expected". Even taking that into account, there are some places I wouldn't expect it to be: namely BR's on that nightie.
That's just like trying to explain away Patsy's fibers. Yes, she lived there and so did that jacket but the presence of those fibers on things specific to the crime (the tape, cord, paint tote) cannot be explained in an innocent way.
 
DeeDee249 said:
Not sure how BR's touch DNA would end up on the nightie. I know skin cells are so easily transferrable, but it is still troubling that they are on a blood-spattered nightie found next to his dead sister.
Patsy's are easier to explain- she dressed her daughter for bed every night. Although her touch DNA could still have been part of the crime. We can't just say "oh well they all lived in the same house, so it's expected". Even taking that into account, there are some places I wouldn't expect it to be: namely BR's on that nightie.
That's just like trying to explain away Patsy's fibers. Yes, she lived there and so did that jacket but the presence of those fibers on things specific to the crime (the tape, cord, paint tote) cannot be explained in an innocent way.
Click to expand...

I could accept transference of the fibers through Patsy hugging, kissing goodnight, or dressing JB for bed, so if on a jury I couldn't convict based on that evidence. Also, if BR had been hugged & kissed by his Mom while she was wearing that jacket, and BR then handled the cord, paintbrush, or tape, ditto - possible transference. But it certainly makes more sense that the fibers would have landed in all the crime evidence from direct contact. Still, it leaves reasonable doubt.

Now the touch DNA, I guess either PR or BR could have also transfered the other's to the Nightgown. So, you would think one of them had to have had contact with that Nightgown found in the WC the night of the murder. Interestingly, no touch DNA of JR's was said to have been on the Nightgown. Nor anyone else's for that matter. But just because we don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't there. It could be redacted information.

DD - do you know of a complete list of those who were DNA tested? Did they ever test any of Burke's male friends/playmates, i.e. the sons of Stine, White, Fernie or also the 'friend of Fernie' that was on the Dec 23rd party list? Any male who attended the party at the Ramsey's on the 23rd would be the most likely to have left the most fresh 'unidentified' touch DNA behind which could have easily been acquired and then deposited onto JB by the perpetrator. And if the perp was wearing gloves, his touch DNA would not be left behind, but the 'unidentified male' could be, right?

But what's to say the DNA that was part of Distal Stain 007-2 had to be from an ADULT male? Or was that able to be proved.
 
Burke's DNA could have been transferred from Patsy touching him then touching JonBenet or from the two children having a snack together or other innocent explanation. Patsy and Burke's DNA can't be given more weight than the unknown DNA, in my opinion. The important part is there are so many non-matching samples on JonBenet that unless a small foreign faction was involved non of it means much. Maybe we haven't been told all the locations where known DNA was found????

The fibers are a different story because of the number and locations found that directly relate to the crime.
 
BOESP said:
Burke's DNA could have been transferred from Patsy touching him then touching JonBenet or from the two children having a snack together or other innocent explanation. Patsy and Burke's DNA can't be given more weight than the unknown DNA, in my opinion. The important part is there are so many non-matching samples on JonBenet that unless a small foreign faction was involved non of it means much. Maybe we haven't been told all the locations where known DNA was found????

The fibers are a different story because of the number and locations found that directly relate to the crime.
Click to expand...

I agree that 'touch DNA' is not going to solve this---Only if it someday, somehow pointed to a real IDI. With the factory worker possibility, and all the people who had been in that house in the last few days before Christmas---What if foreign DNA was on a kitchen chair when JB ate her pineapple? Patsy was no housekeeper; and because of the recent parties, there were 'foreign' skin cells all over that house that day.
Especially if JB had worn the nightie more than one night since it had been washed---If she slept in BR's bed with it, or walked around in it after a gathering of strangers---all the skin-cell DNA would be meaningless, unless it leads to a total stranger with priors & no alibi.

Seriously, I often wear 'jammies' a few times between washings---Does anyone think that unless it had been peed on, Patsy would wash the nightie EVERY time?

Even the 'matching male DNA' on two items could have been picked up from a surface in the house, from a recent innocent visitor. JMO.
Dandruff? Dry flaky skin? It's gross that someone could have sprinkled himself innocently at that house, but by no means impossible. imo imo
 
midwest mama said:
I could accept transference of the fibers through Patsy hugging, kissing goodnight, or dressing JB for bed, so if on a jury I couldn't convict based on that evidence. Also, if BR had been hugged & kissed by his Mom while she was wearing that jacket, and BR then handled the cord, paintbrush, or tape, ditto - possible transference. But it certainly makes more sense that the fibers would have landed in all the crime evidence from direct contact. Still, it leaves reasonable doubt.

Now the touch DNA, I guess either PR or BR could have also transfered the other's to the Nightgown. So, you would think one of them had to have had contact with that Nightgown found in the WC the night of the murder. Interestingly, no touch DNA of JR's was said to have been on the Nightgown. Nor anyone else's for that matter. But just because we don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't there. It could be redacted information.

DD - do you know of a complete list of those who were DNA tested? Did they ever test any of Burke's male friends/playmates, i.e. the sons of Stine, White, Fernie or also the 'friend of Fernie' that was on the Dec 23rd party list? Any male who attended the party at the Ramsey's on the 23rd would be the most likely to have left the most fresh 'unidentified' touch DNA behind which could have easily been acquired and then deposited onto JB by the perpetrator. And if the perp was wearing gloves, his touch DNA would not be left behind, but the 'unidentified male' could be, right?

But what's to say the DNA that was part of Distal Stain 007-2 had to be from an ADULT male? Or was that able to be proved.
Click to expand...

I believe there is a complete list somewhere on http://www.acandyrose.com

There is no way to tell whether DNA is from an adult male unless it is semen, and even then it could be from a younger male. Semen implies an age over puberty, but that is not limited to adults obviously. As far as we know the only semen at the scene was found on the dark comforter/blanket/duvet (it has been described as all three) found in the suitcase and it was sources to JAR.
 
I looked all over for any information on the DNA testing of friends/family to see if there was anything up-to-date. Couldn't find anything on ACR, but I did check at pbworks and found what was there (last edited in 2007). Scroll down to "Who Has Submitted DNA Blood Samples?"

There is also additional detail and speculation on DS and FW-III beginning here. Keep in mind they were still testing additional people at least as late as 1999, as seen in this article on LHP's 13-yo daughter being tested.

I also ran across some interesting info on the Stines here (for anyone not very familiar with them) while at ACR.

This is off the subject of the DNA, but reading through the Stine stuff just got me PO'd all over again. Question:Has anyone here at WS ever gone on an out-of-town, over-the-weekend trip (pleasure -- not business) with another couple that you did not consider a close friend?
19 A. Susan and Glenn Stine.
20 Q. Should I add them to your list of close friends?
21 A. They were not close friends, believe it or not.
22 They were friends, but we didn't socialize a lot with
23 them.
Click to expand...
18 MIKE KANE: Okay. Now I think yesterday
19 that you mentioned when one of the parades on
20 December the 6th, that you were away then. Do you
21 recall where you were then?
 22 JOHN RAMSEY: We had gone to New York
23 that weekend with Susan and Glen Stine. They
24 invited us to go. I forget when Glen came back, it
25 was like a Friday and they came back on the Sunday

 1 or something like that.
2 MIKE KANE: Where did you stay then?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: I can see the place; I
4 can't tell you the name. Patsy might remember.
5 MIKE KANE: In Manhattan?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, it was downtown. It
7 was near the theatre district. The Marriott or
8 something like that.
Click to expand...
 
otg said:
I looked all over for any information on the DNA testing of friends/family to see if there was anything up-to-date. Couldn't find anything on ACR, but I did check at pbworks and found what was there (last edited in 2007). Scroll down to "Who Has Submitted DNA Blood Samples?"

There is also additional detail and speculation on DS and FW-III beginning here. Keep in mind they were still testing additional people at least as late as 1999, as seen in this article on LHP's 13-yo daughter being tested.

I also ran across some interesting info on the Stines here (for anyone not very familiar with them) while at ACR.

This is off the subject of the DNA, but reading through the Stine stuff just got me PO'd all over again. Question:Has anyone here at WS ever gone on an out-of-town, over-the-weekend trip (pleasure -- not business) with another couple that you did not consider a close friend?
Click to expand...

otg,
From PBWorks
Internet poster Jameson said that Doug Stine's DNA was not a match.
Click to expand...
Sleight of hand here. We all assume now that the touch-dna on JonBenet that is foreign has some innocent explanation, i.e. random transfer.

What we want to know is was Doug Stine's touch-dna found anywhere in the house, because the basement is staging, and primary crime-scene is probably elsewhere in the house.

The R's were dissembling when interviewed about the Stines. What might be revealing is to place their answers from different interviews side by side and check for a pattern?

I'm convinced the Stines acted in collusion with the R's both prior to and after the death of JonBenet. That they both had a common motive which was to obscure the identity of the person(s) who had been abusing JonBenet.

If JonBenet had been molested at the Party on 12/23 then this is what I reckon produced the tension between Patsy and JonBenet running through to the evening of 12/25. This might explain the rejection of the doll, the refusal to wear matching outfits etc. If its true, staying in bed ill?

Patsy must have been attempting to assert control over JonBenet, telling her to forget the 12/23 incident etc. So when they returned from the White's someone in the Ramsey household tried to reinstate the status quo, but something went seriously wrong, resulting in the death of JonBenet.


.
 
I put zero percent confidence in any claim made by Jammie, Tril, Mame, or any other internet poster who claims to have exclusive inside information. However, that being said, I can't imagine that friends of both Ramsey children, regardless of their age, would have not had their DNA tested, if for no other reason than to be able to eliminate a possible match.

DS was approximately BR's age. They were buds. They were, and are still (I understand) close. The two couples met through the friendship of the two boys. When the Stines and Ramseys became closer friends after JB's death, the two boys spent lots of time together and became even closer. (This is all from accounts I have read online -- not any exclusive inside information I claim to have.) BR accompanied PR to the door of the Stines to deliver a Christmas gift.

FW-III, on the other hand was actually closer to JB's age, but because of the friendship between the Whites and Ramseys, and because JB was a girl, BR and FW-III played together a lot.

It has been speculated (just to put this out there for consideration), that DS might have been picked up that night by the R's with the idea that he would be traveling with them the next morning, and the events of that night put a kink in that plan. Bicycle tracks in the snow? An early morning phone call? And why were the Stines the only friends not called that morning along with everyone else the R's knew?

I don't think this is the most likely case, but I don't completely discount the possibility.
 
otg said:
I put zero percent confidence in any claim made by Jammie, Tril, Mame, or any other internet poster who claims to have exclusive inside information. However, that being said, I can't imagine that friends of both Ramsey children, regardless of their age, would have not had their DNA tested, if for no other reason than to be able to eliminate a possible match.

DS was approximately BR's age. They were buds. They were, and are still (I understand) close. The two couples met through the friendship of the two boys. When the Stines and Ramseys became closer friends after JB's death, the two boys spent lots of time together and became even closer. (This is all from accounts I have read online -- not any exclusive inside information I claim to have.) BR accompanied PR to the door of the Stines to deliver a Christmas gift.

FW-III, on the other hand was actually closer to JB's age, but because of the friendship between the Whites and Ramseys, and because JB was a girl, BR and FW-III played together a lot.

It has been speculated (just to put this out there for consideration), that DS might have been picked up that night by the R's with the idea that he would be traveling with them the next morning, and the events of that night put a kink in that plan. Bicycle tracks in the snow? An early morning phone call? And why were the Stines the only friends not called that morning along with everyone else the R's knew?

I don't think this is the most likely case, but I don't completely discount the possibility.
Click to expand...

otg,
They may have been tested for a match against the foreign touch-dna deposited on JonBenet, but since that is quite likely a random sample, we might expect a null match. Was any DS touch-dna sample tested against samples taken from elsewhere in the house, i.e. had DS been in the house and where?


FW-III, on the other hand was actually closer to JB's age, but because of the friendship between the Whites and Ramseys, and because JB was a girl, BR and FW-III played together a lot.
Click to expand...
So how come the Whites were ran over by the Ramsey Bus? Also they were called over on 12/26!

Although DS may or may not have travelled back to the R's on the night of 12/25. Which would offer Two Reasons for colluding. Whats more important are the events of 12/23 at the Christmas Party. Answer the question: was JonBenet molested on 12/23? If so then like a jigsaw both the Ramsey and Stine behaviour has an explanation, which likely has an impact directly on JonBenet's death. If DS was present at the Ramsey household 12/25 then it simply reinforces what we already know, what I think is important about 12/23 is the aspect of chronic abuse and the likelyhood that this had been a periodic event, coinciding with weekends and school holidays, etc?

Again for me its like a beacon or a red flag whatever metaphor you like: why did Susan Stine answer the door in relation to the 911 call, why not any other parent, indeed why not Patsy or John, just who was she protecting?

We really need one of those parents at the 12/23 Party to confirm that JonBenet was molested that evening?


.
.
 
Unfortunately UKGuy, I don't see the people at the R's on the 23rd saying anything about anything. That could change however, with a trial.

If JB was molested on 12/23 and the R's and S's were aware of it, why would the R's allow DS to go to their home the night of the 25th??

If my daughter had been molested, I would not only want whoever was responsible punished, but I would not in good conscious allow that person back in to my house, or get cozier with the family involved. That is just sick!!

I understand in the R's appearance driven life, that if BR was involved in the incident, they would not want that to be known, but still, why let DS be given access to JB or br near BR as it may have been a gateway to further incidents of abuse to JB.
 
SunnieRN said:
Unfortunately UKGuy, I don't see the people at the R's on the 23rd saying anything about anything. That could change however, with a trial.

If JB was molested on 12/23 and the R's and S's were aware of it, why would the R's allow DS to go to their home the night of the 25th??

If my daughter had been molested, I would not only want whoever was responsible punished, but I would not in good conscious allow that person back in to my house, or get cozier with the family involved. That is just sick!!

I understand in the R's appearance driven life, that if BR was involved in the incident, they would not want that to be known, but still, why let DS be given access to JB or br near BR as it may have been a gateway to further incidents of abuse to JB.
Click to expand...

SunnieRN,
I tend to agree with you. That DS was present on the 12/25 was never part of my theory.

Only that JonBenet was molested on 12/23 which resulted in a cover up, from which the fall out fed into the abuse of JonBenet on 12/25.

Unfortunately UKGuy, I don't see the people at the R's on the 23rd saying anything about anything. That could change however, with a trial.
Click to expand...
Some are already on record as stating they were aware of JonBenet's behaviour and had intended to discuss it with Patsy, sometime in January 1997.

Nobody needs to name names etc, only that the alleged behavioural issues related to innapropriate sexual conduct?

Tricia could poll those concerned, no need to go raking trash cans, simply honest journalism, a conference call might bring forward some nuggets of information.

Everyone wants their Ten minutes of fame, blogtalk radio could do that?


We just want confirmation that the 911 call was in fact related to JonBenet being molested. Names and identity is superfluous since JonBenet and Patsy have left us.
 
UK Guy, I still come back to DP being there and hastily out of town the next day. I think there are many more skeletons in the closet than we will ever know.

Love your idea about Tricia doing a poll. Very interesting idea!
 
SunnieRN said:
UK Guy, I still come back to DP being there and hastily out of town the next day. I think there are many more skeletons in the closet than we will ever know.

Love your idea about Tricia doing a poll. Very interesting idea!
Click to expand...

SunnieRN,

Maybe its DP and the parents talking with Patsy is a smokescreen for DP, who knows?

Even if it was DP, you have to factor in the Stines and how they climbed into bed with the Ramsey's?

Also alike DS not being wanted at the R's house, then why would DP avail himself of such an atypical situation, i.e. all those witnesses present.

Yup, Tricia would get them talking. Make it a ladies night special phone in. No guys allowed, invite some celeb on to and leave the big questions until near the end.


.
 
UKGuy said:
SunnieRN,
I tend to agree with you. That DS was present on the 12/25 was never part of my theory.

Only that JonBenet was molested on 12/23 which resulted in a cover up, from which the fall out fed into the abuse of JonBenet on 12/25.


Some are already on record as stating they were aware of JonBenet's behaviour and had intended to discuss it with Patsy, sometime in January 1997.

Nobody needs to name names etc, only that the alleged behavioural issues related to innapropriate sexual conduct?
Tricia could poll those concerned, no need to go raking trash cans, simply honest journalism, a conference call might bring forward some nuggets of information.

Everyone wants their Ten minutes of fame, blogtalk radio could do that?


We just want confirmation that the 911 call was in fact related to JonBenet being molested. Names and identity is superfluous since JonBenet and Patsy have left us.
Click to expand...

BBM I'm confused. I thought they were planning to talk to PR about her "obsession" with the pageants and how she was going overboard with JBR. Are you saying that they were going to complain about JBR's supposed "sexually inappropriate" behavior?

IOW, they thought JBR's behavior was the issue, and not PR's behavior? I missed something, somewhere along the line.:waitasec:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 180 more.
Total: 1,557 (members: 181, guests: 1,376)

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
1,376
Total visitors
1,557
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,801
Messages
17,959,078
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top