Nuisanceposter said:
I don't think she slept that night, and I suspect that if she was actually put to bed, that she didn't stay there.
I think there was definitely something on the size 6s that required them to vanish, and the most logical conclusion, in my train of thought, is semen. That would also explain the need to wipe her off, and why the redresser didn't seem to care that her clothes were urine-soaked. I'm thinking the person who wrapped her in her blanket HAD to have noticed she was wet.
As for getting rid of the undies, how far out there is this - you could cut them up with scissors or a knife into smaller pieces and flush them down the toilet. Or you could open the seam of a stuffed toy (back to Pam's raid where she came out with stuffed toys and dolls) and jam them inside. When I was a teenager, one of my best hiding places was inside the opened seam of a stuffed rabbit I'd had for years. No one knew the seam had been worked open, and no one would have suspected it.
Maybe I've had too much coffee....
Nuisanceposter,
Nope not coffee, you just have a vivid imagination. The BPD did search all the sewerage piping for anything that had been flushed away.
Yes the size-6 pants were either placed inside another object such as a stuffed animal or inside the now opened size-12 underwear pack, or as per occam and the kiss principle, soaked in soap suds, washed out, dried, then placed back into her bathroom drawer?
I'm thinking the person who wrapped her in her blanket HAD to have noticed she was wet.
I agree, and for the same reason they would have noticed when she was being sexually assaulted either by a finger or the paintbrush handle.
Consider how the flashlight was wiped clean e.g no prints inside or out, then think about how JonBenet was wiped down, with the end result being an absence of semen, and the presence of blood and urine.
So you can see a methodical removal of the evidence that apparently mattered to the killer(s), and the ignoring of that which was deemed irrelevant.
Those that promote the
Toilet Rage theory tend to either ignore or work around these points, suggesting the wine-cellar staging was all cobbled together and unplanned, but separating out the staging elements allows you to see that they are designed in with a purpose in mind.
If JonBenet was killed say either 1AM or 2AM then thats four hours until when they had to dial 911, plenty time to plan something e.g. dumping JonBenet outdoors, or staging a homicide in the basement, during this time we know, because of its absence, little forensic evidence was discovered, excluding the wine-cellar, so whomever killed JonBenet did a good job cleaning up, it was important to them, they missed little.
And if the motive lying behind JonBenet's death was
Toilet Rage and the Ramsey's had 4-hours to cleanup and stage a homicide, why did they leave JonBenet wearing urine-soaked underwear and longjohns, including the blood-stains?
This is important it cannot incidental or accidental that a detail such as her urine-soaked longjohns were left on her , when other items such as her size-6 underwear, her socks, shoes, velvet-pants were removed, after all the
rationale that lay behind the staging in the first instance was to mask the
original circumstances of JonBenet's death and if it was
Toilet Rage provoked by a bedwetting, then the urine-soaked longjohns are inconsistent with the intended outcome!
imo the
Toilet Rage Theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.
.