No staging

[madeleine]

16 Q. Page 286, you make reference to a

17 red turtleneck being stripped off of JonBenet

18 when it got wet from I guess her bed

19 wetting.

20 MR. DIAMOND: Where are you?

21 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Third paragraph

22 down "I concluded the little girl had worn

23 the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother

24 originally said, and that it was stripped off

25 when it got wet." Are you talking about wet

357

1 from urine?

2 A. In this hypothesis we're talking

3 about, yes.

4 Q. Did you ever have or the Boulder

5 Police Department to your knowledge ever have

6 the red turtleneck found in the bathroom

7 tested forensically to determine if it had

8 any type of trace evidence or other evidence

9 on it?

10 A. Again, it sounds like you know

11 otherwise but I was under the impression from

12 Trujillo that there wasn't a presumptive test

13 for urine.

14 Q. Did anybody tell you that they

15 found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?

16 A. No, this is what I am surmising

17 in the hypothesis.

18 Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into

19 evidence?

20 A. I certainly believe it was.

21 Q. Did it have any type of urine

22 stain on it?

23 A. Not that I'm aware of. I never

24 have looked at it personally.

25 Q. Where did you get the statement

358

1 that it got wet; did you just manufacture

2 that out of whole cloth?

3 A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a

4 reasonable explanation for the final resting

5 place of this red turtleneck of which she may

6 have indeed worn home.

7 Q. But you had no evidence to support

8 that statement about the turtleneck being wet,

9 true?

10 A. No, I don't know that it was

11 urine stained.

12 Q. Or wet?

13 A. Or wet.

 

[Nom de plume]

A grown man would be held responsible for any sexual act that occurs with a person under the age of consent. I would think Patsy's rage would be towards her husband.
I don't see why you think Patsy would be helpless. Catching you're spouse having sex with your daughter of 6 years old and not rat is unforgivable. After separating such a disgusting act, causing the girl's accidental fatal head blow, should make her absolutely despise her husband.

With Burke it is much more reasonable she would keep quiet and protect.

Yes a grown man would be held responsible, both legally and morally, for any sexual act with an underage person. Any normal mother would be outraged at the adult male. However, there are women out there that don't see the girl as the victim they are, but as a rival. Far too many do protect their husbands and boyfriends, and some even throw the girl out of the house. And yes, it's unforgivable, but it does happen.

Not that I believe it's actually what happened, but I can see PR catching JR assaulting JB, blaming JB, and PR striking the head blow intentionally. That's why she'd be helpless to turn JR in, because she'd be just as guilty as he was. That's what MM was trying to say. Not that JR struck the blow in that scenario, but that PR did because she saw JB as a rival for JR's affections.

 

[UKGuy]

16 Q. Page 286, you make reference to a

17 red turtleneck being stripped off of JonBenet

18 when it got wet from I guess her bed

19 wetting.

20 MR. DIAMOND: Where are you?

21 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Third paragraph

22 down "I concluded the little girl had worn

23 the red turtleneck to bed, as her mother

24 originally said, and that it was stripped off

25 when it got wet." Are you talking about wet

357

1 from urine?

2 A. In this hypothesis we're talking

3 about, yes.

4 Q. Did you ever have or the Boulder

5 Police Department to your knowledge ever have

6 the red turtleneck found in the bathroom

7 tested forensically to determine if it had

8 any type of trace evidence or other evidence

9 on it?

10 A. Again, it sounds like you know

11 otherwise but I was under the impression from

12 Trujillo that there wasn't a presumptive test

13 for urine.

14 Q. Did anybody tell you that they

15 found the red turtleneck and that it was wet?

16 A. No, this is what I am surmising

17 in the hypothesis.

18 Q. Was the red turtleneck taken into

19 evidence?

20 A. I certainly believe it was.

21 Q. Did it have any type of urine

22 stain on it?

23 A. Not that I'm aware of. I never

24 have looked at it personally.

25 Q. Where did you get the statement

358

1 that it got wet; did you just manufacture

2 that out of whole cloth?

3 A. No, I'm suggesting that that was a

4 reasonable explanation for the final resting

5 place of this red turtleneck of which she may

6 have indeed worn home.

7 Q. But you had no evidence to support

8 that statement about the turtleneck being wet,

9 true?

10 A. No, I don't know that it was

11 urine stained.

12 Q. Or wet?

13 A. Or wet.

madeleine,
Excellent posts. Which call into question ST's judgement.

Has anyone considered wrt to ST's PDI that if you add in Coroner Meyer's observations, i.e. Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact why these are absent from ST's theory?

Should ST not have accused PR of sexually molesting JonBenet, if not, why not?

.

 

[BOESP]

madeleine,
Excellent posts. Which call into question ST's judgement.

Has anyone considered wrt to ST's PDI that if you add in Coroner Meyer's observations, i.e. Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact why these are absent from ST's theory?

Should ST not have accused PR of sexually molesting JonBenet, if not, why not?

.

There is no way to tell whether the damage consistent with digital penetration to JonBenet's private region was for sexual gratification or corporal cleansing. In fact, there was disagreement among the experts as to whether or not JonBenet was digitally penetrated.

Patsy could have done the damage in a corporal cleansing session. That session could have been precipitated for any number of reasons. It's stated all over the records that JonBenet was a bedwetter and that creatinine was found on her sheets. We also know feces was found in her bedroom. Seems clear to me that Steve Thomas's theory is a relevant as any other.

BBM above: I don't understand what you are asking.

 

[DeeDee249]

You seriously believe she was being read to while being molested?

Does this mean any bed in the house becomes a "molestation center" if there is a book on the bed? After all, you have a place to lay down, and a book to read while the molestation takes place.

I NEVER said I felt the contents of the suitcase were definitely connected to the crime at all. BUT- it is certainly possible that a child could be molested by laying them on a blanket, and reading to them to distract them. There was no bed in the basement, and yes, ANY bed can be used to molest a child, book or not. What is so unbelievable about that? It isn't a "book on the bed" that makes a bed a "molestation center". It's the molester.
But a children's book in a suitcase with a semen-stained comforter belonging to a college-age boy found in the basement where a dead, sexually molested little girl was found becomes suspicious simply because it is there. And because the children's book is an odd thing to be in the suitcase with the semen-stained comforter. The comforter would be suspicious with or without the book, but taken as a whole (book, semen, location) it does raise some flags.

 

[Chrishope]

I NEVER said I felt the contents of the suitcase were definitely connected to the crime at all. BUT- it is certainly possible that a child could be molested by laying them on a blanket, and reading to them to distract them. There was no bed in the basement, and yes, ANY bed can be used to molest a child, book or not. What is so unbelievable about that? It isn't a "book on the bed" that makes a bed a "molestation center". It's the molester.
But a children's book in a suitcase with a semen-stained comforter belonging to a college-age boy found in the basement where a dead, sexually molested little girl was found becomes suspicious simply because it is there. And because the children's book is an odd thing to be in the suitcase with the semen-stained comforter. The comforter would be suspicious with or without the book, but taken as a whole (book, semen, location) it does raise some flags.

You're missing the point. It's the idea that there is such a thing as a "portable molestation kit" as if that's something that molesters carry around that I find silly. It's the terminology.

JAR is cleared, as we've known for many years.

 

[midwest mama]

Yes a grown man would be held responsible, both legally and morally, for any sexual act with an underage person. Any normal mother would be outraged at the adult male. However, there are women out there that don't see the girl as the victim they are, but as a rival. Far too many do protect their husbands and boyfriends, and some even throw the girl out of the house. And yes, it's unforgivable, but it does happen.

Not that I believe it's actually what happened, but I can see PR catching JR assaulting JB, blaming JB, and PR striking the head blow intentionally. That's why she'd be helpless to turn JR in, because she'd be just as guilty as he was. That's what MM was trying to say. Not that JR struck the blow in that scenario, but that PR did because she saw JB as a rival for JR's affections.

Thanks, Nom - you said it well. PR once said she had to keep a eye on JB when a neighbor boy who was a bit older than JB was in the neighborhood because JB had such a crush on him. She also once said that JB was a flirt. And we have the account from LP that PR was very concerned about her inability to satisfy her husbands sexual needs. IIRC, there was also other printed info that PR was having difficulty with adjusting to the changes that came about as a result of her cancer surgery - with regard to her "functional duties" as a wife.

Then, we have the reports about how much JB missed her Daddy when he was gone, and cried for him. PR said JB was Daddy's Girl.

One only has to read some of the information about father/daughter incest to see the strong possibility that JR was involved with JB and at her age could have taught her to believe that what she was doing was very special. More than can be imagined, mothers turn a blind eye to the absolute belief that their daughter has become involved with their husband, especially if they feel they cannot "perform" well enough for him. They know what's going on, but will not let themselves accept the rivalry.

In PR's case, she was also facing the fact that her own "pageant days" were behind her, and might have seen JB's youth and natural charm and beauty in itself as a threat to her own limelight. Flames for the fire, even though PR said she loved "that child".

It seems nearly impossible to anyone who could not be caught up in a familial incest situation, but there are those parents who work hard at keeping a distance between the molester and the child, only to blame the child for "enticing" the parent into something. Sick, sad, but true.

If Patsy bashed JB into a condition which she thought was going to cause her death, out of rage in finding her with JR, IMO he would have told her he would throw her under the bus in a heartbeat if she tried to tell the cops about him and JB, but if she kept her mouth shut, he would help her make it look like anyone else BUT Patsy killed her, freeing Patsy to stick around for Burke and keep her from spending any time in prison. He would have convinced her no one would ever believe her, and all he would have to do is offer up his own side of the story about her losing her temper once again in dealing with JB. She would have taken the deal.

 

[madeleine]

There is no way to tell whether the damage consistent with digital penetration to JonBenet's private region was for sexual gratification or corporal cleansing. In fact, there was disagreement among the experts as to whether or not JonBenet was digitally penetrated.

Patsy could have done the damage in a corporal cleansing session. That session could have been precipitated for any number of reasons. It's stated all over the records that JonBenet was a bedwetter and that creatinine was found on her sheets. We also know feces was found in her bedroom. Seems clear to me that Steve Thomas's theory is a relevant as any other.

BBM above: I don't understand what you are asking.

Kolar claims in his book that the feces belonged to BR.
Anyway,I really can't imagine how corporal cleansing can cause that much blood...she bled even after she was wiped off....

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,
Excellent posts. Which call into question ST's judgement.

Has anyone considered wrt to ST's PDI that if you add in Coroner Meyer's observations, i.e. Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact why these are absent from ST's theory?

Should ST not have accused PR of sexually molesting JonBenet, if not, why not?

.

He probably knew that it's a stretch to accuse the mother if there are 2 males in the house?He conveniently left out sexual abuse (his theory) because it doesn't fit PDI.

IMO

 

[questfortrue]

Thanks, Nom - you said it well. PR once said she had to keep a eye on JB when a neighbor boy who was a bit older than JB was in the neighborhood because JB had such a crush on him. She also once said that JB was a flirt. And we have the account from LP that PR was very concerned about her inability to satisfy her husbands sexual needs. IIRC, there was also other printed info that PR was having difficulty with adjusting to the changes that came about as a result of her cancer surgery - with regard to her "functional duties" as a wife.

Then, we have the reports about how much JB missed her Daddy when he was gone, and cried for him. PR said JB was Daddy's Girl.

One only has to read some of the information about father/daughter incest to see the strong possibility that JR was involved with JB and at her age could have taught her to believe that what she was doing was very special. More than can be imagined, mothers turn a blind eye to the absolute belief that their daughter has become involved with their husband, especially if they feel they cannot "perform" well enough for him. They know what's going on, but will not let themselves accept the rivalry.

In PR's case, she was also facing the fact that her own "pageant days" were behind her, and might have seen JB's youth and natural charm and beauty in itself as a threat to her own limelight. Flames for the fire, even though PR said she loved "that child".

It seems nearly impossible to anyone who could not be caught up in a familial incest situation, but there are those parents who work hard at keeping a distance between the molester and the child, only to blame the child for "enticing" the parent into something. Sick, sad, but true.

If Patsy bashed JB into a condition which she thought was going to cause her death, out of rage in finding her with JR, IMO he would have told her he would throw her under the bus in a heartbeat if she tried to tell the cops about him and JB, but if she kept her mouth shut, he would help her make it look like anyone else BUT Patsy killed her, freeing Patsy to stick around for Burke and keep her from spending any time in prison. He would have convinced her no one would ever believe her, and all he would have to do is offer up his own side of the story about her losing her temper once again in dealing with JB. She would have taken the deal.

So much of the evidence is unbelievable and farfetched– a 9 year old with feces in JB’s room, a child both bludgeoned and strangled, an ex-beauty queen who was quite intelligent playing dumb so much, and some of the hilarious (tragic) statements from JR (the intruder/kidnapper who left all the “clever little clues”.) But it was MM’s mention of JR possibly intimidating PR which triggered some farfetched thoughts. Is it possible that initially PR wanted JR to be charged somehow, being distraught over JB’s death? This is before it became “us” against the BPD and the media. It’s known already how JR avoided comforting her on the morning of the 26th. There were some unresolved clues which the police seemingly tried to question which didn’t lead anywhere, but maybe someone else here might have some ideas. I refer to these:
1) A question over a magazine/brochure article found in a folder with “V” written over JR’s name.
2) A “V”/heart on JB’s hand. It didn’t look exactly like a heart, but could have been a “V” changed to look like a heart.
3) “Victory” in the RN
All, JMHO.

 

[questfortrue]

Forgot to add the other "clue", the dogearred dictionary pointing to the word incest. moo

 

[BOESP]

Kolar claims in his book that the feces belonged to BR.
Anyway,I really can't imagine how corporal cleansing can cause that much blood...she bled even after she was wiped off....

I only remember reading in Kolar's book that some pajama bottoms belonging to Burke were found in the bedroom and they had feces stains???? (Is this correct?) I also read somewhere JonBenet sometimes wore Burke's pajamas. Not sure about the fit but maybe it was pajamas that no longer fit Burke, as in hand-me-downs. The feces on the candy box wasn't identified in Kolar's book, iirc.

Since Thomas didn't tell us what he meant by corporal cleansing I can only guess what is meant. Linda Huffman-Pugh said she had heard Patsy in the bathroom with JonBenet more than once and that JonBenet was screaming.

I'm not sure how much blood it takes to "cause that much blood" but a little blood goes a long way in real life, especially if water is involved.

 

[UKGuy]

I only remember reading in Kolar's book that some pajama bottoms belonging to Burke were found in the bedroom and they had feces stains???? (Is this correct?) I also read somewhere JonBenet sometimes wore Burke's pajamas. Not sure about the fit but maybe it was pajamas that no longer fit Burke, as in hand-me-downs. The feces on the candy box wasn't identified in Kolar's book, iirc.

Since Thomas didn't tell us what he meant by corporal cleansing I can only guess what is meant. Linda Huffman-Pugh said she had heard Patsy in the bathroom with JonBenet more than once and that JonBenet was screaming.

I'm not sure how much blood it takes to "cause that much blood" but a little blood goes a long way in real life, especially if water is involved.

BOESP,
Regardless of the feces I think Kolar was wishing inform us that BR was linked with JonBenet's bedroom via his pajama bottoms and JonBenet's pink barbie nightgown on which was found BR's touch DNA.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

I only remember reading in Kolar's book that some pajama bottoms belonging to Burke were found in the bedroom and they had feces stains???? (Is this correct?) I also read somewhere JonBenet sometimes wore Burke's pajamas. Not sure about the fit but maybe it was pajamas that no longer fit Burke, as in hand-me-downs. The feces on the candy box wasn't identified in Kolar's book, iirc.

Since Thomas didn't tell us what he meant by corporal cleansing I can only guess what is meant. Linda Huffman-Pugh said she had heard Patsy in the bathroom with JonBenet more than once and that JonBenet was screaming.

I'm not sure how much blood it takes to "cause that much blood" but a little blood goes a long way in real life, especially if water is involved.

Some of Patsy's friends said that Patsy told them she used a douche on JB. She felt that because JB pooped in her pants, that was contributing to her vaginal irritation, and she felt this was a way to get her "cleaner". There is no actual proof that this happened, but a douche wand used too forcefully and used on a child (with a much shorter vaginal canal than the usual anatomy for which the wand was designed) can certainly cause bleeding of the amount seen with JB, as well as some of the internal injuries. But not sure that it would have caused the erosion of the hymen. That seemed to be caused by a finger rubbing the same area at the same angle repeatedly. I don't think a douche wand would have done that.

 

[BOESP]

Some of Patsy's friends said that Patsy told them she used a douche on JB. She felt that because JB pooped in her pants, that was contributing to her vaginal irritation, and she felt this was a way to get her "cleaner". There is no actual proof that this happened, but a douche wand used too forcefully and used on a child (with a much shorter vaginal canal than the usual anatomy for which the wand was designed) can certainly cause bleeding of the amount seen with JB, as well as some of the internal injuries. But not sure that it would have caused the erosion of the hymen. That seemed to be caused by a finger rubbing the same area at the same angle repeatedly. I don't think a douche wand would have done that.

I agree.

Perhaps Patsy digitally applied some type of lubricant before inserting the nozzle (if, indeed, the douching theory is valid). That could account for some erosion????????

If Patsy did engage in corporal cleansing resulting in JonBenet's head being injured then several reasons could explain why Patsy felt the need to "cleanse" JonBenet. I am still undecided about what caused the cleansing event Steve Thomas wrote about.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree.

Perhaps Patsy digitally applied some type of lubricant before inserting the nozzle (if, indeed, the douching theory is valid). That could account for some erosion????????

If Patsy did engage in corporal cleansing resulting in JonBenet's head being injured then several reasons could explain why Patsy felt the need to "cleanse" JonBenet. I am still undecided about what caused the cleansing event Steve Thomas wrote about.

Police reviewed crime scene photos with Patsy, and one showed black children's pants on the floor, with fecal matter inside them. When asked whether these were the black velvet pants JB wore that day to the White's, she said no, these were "black play pants" (Her words). Meaning the kind of pants kids use for play as opposed to the velvet "dressier" pants she wore to the party. We have no way of knowing if she was telling the truth- in the photo you wouldn't be able to tell whether the pants were velvet or some other material. I would hope these pants were taken into evidence, but I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't.
Possibly this event (JB pooping in her pants) was what precipitated ST's version of corporal cleaning. This was his euphemism for corporal punishment which involved rough cleaning, possible with the douche?

 

[madeleine]

http://www.enewhope.org/nhn/nhn-player.php?resourceid=46
http://www.enewhope.org/nhn/nhn-player.php?resourceid=48


I wanted to post the links to their last interview together but the links are no longer working
it was that interview with the hawaiian pastor

they reloaded the video

[ame="http://vimeo.com/39449004"]Connecting Point: John & Patsy Ramsey Part I on Vimeo[/ame]

[ame="http://vimeo.com/39451019"]Connecting Point: John & Patsy Part II on Vimeo[/ame]

 

[UKGuy]

Police reviewed crime scene photos with Patsy, and one showed black children's pants on the floor, with fecal matter inside them. When asked whether these were the black velvet pants JB wore that day to the White's, she said no, these were "black play pants" (Her words). Meaning the kind of pants kids use for play as opposed to the velvet "dressier" pants she wore to the party. We have no way of knowing if she was telling the truth- in the photo you wouldn't be able to tell whether the pants were velvet or some other material. I would hope these pants were taken into evidence, but I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't.
Possibly this event (JB pooping in her pants) was what precipitated ST's version of corporal cleaning. This was his euphemism for corporal punishment which involved rough cleaning, possible with the douche?

DeeDee249,
Are those not the black velvet pants lying on the pink duvet in JonBenet's bedroom?

Could the black play pants found on the bathroom floor be what Jonbenet wore when outside playing on her bike?

Perfect Murder/Perfect Town, Hardback page 181; Linda Hoffmann Pugh

These weren't naughty children. They dressed themselves, and Patsy did JonBenet's hair. All her daughter's clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Dates on all their underclothes.

Any idea if the date was left on the underwear, as worn, i.e. would the underwear in the black pants or lying on the floor offer any clue as to when they were worn?

So does the above suggest BPD know what underwear is missing since the pair dated 12/25/1996 might be missing? Assuming some of the others were dated as according to Linda Hoffmann Pugh's account.


.

 

[Chrishope]

Doesn't PR say that the DOTW feature was not closely observed? I can't remember where, but I'm sure I read that somewhere. Thus, the police couldn't be sure the Wednesday panties were worn to the party?

It might be possible to determine that a Wed pair is missing, but what if there is also a Saturday pair missing? IOWs, what if some got thrown out? Torn ? Soiled beyond cleaning?

 

[UKGuy]

Doesn't PR say that the DOTW feature was not closely observed? I can't remember where, but I'm sure I read that somewhere. Thus, the police couldn't be sure the Wednesday panties were worn to the party?

It might be possible to determine that a Wed pair is missing, but what if there is also a Saturday pair missing? IOWs, what if some got thrown out? Torn ? Soiled beyond cleaning?

Chrishope,
Patsy suggested JonBenet wore whatever was to hand. Yet Linda Hoffmann Pugh states JonBenet's underwear was dated for wear. Not sure what form this took, hence my questions.

If they have been dated either by LHP or PR then presumably JonBenet will have had a drawer containing, lets say, seven days of dated underwear?

Excluding any being tossed in such a small time-frame, I would expect to see remaining dated pairs, this would at least corroborate LHP.

So knowing what remains might suggest what was missing? Also if they were dated this might explain the significance of the Day Of The Week to the R's.

That is they knew the dating sytem might become public knowledge, so the correct day Of The Week was applied i.e. size-12's.

Knowing that there was a dating system, it does not follow that JonBenet wore a Wednesday size-6 pair, since presumably its the date that matters and not the Day Of The Week. If you compare this with what PR suggested about strict adherence not being observed then this is consistent with LHP's remarks.

.