Sequence of Events Questioned

[RedChief]

Thanks RedChief! How many think shards indicate whittling took place?

birefringence- double refraction : the refraction of light in an anisotropic material (as calcite) in two slightly different directions to form two rays
- bi·re·frin·gent /-j&nt/ adjective

Shards, no. Splinters, yes. Evidence of whittling, no. Evidence of exceeding the stress/strain limit in wood, yes.

 

[sissi]

Okay, I agree, splinters in the paint tray, yes.
Birefringent splinters? Explain this ,if ya' can?

 

[RedChief]

Okay, I agree, splinters in the paint tray, yes.
Birefringent splinters? Explain this ,if ya' can?

The old college try: I don't think the reference to the br material was a reference to the splinter in the vagina. I think it was a reference to something else altogether - varnish from the brush or some such thing; maybe even the glitter you mentioned. Because we find this mysterious br material, and because we KNOW about the paintbrush, we are tempted to put the two of them together. In so doing, we may be guilty of false inference; happens all the time.

I don't believe the splinter was bi-refringent. I'm not aware that natural cellulose is bi-refringent. The SIV could more logically be attributed to injury involving the paintbrush, but it could not be agreed upon by the experts how long it had been present. There was no professional concensus on the origin of the cellulose; but, apparently, that it was indeed cellulose, was not a matter of contention.

Frankly, I don't see the importance of this debate. What does it matter whether the sexual injury was inflicted with a paintbrush, a crucifix, a sculpture or a fingernail?

Scratching my head...

 

[RedChief]

So, are we (most of us) now in agreement as to sequence?

Which came first?: asphyxiation, head trauma, sex injury,
or sex injury, head trauma, asphyxiation,
or head trauma, sex injury, asphyxiation,
or head trauma, asphyxiation, sex injury,
or sex injury, asphyxiation, head trauma,
or asphyxiation, sex injury, head trauma?

Just so we're clear.

 

[RedChief]

Both Patsy and the Maid have said if the blanket wasn't on the bed, it would be in the downstairs washer/dryer.

The maid stated she changed JonBenet's sheets when she was there and the sheets on JonBenet's bed were not the ones she put on - so, the sheets were changed.

In the transcripts, Patsy states something about the blanket - if not on the bed it would be in the downstairs dryer - but (if I remember correctly), Patsy doesn't remember where the blanket was that night. If it was on the bed when she tucked JonBenet in....?

It's been a while so I don't remember the exact transcript...but that's the lasting impression.

Also, JonBenet's pajama top from that morning was at the top of the bed - not meaning that Patsy didn't want to change her into it - but that the pillow or JonBenet's "sleeping" head didn't disturb it.

"Almost every day I was there, there was a wet bed......By the time I would come in the morning, Patsy would have all the sheets off the bed and in the laundry......JonBenet's white blanket would already be in the dryer....The Ramseys had two washer-dryers--one in the basement and a stackable unit in a closet just outside JonBenet's room." end of summer and beyond, 1996. PMPT, page 237, paperback.

From Sept. 13, Haney et al interview: "They also showed her a picture of JonBenet's white thermal blanket which had many urine and brown-colored stains on it. Some of them looked like dried blood. Then they showed her a picture of JonBenet's bed, which looked strange to her. Looking at the comforter, you couldn't tell that the blanket beneath it had been pulled off. The bed looked barely disturbed. Hoffman-Pugh knew that to pull the blanket off you had to first remove the comforter, otherwise it would get messed up. But in the photo it was neat. Maybe the white blanket hadn't been on the bed at all. She told the police that the blanket might have been in the washer-dryer outside JonBenet's room. Then they showed her a photograph of the dryer, with the door open. Inside she saw JonBenet's pink-and-white-checked sheets which she had put on the bed two days before the murder. But on JonBenet's bed in another photo were the Beauty and the Beast sheets. The logical explanation, Hoffman-Pugh said, was that JonBenet had wet the bed on either Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday night. The clean sheets had probably been put on the bed and the wet sheets, blanket, and maybe even the Barbie nightgown were put in the wash and dried.....The only things that went directly into the washer were JonBenet's urine-soaked sheets and blanket, so that they wouldn't smell. Only someone who knew which washer and dryer the Ramseys used for JonBenet's sheets and blanket would know where to find the blanket if it wasn't on the bed." Linda also stated that she had hidden Burke's knife several weeks before the murder in a closed cupboard in the service area just outside JonBenet's bedroom. She said only an adult in the family would have any idea where she'd put the knife. The police found the red pocketknife in the basement several yards from JonBenet's body. They speculated that it may have been used to cut the cord that had been used to bind and strangle JonBenet. PMPT ppg 728-729, paperback.

Reply to Tlynn: Yes, apparently the sheets had been changed at some point after Linda changed them on the 23rd, but that was two days before the murder. Considering that JonBenet was in the habit of wetting the bedclothes daily, what is surprising or incriminating about this? See Linda's explanation; nothing sinister.

They weren't in the habit of laundering the blanket in the basement washer/dryer, so it most likely had been laundered in the facility next to JBR's room. What's significant about this is that Linda opined that only someone who knew where the blanket was to be found, was familiar with their laundering habits, would have been able to fetch the blanket if it had not been installed on the bed--they'd have to know it was in the upstairs dryer. Maybe so.

This is an important point that I should have highlighted before: According to Linda, from the looks of the bed (the bedclothes), the blanket that was used to wrap JBR's body had apparently not been yanked off the bed, because in so doing the comforter which was usually installed over it would be messed up--there would be evidence that the blanket had been on the bed that night/morning and removed by the perp. The evidence seemed to indicate that the blanket had been instead removed from the dryer outside her room. Isn't it odd that Patsy was in the habit of washing the sheets and the blanket at the same time, but had apparently not re-installed the blanket on the bed when she had installed the clean B&B sheets on the bed. Why was that? No one supposes that the vicious perp would bother to smooth out the comforter so as to make it look as though the blanket had not been on the bed. Yet, if you subscribe to the theory that staging was performed to simulate a bedroom abduction, why would the stager tidy up in the bedroom, particularly with regard to the comforter? So, if such staging took place, the stager apparently fogot to mess up the bed. At any rate, if you accept Linda's testimony, the perp apparently grabbed the blanket from the upstairs dryer. What do you make of that? Does your suspicion match Lindas?

The white thermal blanket with the stains isn't the white blanket that her body was wrapped in, is it?

 

[sissi]

I'm sorry, I hate to continue pushing a point, and when I do I guess I expect someone to not just suggest I am wrong, but prove it to me.

I believe, the cellulose story originated with Lee in passing, he was asked about the material he said, something to the effect it must have been a piece of cellulose. I wasn't then, and am not now under the impression he had studied the case at that point.
The birefringent material isn't described as particles, so perhaps my guess of glitter is as wrong as I believe that guess of cellulose. There is NO mention of shards or splinters! It almost sounds like it could be gel. Has anyone ever soaked a pull up and opened it ,revealing thousands of glistening gel pieces?

From the autopsy..
Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular
congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The
smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the
vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with
underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red
blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is
birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate
is not seen.

 

[sissi]

So, are we (most of us) now in agreement as to sequence?

Which came first?: asphyxiation, head trauma, sex injury,
or sex injury, head trauma, asphyxiation,
or head trauma, sex injury, asphyxiation,
or head trauma, asphyxiation, sex injury,
or sex injury, asphyxiation, head trauma,
or asphyxiation, sex injury, head trauma?

Just so we're clear.

If anything can be clear? I believe the child was bound, brought back- and- forth between consciousness and unconsciousness as the garotte was tightened and loosened while being molested, the injury took place during this time. As she lay dying, it angered the perp, I believe he took his steel toed boot and kicked her lifeless body, with one strike aimed at her skull.

 

[UKGuy]

Birefringent material is one which is refractive in two directions, that is it bends or splits light, similar to how water droplets bends light to form a rainbow in the sky.

I guess cellulose is birefringent and could have been deposited either by the paintbrush itself or residue from the perps finger.

It may not be cellulose and some other compound. If it is then it would be a significant piece of forensic evidence.

Yet, if you subscribe to the theory that staging was performed to simulate a bedroom abduction, why would the stager tidy up in the bedroom, particularly with regard to the comforter? So, if such staging took place, the stager apparently fogot to mess up the bed

RedChief:
I'll repeat it again, there were multiple stagings in the Ramsay household. The principal one that of a kidnapping and ransom demand, which was likely abandonded. This staging points your focus out of the house.

There is evidence of "activity" in JonBenet's bedroom, it probably contains elements of some staging, ad hoc tidying up, and crime scene artifacts. That is JonBenet was possibly murdered in her bedroom.

The basement staging requires slightly more digging and analysis to demonstrate it is a staging. Inspecting and comparing the basement elements shows some originate from upstairs, some are redundant to the location. But they all portray a young girl removed from her bed, wrapped in a blanket, with her barbie gown next to her. Those items did not arrive in the wine cellar by chance, possibly anywhere else you could argue this or that way, but down there in basement, it all suggests the attempted staging of a bedroom abduction, which was unfinished! This staging points your focus away from upstairs e.g. Jonbenet's bedroom.

So this is a Staged Homicide, one where you have to peel back each scene to have a guess at reconstructing what may have taken place.

Any one an Intruder, John, Patsy, or Burke may have killed JonBenet, but the multiple stagings strongly suggest it was not an intruder who has had his/her actions covered up by ramsay staging.

So when you view the bedroom scene you may be looking at a crime scene that has been quickly cleaned up.

Sticking with Occams Razor or the KISS principle JonBenet's arms were possibly raised above her head because she was lying face down onto her bed or some surface.

This suggests she may have been lying there for a while before a cleanup and relocation took place.

 

[RedChief]

UKGuy,

I don't object to your hypothesis; in fact, it has a lot to recommend it, and I agree that the wine cellar scene is the stronger evidence. Further, one must consider that JBR's bedroom was likely perpetually cluttered to some degree. She wasn't in the habit of putting things away; nor was Patsy. Also, the supposed hair ties that Linda "saw" in the photo that were scattered about on the bedroom floor, were identified by Patsy as being components of some project that JBR had been working on. So, seeing them in the photo didn't surprise Patsy. Linda says....Patsy says....

The body was HIDDEN in the wine cellar and there has got to be an explantion for that and that explanation has got to be inclusive of, and congruent with, the ransom note, because neither-strong evidence that they are-can be ignored.

Whereas you may be of the opinion that the hidden body and ransom note are indicative of mixed staging, I am of the opinion that they could also be construed as elements of unmixed staging and undertaken by a person who (1.) felt that he/she needed an explanation for JBR's apparent absence ("where's JonBenet? Oh, my!) that morning, or (2.) hoped to collect a ransom with a dead body secreted on the premises. If the latter, he/she wouldn't be the first to have made this attempt. One of the more famous attempts was that of the Leopold-Loeb case, although, granted, the body wasn't secreted within the victim's home. Another case involves a perp who actually drove to a rendezvous scene (met with the girl's father) with the dead victim propped up in the front seat on the passenger's side of the vehicle as "proof" of her well-being.

We also have to consider the possibility that the blanket wrapped around the body in the wine cellar has nothing to do with staging; i.e., that it was installed by some person who had an emotional connection to the victim. John said, in his '98 interview with LE, that it appeared to him that it had been utilized to COMFORT the child, as it was positioned under her body--even her head--and CAREfully wrapped around her in the manner of an Indian papoose. Some may disagree with this characterization, but on what grounds would they disagree with what he says he saw?

How does a CAREfully wrapped body (a body lying on it's back with a blanket folded CAREfully around it) suggest nothing more or less than a bedroom abduction? Imagine that I'm the perp and I think to myself, "In order to give the impression that this child was abducted from her bedroom, I've got to find some things that have obviously come from her bedroom and would not be deemed counter to that impression by LE; aha, I've got it! As props, I'll take her white blanket that is usually on her bed and an item of clothing that is unmistakably associated with bedrooms and sleeping." So far, so good. So why do I end up CAREfully wrapping her body in the blanket and NOT clothing her with the nightgown????

This is what is strange about that whole body-in-the-cellar-business (the hidden and CAREfully wrapped body). Why bother to effect staging to a body and/or to a scene which is HIDDEN and, if effectively so, nobody stumbles upon and can therefore OBSERVE the staging in order to be influenced by it????

I'm not convinced that JBR was killed (or had an accident) in or near her bedroom. It's a BIG house. I think it's the carried-the-sleeping-child-up-the-stairs-and-put-her-to-bed claim (which may or may not be truthful) that makes us want to think she met her fate there. There are innumerable other possibilities.

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief:

But JonBenet's body was not HIDDEN in the wine cellar it was on full view. Only Fleet White either missed it or it had been relocated into the wine cellar from a prior location, after he looked in.

The body being in the basement cannot be congruent with the ransom note since it suggests she is in the hands of some organization that wish to extract some money in exchange for her return. Well thats redundant since she was then lying wrapped in basement.

Only John and Fleet White saw how she was enveloped in the white blanket. Was it lying over her or under her? If you pick her up with it lying under or over her you are likely to naturally wrap it so to make it easier to carry. Its John who makes a big deal about the blanket, papoose style and comfort, and thats post media coverage too!

The white blanket in itself is not significant, since its original purpose may have been to carry her outside the house or place her in a vehicle for transportation and dumping, whilst minimizing forensic evidence transfer, so as to conclude the kidnapping staging.

She was NOT wrapped papoose style so she could be placed in a crib or bed and appear to be angelically reposed in a peaceful state of sleep!


Its the other items such as her gold cross necklace, her hair ties, lack of socks or footwear. Wearing white longjohns, along with recently changed size-12 underwear. And the Barbie gown, that is not there by accident, it did not arrive by chance. If it had the stager would have removed it and dumped it anywhere outside of the wine cellar. It was there because the stager, having decided the kidnapping scenario was void, now considered an ad hoc variation on the kidnapping to one of a bedroom abduction and inferred intent to remove or kidnap that had gone wrong. So at some point JonBenet may have had her white gap top and longjohns removed to be replaced by her Barbie Gown. If that had been done, many many people would have been persuaded she had been abducted from her bed, and trasported to the basement to endure a sexually sadistic assault and death.

In the event what was left was an unfinished staged homicide. Its different from the ransom note since it points down into the bowels of the house away from just about every other location, including her own bedroom.

 

[BlueCrab]

In the event what was left was an unfinished staged homicide. Its different from the ransom note since it points down into the bowels of the house away from just about every other location, including her own bedroom.

UKGuy,

I can agree with that.

There could be many scenarios to explain why the ransom note doesn't fit the actual crime scene, but here's two that I personally prefer:

1. Snow. The ransom note was completed, but when the perp was ready to take the body outside there was a dusting of snow on the ground. The snow, which later quickly melted (but the perp wouldn't have known that), kept the killer inside of the house. Had he tried to carry JonBenet outside his footprints from the house and back again would have told the story to the police. The perp, a Ramsey, was now trapped inside of the house with a body and a ransom note that no longer made any sense.

2. Surprise. John got out of bed before the perp (Burke A/O Burke's friend) completed the kidnap/murder staging that was intended to hide the sexual aspects of the crime, thereby surprising the killer in the act. JonBenet was dead and the note was already written. The parents, to shield Burke and because of the embarrassing aspects of the crime, which they perceived would destroy their social and business standing in the community, decided to go along with what the children had started.

BlueCrab

 

[RedChief]

UKGuy,

I see the body as HIDDEN in the sense that it was found in a dingy storage room in the basement, a remote place, behind a closed and peculiarly latched door. I'm not suggesting that the peculiarity of the latch (it's location at the top of the jamb and it's design-a crude thing) is terribly relevant, but the location of the room (remote) and the fact of the closed and latched door IS relevant. Consider that the body WASN'T found until approx. 1 PM, and even then not by LE. I view the aforementioned as POSSIBLE evidence of an attempt to HIDE the body until more permanent measures could be undertaken, or an attempt to extort through deception. After all, the perp didn't have forever and 13 days to react to this misfortune, or to perpetrate it, assuming that is the case.

There are more than one way to interpret the evidence. Some want to think that the ransom note is totally out of place; others, considering that it might be genuine, though goofy, allow that an attempt at extortion is a possibility.

Why would you CAREfully wrap a body in a blanket in a fashion suggestive of an attempt to comfort it (the blanket lay under the body, incl. the head, as well as over it-the torso and lower extremities) if your purpose were to imply that the victim had been abducted from her bedroom and sexually assaulted?

Well, as for what she was wearing, it's not uncommon for kids to romp about in the evening with their sleeping attire on; further, Patsy, by her own admission, didn't dress JonBenet for bed in the usual attire. If a parent really wanted to stage bedroom abduction, don't you think he/she'd do it properly?

The HIDDEN body has always puzzled me, and, yes, everyone who came to the door, prior to John, according to the reports, found the door shut and latched, and so did John, in fact he expressed surprise concerning that.

There were many places to pose the body within the house (I suppose preferably the basement due to it's remoteness which might suggest to the deceivees that it was chosen for the mayhem in order that any sounds made wouldn't alert the sleeping brother and parents) other than the wine cellar. What is the point of staging on and with respect to a hidden body? Of course, eventually the body will be found, hopefully later rather than sooner from the standpoint of an extortion attempt. Actually, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that an extortionist would CAREfully wrap the body either. Why not just dump it unceremoniously in the cellar, close and latch the door and take leave? Better yet, if there is time and no sense of exigency, why not do a better job of hiding it? And, best, why not take the body with you? Well, being inexplicably caught with a dead body isn't an experience most *advertiser censored* sapiens would relish. Also, why not a dark blanket for transporting the body-one that would not be so easily observed in the darkness of a winter night; and hence, would be less likely to attract attention to the villain as he lugged the body from the house to a waiting vehicle?

You can run but you can't HIDE....

 

[sissi]

The fibers that were on her body, clothes, etc. were on the contents of that suitcase as well. Is this not creepy? Someone packed things to take along? The bedding that was in that suitcase belonged to JAR, it is doubtful anyone would have left dirtied bedding in that suitcase, sooooooooo, can we consider it could have been bedding he used up until that day while he was using his own bedroom? Could all of the bedding, including that white blanket have been his, not Jonbenet's? Perhaps it had been thrown down the chute and not laundered, since LHP had not come back on the 24th as planned to do this laundry? Is it not possible that the barbie nightgown had been tossed down this laundry chute ,as well, and nothing came from a dryer?
Why would anyone carry a child out, if they indeed did, in a white blanket? Well there was old snow on the lawns, maybe white was the best choice for camouflage?
The cord..hmm..drawstring laundry bag??

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief:
I would describe her as obscured from view, maybe you mean the same, as in hidden from view, but she is not invisible to the naked eye, her existence is self-evident. If she was properly hidden away, just where she rested would not be so obvious!

How do you know she was carefully wrapped in a blanket, thats all been media generated, she may have been lying on top of the blanket, only Fleet White and John know, and they are not saying.

But Patsy in her police statement says she undressed JonBenet and put her sleeping to bed. No need for JonBenet to romp about.

But we can assume she was dressed in something whilst snacking pineapple, what might that be, black velvet pants and white gap top, or Red Turtleneck and trousers or skirt along with her hair styled in pigtails with a red heart drawn on her hand to lend a sense of pageant to her dressing up? Or would that come later ?

You must consider what came after the pineapple session and leads up to her demise may contribute towards any subsequent staging, the basement staging was the last, but in between the ransom note and it there may have been one or more similar attempts.

The person who did the basement saging need not be the same person did the ransom note staging and neither of those may be the same person who re-dressed her , staged her bedroom scene and then transported her body from the bedroom to another location.

The purpose for each separate staging in the minds eye of the stager is to mislead the police, and/or redirect their investigation by attempting to simulate an offence or event that did not take place.

 

[RedChief]

RedChief:
I would describe her as obscured from view, maybe you mean the same, as in hidden from view, but she is not invisible to the naked eye, her existence is self-evident. If she was properly hidden away, just where she rested would not be so obvious!

How do you know she was carefully wrapped in a blanket, thats all been media generated, she may have been lying on top of the blanket, only Fleet White and John know, and they are not saying.

But Patsy in her police statement says she undressed JonBenet and put her sleeping to bed. No need for JonBenet to romp about.

But we can assume she was dressed in something whilst snacking pineapple, what might that be, black velvet pants and white gap top, or Red Turtleneck and trousers or skirt along with her hair styled in pigtails with a red heart drawn on her hand to lend a sense of pageant to her dressing up? Or would that come later ?

You must consider what came after the pineapple session and leads up to her demise may contribute towards any subsequent staging, the basement staging was the last, but in between the ransom note and it there may have been one or more similar attempts.

The person who did the basement saging need not be the same person did the ransom note staging and neither of those may be the same person who re-dressed her , staged her bedroom scene and then transported her body from the bedroom to another location.

The purpose for each separate staging in the minds eye of the stager is to mislead the police, and/or redirect their investigation by attempting to simulate an offence or event that did not take place.

Well, yes, obscured from view, hidden from view, you decide; this is all semantics. She was lying on the floor of the wine cellar, the door of which was closed and latched. Call that what you will. The participation of Superman with his X-ray vision was not anticipated. Why was the door closed and latched? Why throw up any obstacle to viewing her in her staged configuration, if it was intended that she be viewed in order for the staging to wreak it's havoc? You can't be affected by staging that you can't detect. Further, closing the door and latching it so as to obscure the body from view, compromises the prior staging; it is, in effect, staging in it's own right....possibly.

No, not media generated. As I have said more than a few times already, John said it was his impression that she was carefully wrapped as if to COMFORT her. His words, not mine. He's the one who purportedly first discovered the body. This is what he told LE during an interview.

Ah, so now we're choosing to believe Patsy's account of what occurred that night? Besides, any child can get out of bed after they've been tucked in for the night and carry out their perigrinations surreptitiously. Happens all the time. She might have gotten up out of bed and helped herself to some pineapple. Personally, I don't consider the pineapple matter to be of much importance except as means to determine (very approximately) the TOD.

Why would one have to assume she'd be dressed in something other than what the parents have stated she was wearing when they left the room and turned out the light? Can one not eat pineapple while wearing a sequined shirt and longjohns?

There is no clear evidence of any pineapple session taking place in the Ramsey home that night. That there MAY have been numerous staging sessions doesn't demand that it be so.

I don't see the heart in her hand (thank God it wasn't on her sleeve) as being anything terribly significant, unless it can be connected to some other significant piece of evidence pointing to the identity of one or more of the stagers/perpetrators.

Yes, more than one person may have been involved. If that is true then must we identify all of them, or can we be satisfied with identifying just one?

At this point I'd be satisfied if we could ascertain whether any intruder of any shape, size or description was involved. Wouldn't you?

 

[RedChief]

The fibers that were on her body, clothes, etc. were on the contents of that suitcase as well. Is this not creepy?...............................

Why would anyone carry a child out, if they indeed did, in a white blanket? Well there was old snow on the lawns, maybe white was the best choice for camouflage?

sissi,

The FBI disputed the CBI finding that the fibers were consistent with the items in the suitcase. This would be a good true/false question for the true/false thread.

Was the blanket snow white or off white?

 

[RedChief]

I wish someone with a capacious memory, and an eye for irrelevance and error, would go through this thread and weed out all the errors and irrelevant stuff and list all the correct and pertinent stuff. Maybe that way we could resolve some of these issues once and for all (put them to bed, so to speak). By the time I'm done reading all the posts in this thread, I can't remember all that was written. But, there's a lot of good stuff--facts, suppositions and ideas.

Here are a few things that stood out for me:

She (meaning JonBenet) appeared to have been lying on her stomach when she urinated as evidenced by the staining pattern on the longjohns. There has been no detailed description that I'm aware of, of the urine staining pattern in the underpants. Whereas one is tempted to assume that both the underpants and the longjohns were stained at the same time, by the same process; it is possible (as UKGuy points out) that the underpants absorbed urine from the longjohns. The reverse seems highly unlikely. And then there is the blood in the underpants. We could have a lengthy discussion on this one topic alone; not that a lenghty discussion hasn't already transpired.

There was a question about whether the urine was released at death. Why are we reluctant to accept the ER doctor's testimony--that he has not witnessed this event? We should be grateful for it. Well, we know that defecation can occur at death, so why not urination? At least one expert says that the bladder was empty (he got this from the AR); to him, that indicated that she had urinated while alive, because the bladder does not empty when urine is released at death. This is an expert opinion; can we trust it or not?

That the size-12 Wednesday underpants had urine on them, might indicate that she was redressed prior to her death; that is if you interpret the evidence as indicative of redressing. But what if she had been wearing the correct size? All other things being equal, would you suspect redressing? IOW, what is the strongest evidence of redressing? Before you can suspect, on account of the urine-stained, oversized underpants, that she was redressed prior to urination, you must FIRST be convinced that she was redressed. Before you can suspect that she was redressed after she died or before she died, you must FIRST accept the premise that she was redressed.

Consider what was found and interpreted by the coroner: This is the truth (the evidence) that we have to analyze; but what are we to make of it? We have the body dressed in urine-stained, size-12 underpants (too big) with blood stains in the "inner" aspect of the crotch (whatever that means), covered over by urine-stained longjohns, and no matching "stains" on the skin of the pubic area (which appeared to have been wiped). Are we basing the wiping premise on what the coroner surmised or on something else? Is it a starting point, or something arrived at on the basis of other evidence and observation?

We can't say with confidence that we suspect that the body had been redressed because the underpants were too big. We have to start with our belief, based on other evidence and/or reported observations, that the body (whether alive or dead at that point) had been redressed. What if the body were nude at some point? If we could know that, wouldn't we have to say that it had been DRESSED; not redressed, for it had been found clothed. What we mean when we say redressed is that someone at some point, that AM or PM (before or after she had been put to bed?) REMOVED her underwear and REPLACED it with other (presumably clean) underwear. Then, based upon that assumption, we go further to question why that clean underwear is way too big, and further, knowing that only one pair of the big underwear is missing from the package discovered in a drawer in her BEDROOM, we surmise that the oversized underwear that she is found in are precisely that pair which is missing from the package in the drawer (the Wednesday ones). Then we pose further questions based on that; e.g., who would have selected the too-big underwear for the "redressing."

We might speculate (nothing more or less) that the oversized underpants were grabbed by a person who knew where to find them (in the drawer in the BEDROOM) in a hurry, or that they were found by someone rummaging through the drawer who didn't have a clue as to what size she wore, but who knew she wore day-of-the-week underpants (I'm assuming at least some of the smaller sizes--the correct sizes--were also day-of-the-week types), possibly because he/she had seen the ones that had come off her and noticed that they were Wednesday pants. Obviously she couldn't have been "redressed" on Thursday (early in the AM), otherwise she'd have been wearing Thursday pants, no? <---I put this here just to see if anyone is paying attention.

Now, here is a question: who would "redress" her in oversized underpants (with the correct day of the week) if he/she were engaging in subterfuge, unless he/she didn't know that the underpants were too big; or, to put it another way, who would know that she ought to be found in Wednesday underpants (would have knowledge of her regimen), but WOULDN'T know what her proper size was? And, further, who, knowing that she customarily wore size-6 underpants, which were apparently (reportedly) kept in the bathroom, would opt to redress her with the size-12 variety, NOT kept in the bathroom? Is it someone who knew that she was out of Wednesday pants of the correct size?

Yes, those pink jammies on the bed do raise some questions. Is Patsy's explanation satisfactory? Would the sleeping child be less disturbed by dressing her in the longjohns or by dressing her in her jammies? And, so what, if she awoke, during the dressing process? So what? I seem to recall that Patsy, at one point, in one interview or another, explained that she hadn't dressed the child in her jammies because she hadn't seen them; it was dark in the room, or they lay partially under the pillow upon which rested the child's head. Boy, they're going to great lengths to avoid waking this child! Why?

Someone mentioned the sheets in the dryer. I assume they were clean sheets, that had recently been laundered, as they were the sheets that LHP claimed she had put on the bed two days prior. Which would be more likely: that the sheets would be stripped, laundered and the same sheets used to reclothe the bed, or that the sheets would be stripped and placed into the washer preparatory to laundering and DIFFERENT sheets would be utilized for the reclothing? Isn't it possible that the sheets which were on the bed--the ones in the crime-scene photos, had been stripped, laundered and replaced on the bed? Why are people so prone to jumping to conclusions?

Finally (for the time being), why would you prefer to launder JBR's soiled bed clothes in the basement facility, when there were washer and dryer right outside her room??????????

We need some volunteers to follow up these threads with summaries containing resolved issues and unresolved issues; with facts agreed upon and "facts" not agreed upon; with general agreement regarding interpretation, and general disagreement. Otherwise, we'll keep rehashing these issues until the cows come home.

Do I hear lowing in the distance?.....

 

[UKGuy]

She (meaning JonBenet) appeared to have been lying on her stomach when she urinated as evidenced by the staining pattern on the longjohns. There has been no detailed description that I'm aware of, of the urine staining pattern in the underpants. Whereas one is tempted to assume that both the underpants and the longjohns were stained at the same time, by the same process; it is possible (as UKGuy points out) that the underpants absorbed urine from the longjohns. The reverse seems highly unlikely. And then there is the blood in the underpants. We could have a lengthy discussion on this one topic alone; not that a lenghty discussion hasn't already transpired.

Not only could the urine travel by osmosis, but also the consideration that it was on the front of her longjohns does NOT have to mean she passed water lying on her stomach! The longjohns may have been reversed during one of her re-dressing stages!

That the size-12 Wednesday underpants had urine on them, might indicate that she was redressed prior to her death; that is if you interpret the evidence as indicative of redressing. But what if she had been wearing the correct size? All other things being equal, would you suspect redressing? IOW, what is the strongest evidence of redressing? Before you can suspect, on account of the urine-stained, oversized underpants, that she was redressed prior to urination, you must FIRST be convinced that she was redressed. Before you can suspect that she was redressed after she died or before she died, you must FIRST accept the premise that she was redressed.

There will be fibers on those size-12 pants corresponding to any other article of clothing she wore along with them e.g. her black velvet pants etc.
This would strongly suggest she was wearing them whilst alive and just prior to her death. Else, here is some speculation, there may be Barbie gown fibers on them since she could have been in the process of being re-dressed in the basement wine-cellar ?

Consider what was found and interpreted by the coroner: This is the truth (the evidence) that we have to analyze; but what are we to make of it? We have the body dressed in urine-stained, size-12 underpants (too big) with blood stains in the "inner" aspect of the crotch (whatever that means), covered over by urine-stained longjohns, and no matching "stains" on the skin of the pubic area (which appeared to have been wiped). Are we basing the wiping premise on what the coroner surmised or on something else? Is it a starting point, or something arrived at on the basis of other evidence and observation?

No transfer of forensic evidence where we would expect to see it, must mean it has been removed, and here we assume she was wiped down!

We can't say with confidence that we suspect that the body had been redressed because the underpants were too big. We have to start with our belief, based on other evidence and/or reported observations, that the body (whether alive or dead at that point) had been redressed. What if the body were nude at some point? If we could know that, wouldn't we have to say that it had been DRESSED; not redressed, for it had been found clothed. What we mean when we say redressed is that someone at some point, that AM or PM (before or after she had been put to bed?) REMOVED her underwear and REPLACED it with other (presumably clean) underwear. Then, based upon that assumption, we go further to question why that clean underwear is way too big, and further, knowing that only one pair of the big underwear is missing from the package discovered in a drawer in her BEDROOM, we surmise that the oversized underwear that she is found in are precisely that pair which is missing from the package in the drawer (the Wednesday ones). Then we pose further questions based on that; e.g., who would have selected the too-big underwear for the "redressing."

If you apply a timeline to Jonbenet's body using staging as the separator, then you can speculate at which point she may have gone from dressed to naked to dressed then re-dressed etc. I have no doubt that these events occurred.

We might speculate (nothing more or less) that the oversized underpants were grabbed by a person who knew where to find them (in the drawer in the BEDROOM) in a hurry, or that they were found by someone rummaging through the drawer who didn't have a clue as to what size she wore, but who knew she wore day-of-the-week underpants (I'm assuming at least some of the smaller sizes--the correct sizes--were also day-of-the-week types), possibly because he/she had seen the ones that had come off her and noticed that they were Wednesday pants. Obviously she couldn't have been "redressed" on Thursday (early in the AM), otherwise she'd have been wearing Thursday pants, no? <---I put this here just to see if anyone is paying attention.

Those bloomingdales size-12 day-of-the-week are evidence of intended staging, but not proof of it. It may have been chance those pair were chosen, I dont know what other days there were in her normal size pants ie was there a wednesday pair?

Now, here is a question: who would "redress" her in oversized underpants (with the correct day of the week) if he/she were engaging in subterfuge, unless he/she didn't know that the underpants were too big; or, to put it another way, who would know that she ought to be found in Wednesday underpants (would have knowledge of her regimen), but WOULDN'T know what her proper size was? And, further, who, knowing that she customarily wore size-6 underpants, which were apparently (reportedly) kept in the bathroom, would opt to redress her with the size-12 variety, NOT kept in the bathroom? Is it someone who knew that she was out of Wednesday pants of the correct size?

The answer may be yes or no, but whats important and can be answered is were they clean on ?

Yes, those pink jammies on the bed do raise some questions. Is Patsy's explanation satisfactory? Would the sleeping child be less disturbed by dressing her in the longjohns or by dressing her in her jammies? And, so what, if she awoke, during the dressing process? So what? I seem to recall that Patsy, at one point, in one interview or another, explained that she hadn't dressed the child in her jammies because she hadn't seen them; it was dark in the room, or they lay partially under the pillow upon which rested the child's head. Boy, they're going to great lengths to avoid waking this child! Why?

The above probably never took place JonBenet was likely awake and acting her normal self on arrival back that night. The above description is meant to explain the unfinished wine-cellar basement staging, dont forget the Barbie Gown ....

Someone mentioned the sheets in the dryer. I assume they were clean sheets, that had recently been laundered, as they were the sheets that LHP claimed she had put on the bed two days prior. Which would be more likely: that the sheets would be stripped, laundered and the same sheets used to reclothe the bed, or that the sheets would be stripped and placed into the washer preparatory to laundering and DIFFERENT sheets would be utilized for the reclothing? Isn't it possible that the sheets which were on the bed--the ones in the crime-scene photos, had been stripped, laundered and replaced on the bed? Why are people so prone to jumping to conclusions?

You can interpret the sheet changing according to whether you see routine behaviour or staging. I see staging or a cleanup here ....

Finally (for the time being), why would you prefer to launder JBR's soiled bed clothes in the basement facility, when there were washer and dryer right outside her room??????????

I am not certain about this one, may just have been particular arrangements for LHP and another for Patsy. Another suggestion is washing in the basement may be less noisier than upstairs for all to hear?

 

[RedChief]

UKGUY--"No transfer of evidence where we would expect to see it.."

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Who is it who is expecting to see it? I don't trust these guys. I've given an alternative explanation. I don't like these assumptions. I could save us a lot of time by assuming she'd been murdered by her mother, but I would be spurned with contempt at the foot of the Bench.

UKGuy--"...bloomingdales...evidence...but not proof.."

Circumstantial evidence, old chap? Brick, by brick?

UKGuy--"I dont know what other days there were in her normal size pants ie was there a wednesday pair?"

Good question! Anybody know? If there were a clean Wednesday pair of the normal size, what would you make of that? Would you be more inclined to suspect an ignorant perp? If there were no clean Wednesday pair of the normal size, what would you make of that? Would you be inclined to suspect that the one and only normal size Wednesday got dirty and was disposed of? Wouldn't you want to know why the perp chose the too-big Wednesday panties, if there were Wednesday panties of the normal size in her bathroom; and, wouldn't you want to know why the perp chose too-big Wednesday panties if there were NO day-of-the-week panties of the normal size anywhere to be found?

UKGuy--"The answer may be yes or no, but whats important and can be answered is were they clean on ?"

Nope; can't answer that definitively either; they could have been laundered in the meantime.

UKGuy--"Another suggestion is washing in the basement may be less noisier than upstairs for all to hear?"

Ah hah! Gosh, wouldn't it be nice to know whether those items had been washed in the basement that PM/AM? The normal routine was to wash the soiled bedclothes from JBR's bed in the washer just outside her room. LHP told us this. And, it makes perfectly good sense.

Lookin' good, UKGuy, lookin' good!

 

[Eagle1]

I was going to say, while reading this whole page, if the perp was doing laundry, he'd choose the bsmt so the parents would be less likely to hear it.
Or if the housekeeper did it, she was probably saving steps for herself, doing other work in the bsmt and wanted the laundry nearby so she'd know when to take it out and all that.

Another thing, JonBenet herself may have simply wanted her blankie and knew it would be in one of the driers, on her way to eating pineapple, or at any time.

She had lint on her bare feet, ST said. Had they played hide-and-seek or something, in seldom-used rooms which LHP never cleaned?