Socks? Was Jon Benet wearing them?

[Toltec]

It's no surprise Patsy's fingerprints would be found on the bowl...her fingerprints would have to be on every bowl in the home....it is Burke's fingerprints that are questionable.

Is it possible for someone JonBenet's age to not wake up when lifted out of a car? Probably not. She would wake up when lifted but as soon as she is safely in her fathers grip, she most likely would fall asleep again.

When I change my sleeping 5yo in bed, she tosses and turns and makes it doubly hard for me to put pajamas on her. Try putting pant part of pajamas on a sleeping child. Their legs start resisting...pulling back or kicking...or they turn on their bellies so you end up leaving her pantless...LOL!

Edited to add that "fear of falling" is a primal thing. That is why kids awaken when they are being lifted.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks!!!!! Yes, from Gap Kids it would be velveteen and machine washable. I wanted to know for sure because if it was a DRY CLEAN ONLY silk or rayon VELVET not velveteen, PR might have been really upset because it might have been ruined. Most kids clothing is washable. But VELVET usually is not as far as I know, and I'm sure a lot of JB's costumes were NOT washable. PR would know where to buy real velvet. I know one theory was PR was really upset about the bedwetting/soiling so I thought a dry clean only outfit would add to any alleged anger over that, that's why I asked.

I remember there was a mail order place at that time that carried high end clothing with a lot of mother and daughter outfits which had a lot of dry clean only stuff...I can't remember their name. Anyway they also sold costume-like outfits. Anyone know which one I'm thinking of? Does anyone know how the outfit she actually wore differed from the mother-daughter outfit PR wanted her to wear? Or where that one came from? Thanks.

Well, it differs in the sense that the Gap Kids outfit JB wore did not come in an adult version, so it wasn't really true "mother-daughter" outfits. But Patsy DID own black velvet jeans, and that is why she wanted JB to wear the Gap Kids outfit - because it also consisted of black velvet pants. We don't know if Patsy's black velvet jeans were cotton or rayon velvet, but I don't think that would have mattered to Patsy. Patsy wanted JB to wear a red turtleneck with her black velvet pants and vest because Patsy was also wearing a red sweater with HER black velvet pants (though Patsy did not wear a black velvet vest- instead she wore an acrylic fleece soft jacket/sweater of red/black/gray.
JB refused to wear the red turtleneck just so she would "match" her mother. She wanted to wear the whole Gap outfit that was bought together: black velvet pants, vest and white shirt with silver sequin star.

 

[Ames]

Ames,

Its a curious detail to be confused about. "zonked out", sounds as if she has been deliberately drugged.

Anyway the pineapple snack gives the game away. With all the obvious evidence the only way they ever thought they could evade justice must be via some kind of conspiracy?


.

I thought that considering the severity of JB's head wound....that "zonked out" was a poor choice of words. Well, you know...the Ramsey's pointed alot of fingers at PW, saying that they thought it was strange that she mentioned JB by name, when saving her out some cracked crab. (GASP!! She mentioned JB by NAME? Then she MUST be guilty of killing her!!), so maybe they thought that they would imply that PW drugged JB with that cracked crab (nevermind that John asked PW to save it out for her), and adding that JB was "zonked out"...was part of that implication.

 

[Ames]

I also seem to remember that Patsy acted amazed that someone had drank tea from a glass with a teabag. This makes me think one of two things:
1- She is the person who drank it.
2- Burke is the person who drank it and she knows it

Exactly...!!! And how did SHE know that it didn't have ice in it....when the "intruder" drank it?? I have done that before...put hot water in a glass...with tea bag...and then added ice. I do it when I don't want to make a whole pitcher of tea. I do not see why she found that so odd. Again....another case of distancing....

 

[Ames]

It's no surprise Patsy's fingerprints would be found on the bowl...her fingerprints would have to be on every bowl in the home....it is Burke's fingerprints that are questionable.

Is it possible for someone JonBenet's age to not wake up when lifted out of a car? Probably not. She would wake up when lifted but as soon as she is safely in her fathers grip, she most likely would fall asleep again.

When I change my sleeping 5yo in bed, she tosses and turns and makes it doubly hard for me to put pajamas on her. Try putting pant part of pajamas on a sleeping child. Their legs start resisting...pulling back or kicking...or they turn on their bellies so you end up leaving her pantless...LOL!

Edited to add that "fear of falling" is a primal thing. That is why kids awaken when they are being lifted.

Well, imagine putting long johns on a sleeping child...as Patsy said that she did with JB. And JB did not wake up?!?! Yeah, right..

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, imagine putting long johns on a sleeping child...as Patsy said that she did with JB. And JB did not wake up?!?! Yeah, right..

Maybe with some kids, but I could have completely undressed and redressed my daughter at that age and she wouldn't have woken up.

UKGuy-As far as "zonked out"- I use that expression, too, and I don't think it means anything more that what it is usually intended to mean (soundly asleep). I don't think it had any reference whatsoever to her being drugged. We know the toxicology tests were negative.

 

[Agatha_C]

It seemed to me that the R's tried to make it seem as if she had been drugged, or thats the take I had from it. They made sure to point out that PW singled out JBR, for the cracked crab and that she was so out of it she didn't wake up. They may not have come out and said the words, but the implication was there.

 

[DeeDee249]

It seemed to me that the R's tried to make it seem as if she had been drugged, or thats the take I had from it. They made sure to point out that PW singled out JBR, for the cracked crab and that she was so out of it she didn't wake up. They may not have come out and said the words, but the implication was there.

Oh, I agree! I am sure that is EXACTLY what they wanted to infer. BUT- the autopsy squashed their little ploy. NO drugs found.
At death, all metabolic activity stops completely. Digestion, and the absorption of drugs and substances by the body. Drugs involved in her death would be detected for as long as her body lasted- they don't "pass through" the system of a dead person. The Rs likely did not think about this, just as the pineapple found in her system was a surprise to them, they probably did not think that toxicology tests would be done.
As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why I believe they DID stage the body is that they had hoped that, as the cause of her death was obvious (ligature strangulation) that maybe there would BE no autopsy. But the law decrees otherwise. ALL dead children are autopsied, regardless of whether the cause of death is known. ALL suspicious deaths of ANY age are autopsied as well.

 

[otg]

Oh, I agree! I am sure that is EXACTLY what they wanted to infer. BUT- the autopsy squashed their little ploy. NO drugs found.
At death, all metabolic activity stops completely. Digestion, and the absorption of drugs and substances by the body. Drugs involved in her death would be detected for as long as her body lasted- they don't "pass through" the system of a dead person. The Rs likely did not think about this, just as the pineapple found in her system was a surprise to them, they probably did not think that toxicology tests would be done.
As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why I believe they DID stage the body is that they had hoped that, as the cause of her death was obvious (ligature strangulation) that maybe there would BE no autopsy. But the law decrees otherwise. ALL dead children are autopsied, regardless of whether the cause of death is known. ALL suspicious deaths of ANY age are autopsied as well.

(my bold)

DD, ITA with that. That is why I believe they thought they could clean up the evidence of the sexual part of this, and no one would ever know she had been molested. Had they thought that cleaning up the blood would be detected, they wouldn't have gone to the trouble and taken the chance of leaving behind some of their fiber evidence in the process. OTOH, had it been that "prescient intruder" who was responsible, why would he take the time to even bother at all? Not to mention take the chance on being heard running water for the cleanup, and running up and down the stairs with a change of clothes, blankets, dolls, etc. I mean, if your an intruder and you've done what you came for -- just GTH outta there!
.

 

[Agatha_C]

Oh, I agree! I am sure that is EXACTLY what they wanted to infer. BUT- the autopsy squashed their little ploy. NO drugs found.
At death, all metabolic activity stops completely. Digestion, and the absorption of drugs and substances by the body. Drugs involved in her death would be detected for as long as her body lasted- they don't "pass through" the system of a dead person. The Rs likely did not think about this, just as the pineapple found in her system was a surprise to them, they probably did not think that toxicology tests would be done.
As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why I believe they DID stage the body is that they had hoped that, as the cause of her death was obvious (ligature strangulation) that maybe there would BE no autopsy. But the law decrees otherwise. ALL dead children are autopsied, regardless of whether the cause of death is known. ALL suspicious deaths of ANY age are autopsied as well.

DD, Thank you, Oh Wise one, I learn so much from you every single time you post. I dont even have to google autopsy, I just read your posts...lol.. Again thank you.

 

[otg]

On the subject of the bare feet... From http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682512/The-Basement

Possible Child's Barefoot Print. Another smaller print near one of the shoe prints may possibly be that of a child. A distance photo shows the print in context. A close-up shows an outline of the print.

To better ascertain the size, Internet poster Mikie has traced an outline showing the foot to be roughly 6" in length--a plausible size for a 6-year old girl, as Lou Smit reportedly said it was roughly the same size as that of his granddaughter of that age. But since JBR was found barefoot, Mikie has also posted an outline showing toes, making the foot about 7 inches long.

​

.

 

[Toltec]

On the subject of the bare feet... From http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682512/The-Basement

​

.

Looks like a print of a flat-footed child....no arch? There is a xmas 1996 pic of Burke and JonBenet decorating the tree...can anyone pull it up?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Looks like a print of a flat-footed child....no arch? There is a xmas 1996 pic of Burke and JonBenet decorating the tree...can anyone pull it up?

I believe that picture is from Christmas 1995 though since JonBenet's hair looks shorter than it does in the Christmas morning pictures and there's also a picture of her that was taken during her mall appearance where she has longer hair.

 

[SunnieRN]

Wow, Burke grew a LOT in one year!!

 

[joeskidbeck]

Going by what you can see in this photo, JonBenet looks like she could have been flat footed. I would think the fact that she's standing on a cushioned chair is what makes it look more obvious.

 

[Toltec]

Thank u eileenhawkeye for pulling up the photo. Does look like JonBenet was flat-footed and matches the footprint in the wc.

Was she standing in the wine cellar before her death? That would mean she hadn't been hit over the head or strangled...what was she doing in there? Was she snooping in there...playing in there...did she open one of Burkes presents?

 

[Toltec]

JonBenet wore tights...not socks with her gap outfit....

15 TRIP DEMUTH: What about 384?

16 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible). Something

17 hanging over the wall up there by the laundry to dry.

18 TRIP DEMUTH: Do you recognize what they are?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: It looks like pajamas or

20 something. It looks like Burke's pajamas.

21 TRIP DEMUTH: May be tights.

22 PATSY RAMSEY: You mean leggings or

23 something?

24 TRIP DEMUTH: Right.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Can't tell whether they are

0463

1 adult or children.

2 TRIP DEMUTH: So you can't tell from that

3 photo what they are?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

 

[otg]

On the subject of the bare feet... From http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682512/The-Basement

Possible Child's Barefoot Print. Another smaller print near one of the shoe prints may possibly be that of a child. A distance photo shows the print in context. A close-up shows an outline of the print.

To better ascertain the size, Internet poster Mikie has traced an outline showing the foot to be roughly 6" in length--a plausible size for a 6-year old girl, as Lou Smit reportedly said it was roughly the same size as that of his granddaughter of that age. But since JBR was found barefoot, Mikie has also posted an outline showing toes, making the foot about 7 inches long.
​

I apologize for posting this without questioning it. Something didn’t seem right about it to me.

The 6” length referred to by Mikie was wrong. Apparently Mikie didn’t realize that the scale shown in the crime scene photo was in centimeters and not in inches. Here is the original photo without his outline:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img041.jpg

The scale used by investigators in this photo can be found on this page (Bureau Scale Set), along with the ABFO No. 2 Scale, designed by the American Board of Forensic Odontology, which can be seen in so many of the autopsy photos.

Looking back at the original photo of the supposed “bare footprint”, the length would be about 6 or 7 cm, or about 2½ inches for those of us on this side of the pond. That would be way too small for a child’s footprint. So the question becomes: What is it that is being shown in that photo?

If you read further in the link to pbworks.com, it says:

Internet poster Braveheart has suggested that this "print" really is of a carabiner. Internet poster Mikie has posted a photo comparison of the "footprint" (showing that it has straight sides) and a "ladder hook" which is similar to a carabiner in shape; he also has shown that a bottle opener may have been attached.
​

So what is a carabiner?
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabiner[/ame]

If you’d like to see how they are used, here is a video:
http://www.ehow.com/video_2353766_use-carabiners-rock-climbing.html

So, if that is a photo of the outline of a carabiner that was laying on the basement floor, it is an indication of rock-climbing equipment having been down there in the basement. Perhaps (only speculating here) the cord used to strangle JonBenet was just a single piece of cord that had been cut from a larger supply kept somewhere else (a college dorm maybe?).

We don’t know that that is what it is, we can only speculate. But I felt that since I posted the link above, I should be the one to correct the misinformation when I found out. And I know this is all getting kind of away from the theme of this thread, but this should be the end of this tangent.
.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I apologize for posting this without questioning it. Something didn’t seem right about it to me.

The 6” length referred to by Mikie was wrong. Apparently Mikie didn’t realize that the scale shown in the crime scene photo was in centimeters and not in inches. Here is the original photo without his outline:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/extra/ramsey/img041.jpg

The scale used by investigators in this photo can be found on this page (Bureau Scale Set), along with the ABFO No. 2 Scale, designed by the American Board of Forensic Odontology, which can be seen in so many of the autopsy photos.

Looking back at the original photo of the supposed “bare footprint”, the length would be about 6 or 7 cm, or about 2½ inches for those of us on this side of the pond. That would be way too small for a child’s footprint. So the question becomes: What is it that is being shown in that photo?

If you read further in the link to pbworks.com, it says:

Internet poster Braveheart has suggested that this "print" really is of a carabiner. Internet poster Mikie has posted a photo comparison of the "footprint" (showing that it has straight sides) and a "ladder hook" which is similar to a carabiner in shape; he also has shown that a bottle opener may have been attached.
​

So what is a carabiner?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabiner

If you’d like to see how they are used, here is a video:
http://www.ehow.com/video_2353766_use-carabiners-rock-climbing.html

So, if that is a photo of the outline of a carabiner that was laying on the basement floor, it is an indication of rock-climbing equipment having been down there in the basement. Perhaps (only speculating here) the cord used to strangle JonBenet was just a single piece of cord that had been cut from a larger supply kept somewhere else (a college dorm maybe?).

We don’t know that that is what it is, we can only speculate. But I felt that since I posted the link above, I should be the one to correct the misinformation when I found out. And I know this is all getting kind of away from the theme of this thread, but this should be the end of this tangent.
.

Thanks for the correction, otg. An alive JonBenet in the cellar, walking around, put a whole new spin on things for me. Back to my current theory now.

 

[DeeDee249]

I never really put too much credence into there being a bare footprint of JB in the WC. For one, that would be too big too ignore, and there wasn't much said about it "officially". Hard to be ONE print, also, She'd have to be standing on TWO feet. I don't feel she was alive in the WC that night. I think she was killed elsewhere (probably in the basement, near the WC) and placed in there after she died, the white blanket being put down first (and the pink nightie or whatever the pink fabric is) being attached by static cling and in the dark, not seen by whoever put JB in that room.
I feel that way because of JR's comment about the pink nightie to LE when shown a crime photo of the WC: he said "that wasn't supposed to be there".
Right. Like the dead child in the white blanket WAS supposed to be there (because he put her there).