The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[UKGuy]

Aren't we saying about the same thing then?



...I think we are... I just get confused by you sometimes UKGuy, cuz I feel like you state back the obvious when rhetorical questions are being asked, and then also it seems like you are going against what I thought I was saying - seems like you are arguing against what I'm saying, only to see that it seems pretty much the same:




...Or maybe you are just detailing it slightly different - slightly different possibilities of the events, but we have the same idea.

Regardless, I could agree with everything you say, but we do need to figure out then why Patsy says SHE put the longjohns on JonBenet, and why she did produce the package years later. If we are thinking JR committed this and tried to hide it from Patsy we wonder what he must have told her to have her go along, right? But I don't have a problem wondering, I'm one of the few who thinks he also wrote the Ransom Note....

Whaleshark,

...Or maybe you are just detailing it slightly different - slightly different possibilities of the events, but we have the same idea.

I thought you had assumed theory 1. as accepted? This is why I outlined the three theories and that there may be another explanation for the staging other than this Undoing.

I mean, why bother with all this inordinate staging and then remove evidence that corroborates a feature of the staging?


.

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark,

I thought you had assumed theory 1. as accepted? This is why I outlined the three theories and that there may be another explanation for the staging other than this Undoing.

I mean, why bother with all this inordinate staging and then remove evidence that corroborates a feature of the staging?

Yeah, no....I am pretty open to scenarios or possibilities and change my mind occasionally. Just sometimes I get a Eureka moment and eliminate certain options because I know those for a fact don't make sense once I revisit and look at things logically....

But I haven't settled yet on the exact reason for the size 12s; talking it out on here and getting other perspectives is what we're doing right?

Undoing is a possibility if you have remorse, yes. And some elements of the way she was found do look like undoing. But you have a good point, because if it was just undoing, she could have been put in clean undies her own size. Whereas that out of place size seems to indicate staging.

Interesting to note:
From Forensic Pathology Review, Volume 4 by Michael Tsokos -
http://books.google.com/books?id=XYdeDw7HVmYC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=undoing+versus+staging+in+a+crime&source=bl&ots=WEs1FusLwe&sig=0R-MvS-99OGchoHDvFHt-nAJe8I&hl=en&ei=jQyGTufmGcuJsALu9rmwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

....."Undoing behavior should be differentiated from acts of staging or posing. Staging is defined as the purposeful alteration of the crime scene to make it appear to be something it is not. Posing means the positioning of a victim's body - usually in a degrading position - for the offender's own pleasure or to shock the finder of the body.

.....the four cases demonstrated here confirm the hypothesis of preceding deep emotional relations between victim and offender leading to undoing behavior: exclusively the female partner or ex-partner was killed in the cases presented here....

...However, the differential diagnosis of deception factors and false tracks should not be disregarded. One single behavior should never be interpreted outside its context, because the same behavior may be part of an offender's modus operandi for the purpose of destroying trace evidence, whereas in another case it can be a form of undoing behavior. Therefore, a behavior's meaning to the offender can only be interpreted when regarded in its context.

And check this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XYdeDw7HVmYC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=undoing+versus+staging+in+a+crime&source=bl&ots=WEs1FusLwe&sig=0R-MvS-99OGchoHDvFHt-nAJe8I&hl=en&ei=jQyGTufmGcuJsALu9rmwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
....."Staging is when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of police. there are two reasons why someone employs staging, to redirect the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim's or victim's family. The second reason for staging is to protect the victim's family and is employed most frequently with rape-murder crimes or auerotic fatalities. The offender of a sexual homicide frequently leaves the victim in a degrading position.

This type of staging is also prevalent with autoerotic fatalities. The victim may be removed from the apparatus that caused death.

Finally, the investigator should discern whether a crime scene is truly disorganized or whether the offender staged it to appear careless and haphazard. This determination not only helps direct the analysis to the underlying motive but also helps to shape the offender profile. However, the recognition of staging especially with a shrewd offender can be difficult. The investigator must scrutinize all factors of the crime if there is reason to believe it has been staged. Forensics, Victimology and minute crime scene details become critical to the detection of staging.

...Staging Red Flags

An offender who stages a crime scene usually makes mistakes because he stages it to look the way he thinks a crime scene should look. While doing this, the offender experiences a great deal of stress and don’t not have time to fit all the pieces together logically. Inconsistencies will begin appearing at the crime scene with forensics and with the overall picture of the offense. These contradictions will often serve as the red flags of staging and prevent misguidance of the investigation.

The crime scene often will contain these red flags in the form of crime scene inconsistencies.

Another red flag apparent with many staged domestic murders is the fatal assault of the wife and/or children by an intruder while the husband escapes without injury or with a nonfatal injury. If the offender does not first target or if that person suffers the least amount of injury, the police investigator should especially examine all other crime scene indicators. In addition, the investigator should scrutinize forensics and Victimology with particular attention.

Forensic results that do not fit the crime should cause the investigator to think about staging. The presence of a personal type assault utilizing a weapon of opportunity when the initial motive for the offense appears to be for material gain should raise suspicion. This type of assault also includes manual or ligature strangulation, facial beating and excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (over kill) sexual and domestic homicides will demonstrate forensic findings of this type:
a close range, personalized assault
The victim is the primary focus of the offender.
This type of offender often will attempt to stage a sexual or domestic homicide to appear motivated by criminal enterprise.

This does not imply that personal-type assaults never happen during the commission of a property crime, but usually the criminal enterprise offender prefers a quick clean kill that reduces his time at the scene. Any forensic red flags after careful analysis should be placed in context with Victimology and crime scene information.

Investigators often will find forensic discrepancies when a subject stages a rape/murder. The offender frequently positions the victim to infer sexual assault has occurred. an offender who has a close relationship with the victim will often only partially remove the victim’s clothing. He rarely leaves the victim nude. Autopsy demonstrates a lack of sexual assault. With a staged sexual assault, there is usually no evidence of any sexual activity and an absence of seminal fluids in the body orifice".

And here's a real irony - the source for the above: Crime Classification Manual By John E Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Burgess and Robert K Ressler Lexington Books 1992.

HA!

 

[UKGuy]

Yeah, no....I am pretty open to scenarios or possibilities and change my mind occasionally. Just sometimes I get a Eureka moment and eliminate certain options because I know those for a fact don't make sense once I revisit and look at things logically....

But I haven't settled yet on the exact reason for the size 12s; talking it out on here and getting other perspectives is what we're doing right?

Undoing is a possibility if you have remorse, yes. And some elements of the way she was found do look like undoing. But you have a good point, because if it was just undoing, she could have been put in clean undies her own size. Whereas that out of place size seems to indicate staging.

Interesting to note:
From Forensic Pathology Review, Volume 4 by Michael Tsokos -
http://books.google.com/books?id=XYdeDw7HVmYC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=undoing+versus+staging+in+a+crime&source=bl&ots=WEs1FusLwe&sig=0R-MvS-99OGchoHDvFHt-nAJe8I&hl=en&ei=jQyGTufmGcuJsALu9rmwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

....."Undoing behavior should be differentiated from acts of staging or posing. Staging is defined as the purposeful alteration of the crime scene to make it appear to be something it is not. Posing means the positioning of a victim's body - usually in a degrading position - for the offender's own pleasure or to shock the finder of the body.

.....the four cases demonstrated here confirm the hypothesis of preceding deep emotional relations between victim and offender leading to undoing behavior: exclusively the female partner or ex-partner was killed in the cases presented here....

...However, the differential diagnosis of deception factors and false tracks should not be disregarded. One single behavior should never be interpreted outside its context, because the same behavior may be part of an offender's modus operandi for the purpose of destroying trace evidence, whereas in another case it can be a form of undoing behavior. Therefore, a behavior's meaning to the offender can only be interpreted when regarded in its context.

And check this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XYdeDw7HVmYC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=undoing+versus+staging+in+a+crime&source=bl&ots=WEs1FusLwe&sig=0R-MvS-99OGchoHDvFHt-nAJe8I&hl=en&ei=jQyGTufmGcuJsALu9rmwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
....."Staging is when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of police. there are two reasons why someone employs staging, to redirect the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim's or victim's family. The second reason for staging is to protect the victim's family and is employed most frequently with rape-murder crimes or auerotic fatalities. The offender of a sexual homicide frequently leaves the victim in a degrading position.

This type of staging is also prevalent with autoerotic fatalities. The victim may be removed from the apparatus that caused death.

Finally, the investigator should discern whether a crime scene is truly disorganized or whether the offender staged it to appear careless and haphazard. This determination not only helps direct the analysis to the underlying motive but also helps to shape the offender profile. However, the recognition of staging especially with a shrewd offender can be difficult. The investigator must scrutinize all factors of the crime if there is reason to believe it has been staged. Forensics, Victimology and minute crime scene details become critical to the detection of staging.

...Staging Red Flags

An offender who stages a crime scene usually makes mistakes because he stages it to look the way he thinks a crime scene should look. While doing this, the offender experiences a great deal of stress and don’t not have time to fit all the pieces together logically. Inconsistencies will begin appearing at the crime scene with forensics and with the overall picture of the offense. These contradictions will often serve as the red flags of staging and prevent misguidance of the investigation.

The crime scene often will contain these red flags in the form of crime scene inconsistencies.

Another red flag apparent with many staged domestic murders is the fatal assault of the wife and/or children by an intruder while the husband escapes without injury or with a nonfatal injury. If the offender does not first target or if that person suffers the least amount of injury, the police investigator should especially examine all other crime scene indicators. In addition, the investigator should scrutinize forensics and Victimology with particular attention.

Forensic results that do not fit the crime should cause the investigator to think about staging. The presence of a personal type assault utilizing a weapon of opportunity when the initial motive for the offense appears to be for material gain should raise suspicion. This type of assault also includes manual or ligature strangulation, facial beating and excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (over kill) sexual and domestic homicides will demonstrate forensic findings of this type:
a close range, personalized assault
The victim is the primary focus of the offender.
This type of offender often will attempt to stage a sexual or domestic homicide to appear motivated by criminal enterprise.

This does not imply that personal-type assaults never happen during the commission of a property crime, but usually the criminal enterprise offender prefers a quick clean kill that reduces his time at the scene. Any forensic red flags after careful analysis should be placed in context with Victimology and crime scene information.

Investigators often will find forensic discrepancies when a subject stages a rape/murder. The offender frequently positions the victim to infer sexual assault has occurred. an offender who has a close relationship with the victim will often only partially remove the victim’s clothing. He rarely leaves the victim nude. Autopsy demonstrates a lack of sexual assault. With a staged sexual assault, there is usually no evidence of any sexual activity and an absence of seminal fluids in the body orifice".

And here's a real irony - the source for the above: Crime Classification Manual By John E Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Burgess and Robert K Ressler Lexington Books 1992.

HA!

Whaleshark,

But I haven't settled yet on the exact reason for the size 12s; talking it out on here and getting other perspectives is what we're doing right?

Precisely.

Thanks for your quotes which are illuminating particularly the one attributed to John E Douglas, the again, I could tell you stories abot him, but fear of litigation would prevent it. Lets just say he is not averse to writing unbiased reports.

IMO, the wine-cellar crime-scene is comprised of more than one staging, thats why the pink barbie nightgown is to be found at the crime-scene, possibly replaced by the longjohns, amending a previous staging one probably undertaken by either Patsy or Burke?

Elements of this staging are mainly for the benefit of the other Ramsey members. Not as Undoing but to present JonBenet much as she was earlier on that night, even still wearing her size-6 Wednesday underwear. The sexual assault is masked hidden beneath the longjohns, and its likely another family member was just told JonBenet has had an accident we need to fix the crime-scene else Burke might be blamed, she is dead, we cannot bring her back, so lets do this for the family, yada yada...

The staging red flags are the size-12's and the pink barbie nightgown and possibly the barbie doll. These probably arise due to amending the staging, Patsy's lies about the size-12's indirectly support this view.

Its possible BDI, Patsy fabricated a staging, then John amended this staging resulting in the red flags?

This is the most consistent theory, but not necessarly the correct one.




.

 

[tweezybird]

panties. If I understand correctly, they were never found? And could Patsy's sister have gotten the size 12 package out of the house. Didn't BPD do a search of the home before her sister came in to retrieve things?

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark,

Precisely.

Thanks for your quotes which are illuminating particularly the one attributed to John E Douglas, the again, I could tell you stories abot him, but fear of litigation would prevent it. Lets just say he is not averse to writing unbiased reports.

things like this for instance?

"...The House hearing did elicit abundant evidence that FBI agents sabotaged negotiations. Former FBI behavioral scientist Peter Smerick explained that his superior John Douglas told him that FBI Director William Sessions was unhappy with his analysis and favored stepped up tactical harassment..."

Yes, it is interesting that Douglas seems to contradict and compromises his own words and ethics and knowledge of crime/crime scenes, etc. so blatantly....

 

[UKGuy]

things like this for instance?

"...The House hearing did elicit abundant evidence that FBI agents sabotaged negotiations. Former FBI behavioral scientist Peter Smerick explained that his superior John Douglas told him that FBI Director William Sessions was unhappy with his analysis and favored stepped up tactical harassment..."

Yes, it is interesting that Douglas seems to contradict and compromises his own words and ethics and knowledge of crime/crime scenes, etc. so blatantly....

Whaleshark,
Yes that and the Ramsey's report asks important questions. As usual money talks.


.

 

[Whaleshark]

of course. In The Cases That Haunt Us he talks about meeting with the Ramseys attorneys and discussing what interrogation tactics would/should be used. Are you kidding me? They hire him and he just gives them everything they need.

And he makes it a point to say he was hired by their defense team to see if the parents could have done it, NOT to provide a profile of the killer. Hello. And why would they NOT want a profile of the killer, by the way, if:

1) That's his expertise, and
2) They are innocent and need to know who did this?

I mean, at the very least why wouldn't you ask for the profile? Don't you wanna know?

It's so very ridiculous, all of it.

And wouldn't he ask or say - Oh well, yeah, they are innocent, and since by the way they are innocent, here IS the profile of the killer. You might want that since it is my expertise after all. wtf?

 

[UKGuy]

of course. In The Cases That Haunt Us he talks about meeting with the Ramseys attorneys and discussing what interrogation tactics would/should be used. Are you kidding me? They hire him and he just gives them everything they need.

And he makes it a point to say he was hired by their defense team to see if the parents could have done it, NOT to provide a profile of the killer. Hello. And why would they NOT want a profile of the killer, by the way, if:

1) That's his expertise, and
2) They are innocent and need to know who did this?

I mean, at the very least why wouldn't you ask for the profile? Don't you wanna know?

It's so very ridiculous, all of it.

And wouldn't he ask or say - Oh well, yeah, they are innocent, and since by the way they are innocent, here IS the profile of the killer. You might want that since it is my expertise after all. wtf?

Whaleshark,
Exactly, he simply delivered what he was payed to do.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

panties. If I understand correctly, they were never found? And could Patsy's sister have gotten the size 12 package out of the house. Didn't BPD do a search of the home before her sister came in to retrieve things?

Ah- the $60 million question.

BPD did a search of the home before Patsy's sister did. LE found ONLY panties that were size 4-6 in the home. BUT it was never stated whether they found Bloomies Day of the Week panties in size 6. If they had, and the "Wednesday" pair was missing, that answered pretty definitively the question of why she was redressed in another pair of Wednesday panties, identical except for size.
IMO, Patsy's sister should never have been allowed into the house- any LE could have retrieved whatever the family requested for the funeral (which was Patsy's alleged reason for sending her sister in the first place).
The home was released to the family far too soon. They needed to do a much deeper investigation of the whole house, not just pass a fluoroscope over JB's bed and carpet and some basement areas. They missed so much. Who knows what Patsy's sister really removed? LE did not accompany her on her search through the home. And the FACT that they lent her an official police jacket to wear as she went in and out numerous times proves that they knew they shouldn't have been allowing her inside. BTW, it is a crime in its own right for official police clothing and identification to be worn, or allowed to be worn, by anyone who is NOT a member of that police force.

 

[madeleine]

of course. In The Cases That Haunt Us he talks about meeting with the Ramseys attorneys and discussing what interrogation tactics would/should be used. Are you kidding me? They hire him and he just gives them everything they need.

And he makes it a point to say he was hired by their defense team to see if the parents could have done it, NOT to provide a profile of the killer. Hello. And why would they NOT want a profile of the killer, by the way, if:

1) That's his expertise, and
2) They are innocent and need to know who did this?

I mean, at the very least why wouldn't you ask for the profile? Don't you wanna know?

It's so very ridiculous, all of it.

And wouldn't he ask or say - Oh well, yeah, they are innocent, and since by the way they are innocent, here IS the profile of the killer. You might want that since it is my expertise after all. wtf?

not only this but at some point he says very clear that if IDI it definitely was someone known to the family,maybe someone hating JR.
and what does JR do?
he totally ignores it(remember all his comments,it was a monster,we don't know anyone that evil,bla,bla,fgs,stop and think for a minute,if the profiler says you know the guy then it probably is so).now why did you even hire the guy if you ignore the most important part of his profile,the WHY and the possible WHO?(because IMO this would have forced JR to answer more and more questions and we know he always avoided this)
nope,JR comes on TV months and years later and sells us LS's stranger pedo theory.now,if you were him,who would you rather believe when it comes to a profile,the super profiler or some detective?
if IDI JD's profile makes the most sense but they just ignored what he said.this was a big red flag for me!

 

[vlpate]

Ah- the $60 million question.

BPD did a search of the home before Patsy's sister did. LE found ONLY panties that were size 4-6 in the home. BUT it was never stated whether they found Bloomies Day of the Week panties in size 6. If they had, and the "Wednesday" pair was missing, that answered pretty definitively the question of why she was redressed in another pair of Wednesday panties, identical except for size.
IMO, Patsy's sister should never have been allowed into the house- any LE could have retrieved whatever the family requested for the funeral (which was Patsy's alleged reason for sending her sister in the first place).
The home was released to the family far too soon. They needed to do a much deeper investigation of the whole house, not just pass a fluoroscope over JB's bed and carpet and some basement areas. They missed so much. Who knows what Patsy's sister really removed? LE did not accompany her on her search through the home. And the FACT that they lent her an official police jacket to wear as she went in and out numerous times proves that they knew they shouldn't have been allowing her inside. BTW, it is a crime in its own right for official police clothing and identification to be worn, or allowed to be worn, by anyone who is NOT a member of that police force.

Hey DeeDee,
You know it's rare that I disagree with your thorough research and knowledge in the case, but I seem to remember LE did escort PP troughout the house. I remember thinking, at the time, that they had already taken photos and prints of most everything and just wanted to see what was important to the Ramseys. I thought it was pretty cunning. I distinctly remember Pam asking if she could go into JBR's room one more time, but I forget why. I think they were watching her very closely. I'll look and see what I can find on this again

 

[Alix]

I can't see PR putting the big panties on her daughter.

I think JR put them on. He found her earlier in the basement, semi-nude and he took the panties package(down there waiting to be wrapped) and dressed her and wrapped her in the blanket.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hey DeeDee,
You know it's rare that I disagree with your thorough research and knowledge in the case, but I seem to remember LE did escort PP troughout the house. I remember thinking, at the time, that they had already taken photos and prints of most everything and just wanted to see what was important to the Ramseys. I thought it was pretty cunning. I distinctly remember Pam asking if she could go into JBR's room one more time, but I forget why. I think they were watching her very closely. I'll look and see what I can find on this again

I think a little of both happened. If they went into the house with her, I don't think they watched every move she made. And I know they didn't all go into the house with her, because I seem to recall that someone DID question police outside the house that day about it and police told them that "it's OK because we know who killed her". Anyone else remember this? What I do know is that they said that they provided the jacket so that letting someone inside "wouldn't attract attention". That meant they knew it was wrong and they knew they'd be questioned about it.
There is also some mystery about golf bag that JR allegedly asked for. There were TWO seen in a crime photo right outside the WC door. I believe one was taken as evidence (or was it only golf clubs?). Did she take the golf bag or not. Did any LE make a written list of every single thing she took. I read it filled a police cruiser, and I also read it filled THREE police cruisers.
More uncertainty- I had read that a local department store offered to provide clothing for the funeral. Did that happen? Patsy didn't just have that "Jacquie Kennedy" widow's veil sitting around, did she? I mean, where would you come up with a get-up like that so quickly if you are NOT the First Lady?

 

[vlpate]

I can't see PR putting the big panties on her daughter.

I think JR put them on. He found her earlier in the basement, semi-nude and he took the panties package(down there waiting to be wrapped) and dressed her and wrapped her in the blanket.

So, did JR wipe her down or did PR - and where was PR while he was wiping her down, or not, and finding the panties and the longjohns to put on her. Who wrote the ransom note? How did the blood get on the panties that weren't on JBR when PR was molesting her? There was a lot of dust on the floor of that room - seems there would have been more on her bare bottom half had she been laying there long.

Who garrotted and who did the head bashing in your scenario?

 

[Alix]

So, did JR wipe her down or did PR - and where was PR while he was wiping her down, or not, and finding the panties and the longjohns to put on her. Who wrote the ransom note? How did the blood get on the panties that weren't on JBR when PR was molesting her? There was a lot of dust on the floor of that room - seems there would have been more on her bare bottom half had she been laying there long.

Who garrotted and who did the head bashing in your scenario?

Well, I'm not completely sure when it comes to the wiping, because I've never understood when it took place.(I'm still new with this case.)

But, cleaning seems to be part of the "undoing"(am I using this right?), when JR finds his strangled and semi-clad daughter in the basement. Maybe he cleaned her before he dressed her. Maybe he was trying to wipe off blood from the raping her mother did.

I think PR bashed JBR first and then strangled her. I don't know if she realized her daughter was not yet dead when she strangled her. I'm thinking no, she didn't know.

PR wrote that note. It was completely hers, without help or direction from JR.

Still, I stand firm on the idea that the rape was not a staging, but a rape. I do think she posed her differently, however, then the way she was found.

I know this sounds awful, but I find PR to be incredibly deviant and mentally unwell.

The father is just useless. I don't know what else to say about him. He is just one creep in a family of weirdos.

(Oh, what is this about blood on other panties?)

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, I'm not completely sure when it comes to the wiping, because I've never understood when it took place.(I'm still new with this case.)

But, cleaning seems to be part of the "undoing"(am I using this right?), when JR finds his strangled and semi-clad daughter in the basement. Maybe he cleaned her before he dressed her. Maybe he was trying to wipe off blood from the raping her mother did.

I think PR bashed JBR first and then strangled her. I don't know if she realized her daughter was not yet dead when she strangled her. I'm thinking no, she didn't know.

PR wrote that note. It was completely hers, without help or direction from JR.

Still, I stand firm on the idea that the rape was not a staging, but a rape. I do think she posed her differently, however, then the way she was found.

I know this sounds awful, but I find PR to be incredibly deviant and mentally unwell.

The father is just useless. I don't know what else to say about him. He is just one creep in a family of weirdos.

(Oh, what is this about blood on other panties?)

Welcome to the case- and try not to get overwhelmed- just take your time and read as much as you can. If you haven't visited this site: http://www.acandyrose.com, please do so- it has a wealth of information on the case, and there are books recommended as well. Just be sure to scroll down to the JonBenet archives.

I agree with you on Patsy Ramsey. There was a LOT going on there. Ditto the rest of the family. They are ALL strange- the father, brother, grandparents and aunts. This was a family with secrets, IMO.
There was no blood on other panties. JB was found wearing a pair of girls' panties that were several sizes too large for her, and that had been bought by Patsy for an older cousin of JB's during a shopping trip to NYC just weeks before. There is speculation that these large panties were put on her to replace her own panties that had become bloodied. This is not fact, though, as no other panties with blood on them have been found, as far as we know. We know there was blood found in JB's vagina and evidence of her own blood having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. It is easy to deduce in that case that there may have been a pair of bloodied panties that had to be removed/hidden/destroyed. The coroner mentioned that the SMALL amount of blood (a few drops) in her panties did not seem to match up to the blood which had been wiped away or the blood in her vagina, leading to speculation that the panties she was found in were put on her after whatever assault caused the bleeding in the first place.

 

[vlpate]

Welcome to the case- and try not to get overwhelmed- just take your time and read as much as you can. If you haven't visited this site: http://www.acandyrose.com, please do so- it has a wealth of information on the case, and there are books recommended as well. Just be sure to scroll down to the JonBenet archives.

I agree with you on Patsy Ramsey. There was a LOT going on there. Ditto the rest of the family. They are ALL strange- the father, brother, grandparents and aunts. This was a family with secrets, IMO.
There was no blood on other panties. JB was found wearing a pair of girls' panties that were several sizes too large for her, and that had been bought by Patsy for an older cousin of JB's during a shopping trip to NYC just weeks before. There is speculation that these large panties were put on her to replace her own panties that had become bloodied. This is not fact, though, as no other panties with blood on them have been found, as far as we know. We know there was blood found in JB's vagina and evidence of her own blood having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. It is easy to deduce in that case that there may have been a pair of bloodied panties that had to be removed/hidden/destroyed. The coroner mentioned that the SMALL amount of blood (a few drops) in her panties did not seem to match up to the blood which had been wiped away or the blood in her vagina, leading to speculation that the panties she was found in were put on her after whatever assault caused the bleeding in the first place.

BBM: Where was this said, and how could Meyer distinguish differences in the blood during an autopsy? How did he know what the blood looked like that was wiped away...since it was, after all, wiped a way.

I'm sorry, I have forgotten so much - I know she was wiped down, but I don't remember there being evidence of what was wiped away being blood. I should read the books again.

 

[vlpate]

Respectfully snipped

I know this sounds awful, but I find PR to be incredibly deviant and mentally unwell.

The father is just useless. I don't know what else to say about him. He is just one creep in a family of weirdos.

(Oh, what is this about blood on other panties?)

I'm curious, being new to the case, as you stated, how did you so quickly come to the above opinions about Patsy and John? Patsy incredibly deviant and John useless and creepy...?

 

[Tadpole12]

things like this for instance?

"...The House hearing did elicit abundant evidence that FBI agents sabotaged negotiations. Former FBI behavioral scientist Peter Smerick explained that his superior John Douglas told him that FBI Director William Sessions was unhappy with his analysis and favored stepped up tactical harassment..."

Yes, it is interesting that Douglas seems to contradict and compromises his own words and ethics and knowledge of crime/crime scenes, etc. so blatantly....

Heyya Whaleshark,

Here's an addendum to JD:
Unarresting the Arrested:FBI Profiler John Douglas on the case against Amanda Knox & Raffaele So
September 28, 2011

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Unarresting-the-Arrested-FBI-Profiler-John-Douglas_1/2941619

"Criminal Behavioral Profiling has also proved to be a useful tool in exonerating the wrongly accused or convicted, of which Douglas also dedicates his time.​

Probably the most well-known of these was the JonBenét Ramsey case. The case is notable for both its longevity and the media interest it generated. The media and local law enforcement agencies considered the girl's parents and brother to be suspects. Douglas was the first to publicly proclaim their innocence, long before DNA legally exonerated them. He was vilified not only in the press, but by his colleagues as well."​

"This is like the Ramsey case. DNA eliminated the family as suspects. The family did not do it. Besides, I saw what'd been done to the child (JonBenet Ramsey), how she was sexually assaulted. Parents kill, they do. But not these parents. Not in the way, and method that child was killed. They're not the type to kill their daughter.​

There are people on websites that hate me to this day because of the Ramsey case. I want to say to them, give it up! – but they just won’t do it."​

 

[Alix]

Welcome to the case- and try not to get overwhelmed- just take your time and read as much as you can. If you haven't visited this site: http://www.acandyrose.com, please do so- it has a wealth of information on the case, and there are books recommended as well. Just be sure to scroll down to the JonBenet archives.

I agree with you on Patsy Ramsey. There was a LOT going on there. Ditto the rest of the family. They are ALL strange- the father, brother, grandparents and aunts. This was a family with secrets, IMO.
There was no blood on other panties. JB was found wearing a pair of girls' panties that were several sizes too large for her, and that had been bought by Patsy for an older cousin of JB's during a shopping trip to NYC just weeks before. There is speculation that these large panties were put on her to replace her own panties that had become bloodied. This is not fact, though, as no other panties with blood on them have been found, as far as we know. We know there was blood found in JB's vagina and evidence of her own blood having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. It is easy to deduce in that case that there may have been a pair of bloodied panties that had to be removed/hidden/destroyed. The coroner mentioned that the SMALL amount of blood (a few drops) in her panties did not seem to match up to the blood which had been wiped away or the blood in her vagina, leading to speculation that the panties she was found in were put on her after whatever assault caused the bleeding in the first place.

Thank you, Deedee!

Definately, I think JR put the over-sized panties on JBR, plus the longjohns and blanket. My own feelings are that PR had left JBR exposed for maximum shock value and JR found her on his first trip down to the basement. He probably cleaned her too. I wonder where the wiping cloth went to? Probably the same place as the rest of the Bloomies panties and the original smaller panties.

Recently I listened to that 911 call that PR made to report her daughter kidnapped. Two things caught me, 1) John didn't make the call, which is surprising and 2) PR sounded like she had been doing jumping jacks just before she called police.

I am totally serious. I remember this stupid trick being taught in high school drama so you sound "frantic". Instead, you just sound like you were doing jumping jacks, that's all. Anyhow, that is another reason, on top of the hideous TV interviews, that made me think PR was guilty as hell.