Was Burke involved?

Was Burke involved in JB's death?

  • Burke was involved in the death of JBR

    Votes: 377 59.6%
  • Burke was totally uninvolved in her death

    Votes: 256 40.4%

  • Total voters
    633
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe, at that time, Patsy wanted to distance herself and JR from wine cellar stagery by stating that as far as she knew the size 12's were in the panty drawer in JB's bathroom and not on hand in the WC where JB was wiped down and then the size 12's were frantically grabbed and put on her along with the longjohns, and then leakage occurred. The remaining package of size 12's could have been put in the nearby golf bag that was so important to get out of the house and delivered to a friend in the middle of winter.

ITA, EastCoast. I really dont believe Patsy was expecting to be questioned about the large panties and, as usual, lied her way around them. Gotta give her credit, she always had a lie handy!
 
DeeDee249

Thats my point! So if you know someone else redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and that you never placed them into her underwear drawer, why in a homicide investigation do you tell your interviewer that you did do this, only to be rebutted with the claim that only size-6 underwear was found in the drawer.

In other words why would Patsy set herself up to be knocked down, whats the rationale?


IA.

.

I suppose her rationale was that she had to say they were somewhere! She had already admitted buying them. She had already told LE that the panties on JB were the ones she bought in NYC. So where did they come from? Well, from the basement, still wrapped up to be given to her niece. But how could she admit that? To admit that would indicate that the panties were found by the intruder IN the gifts box and how would an intruder know there were panties in the box? She HAD to say she'd given them to JB and that JB herself put them on.
For those of you who are not mothers and have never dressed a little girl- you just would not put panties on a child that were that big. Would a child put them on herself? Well kids are not as aware of perfect fit as adults would be, but THOSE panties would have been so big and droopy that under pants they'd have bunched up uncomfortably and under a dress they'd be useless as panties, leaving the entire genital area uncovered and exposed through the huge leg openings.
Kids are quirky about undies and how they fit and feel. They can be like that with socks, too. Some kids have to have socks with a very flat toe seam or made of orlon or thin cotton so they don't bunch in socks.
I think Patsy said the only thing she could day, having already admitted the panties were in the house.
 
DeeDee249

Thats my point! So if you know someone else redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and that you never placed them into her underwear drawer, why in a homicide investigation do you tell your interviewer that you did do this, only to be rebutted with the claim that only size-6 underwear was found in the drawer.

In other words why would Patsy set herself up to be knocked down, whats the rationale?


IA.

.


UK, I have long been of the belief that Patsy checked out some time around the chemo and Sandy Stranger moved in along with the rest of Jean Brodies cast of characters. One does not always tell the others what she is doing, hence gaps in memory and confusion....
 
I suppose her rationale was that she had to say they were somewhere! She had already admitted buying them. She had already told LE that the panties on JB were the ones she bought in NYC. So where did they come from? Well, from the basement, still wrapped up to be given to her niece. But how could she admit that? To admit that would indicate that the panties were found by the intruder IN the gifts box and how would an intruder know there were panties in the box? She HAD to say she'd given them to JB and that JB herself put them on.
For those of you who are not mothers and have never dressed a little girl- you just would not put panties on a child that were that big. Would a child put them on herself? Well kids are not as aware of perfect fit as adults would be, but THOSE panties would have been so big and droopy that under pants they'd have bunched up uncomfortably and under a dress they'd be useless as panties, leaving the entire genital area uncovered and exposed through the huge leg openings.
Kids are quirky about undies and how they fit and feel. They can be like that with socks, too. Some kids have to have socks with a very flat toe seam or made of orlon or thin cotton so they don't bunch in socks.
I think Patsy said the only thing she could day, having already admitted the panties were in the house.

DeeDee249,
She could have said it was the intruder who redressed her, he must have had an underwear fetish?

For those of you who are not mothers and have never dressed a little girl- you just would not put panties on a child that were that big.
So why when she was fetching the longjohns did she not reach over and open JonBenet's underwear drawer and remove a pair of size-6's?

The size-12's alone force the redresser to say JonBenet redressed herself, assuming it is the day of the week that is being preserved.

I doubt very much that Patsy would consider the size-12's as appropriate staging, if you have to claim JonBenet redressed herself then make that claim about non-wednesday day of the week underwear, here any inconsistency is minimised by not being able to verify if someone else redressed JonBenet.

I still think Patsy was lying on behalf of someone else, someone else redressed JonBenet and she was ignorant JonBenet was wearing those size-12's.

.
 
UK, I have long been of the belief that Patsy checked out some time around the chemo and Sandy Stranger moved in along with the rest of Jean Brodies cast of characters. One does not always tell the others what she is doing, hence gaps in memory and confusion....

Agatha_C,

You could be correct. Lack of evidence has prevented me from developing a theory that has Patsy mentally challenged by prior abuse, with John managing the important household affairs.

The coping mechanism for abuse is sometimes misdiagnosed as schizophrenia, in general a flawless persona is presented to the world, whilst other personae may inhabit the deeper reaches of the psyche.

In JonBenet you can see the flawless persona being developed as a mirror to Patsy's. e.g. the talking up of JonBenet's achievements, starting her in pageants so young, the clothes, the dolls, the makeup etc etc.


The flawless persona is intended to mask the abused persona, this coping mechanism flows from the recognition that any flaw in your normal persona may reveal your abused persona.





.
 
also,in this interview she says she screamed for John AFTER she checked JB's room
this is not what she says in the police interviews,is it?

It was just very early in the morning, and I started to read it, and it was addressed to John. It said "Mr. Ramsey," And it said, "we have your daughter." And I -- you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I may have gotten through another sentence. I can't -- "we have your daughter." and I don't know if I got any further than that. And I immediately ran back upstairs and pushed open her door, and she was not in her bed, and I screamed for John.


http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/01011997ramseysoncnn.htm

I've always wondered how all of that screaming never woke Burke.
 
I still maintain that whoever put the panties on JB (and it was not JB herself) never thought that the size of the panties would become an issue. They were under the longjohns where they weren't visible, they were not on a conscious child who would mind the bulky fit. They would not be seen on her in the way a live child wearing them would be seen- where the too-large size would be VERY apparent. While they may have felt that her clothing was going to be removed at the morgue, I feel they really were not thinking about having to explain the size. To Patsy, it was simple- she bought them for her older, larger niece, JB wanted them, she gave them to her, and that was why JB was wearing them. She said she put the rest of the set away in JB's panty drawer. We know she did not. The (alleged) rest of the set was sent along years later, still in the package, so no way were they ever put into the drawer and worn. Not that she'd have had much time to wear them- she died only a few weeks after they were bought. I often wonder if those remaining panties were ever matched to the ones on JB (hopefully still in evidence) as to style, any tags, fabric, does the waistband script match, etc? Bloomies sold those sets over the course of years- Day of the Week panty sets for girls have been around for decades. Bloomingdale's didn't actually manufacture them- they were made by an outside vendor for sale by Bloomingdale's. And the prints and colors were updated from time to time- a set sold in 1996 might have different prints, colors and script styles from one purchased 4-5 years later. Good investigative practices would also have traced the vendor, where they were made, and whether the remaining 6 pairs would have come from the same set as the ones on JB.
 
I still maintain that whoever put the panties on JB (and it was not JB herself) never thought that the size of the panties would become an issue. They were under the longjohns where they weren't visible, they were not on a conscious child who would mind the bulky fit. They would not be seen on her in the way a live child wearing them would be seen- where the too-large size would be VERY apparent. While they may have felt that her clothing was going to be removed at the morgue, I feel they really were not thinking about having to explain the size. To Patsy, it was simple- she bought them for her older, larger niece, JB wanted them, she gave them to her, and that was why JB was wearing them. She said she put the rest of the set away in JB's panty drawer. We know she did not. The (alleged) rest of the set was sent along years later, still in the package, so no way were they ever put into the drawer and worn. Not that she'd have had much time to wear them- she died only a few weeks after they were bought. I often wonder if those remaining panties were ever matched to the ones on JB (hopefully still in evidence) as to style, any tags, fabric, does the waistband script match, etc? Bloomies sold those sets over the course of years- Day of the Week panty sets for girls have been around for decades. Bloomingdale's didn't actually manufacture them- they were made by an outside vendor for sale by Bloomingdale's. And the prints and colors were updated from time to time- a set sold in 1996 might have different prints, colors and script styles from one purchased 4-5 years later. Good investigative practices would also have traced the vendor, where they were made, and whether the remaining 6 pairs would have come from the same set as the ones on JB.

DeeDee249,
I still maintain that whoever put the panties on JB (and it was not JB herself) never thought that the size of the panties would become an issue.
Really! So does this mean they did not replace the size-6 pair on the basis of a day of the week match?

It was like: any clean pair will do, just make them a wednesday pair, and if day of the week was not a motive then why not fetch a size-6 pair?

For us the the size-12's are very much the issue, personally I reckon its one big red flag signaling staging big time.

Whichever Ramsey put those size-12's on JonBenet must have known questions would be raised about the size, but JonBenet wearing underwear was deemed more important than what size they were?

.
 
DeeDee249,

Really! So does this mean they did not replace the size-6 pair on the basis of a day of the week match?

It was like: any clean pair will do, just make them a wednesday pair, and if day of the week was not a motive then why not fetch a size-6 pair?

For us the the size-12's are very much the issue, personally I reckon its one big red flag signaling staging big time.

Whichever Ramsey put those size-12's on JonBenet must have known questions would be raised about the size, but JonBenet wearing underwear was deemed more important than what size they were?

.


I see nothing in my comments that would infer that I was ruling out replacing the size 6 panties for a day of the week match. ALL I said was that I believed they did not think anyone would notice the SIZE.
Actually, they could have needed another Wednesday pair- Christmas day that year WAS a Wednesday. Despite Patsy's comment that JB put them on herself- she forgot that it was already known that JB couldn't read yet. Someone would have picked that pair out for her.
There are more than one reason why the panties that were supposed to be for Jenny ended up on JB. One could be the need to match the day- certainly, especially if there was any chance that someone at the White's had helped her in the bathroom (a common thing for JB) and would have noticed a novelty panty that said "Wednesday" as opposed to a plain pair.
There is also the possibility that they did not wish to go upstairs to get a pair of her own because of the risk of BR hearing them or coming in to see what they were doing. I also feel that, despite what was happening, they didn't want to put a pair of her own panties on her because, as LE reported, ALL of the panties belonging to JB had fecal stains in them and, as unlikely as this may seem to people, they just didn't want her to be found in stained undies.
 
I see nothing in my comments that would infer that I was ruling out replacing the size 6 panties for a day of the week match. ALL I said was that I believed they did not think anyone would notice the SIZE.
Actually, they could have needed another Wednesday pair- Christmas day that year WAS a Wednesday. Despite Patsy's comment that JB put them on herself- she forgot that it was already known that JB couldn't read yet. Someone would have picked that pair out for her.
There are more than one reason why the panties that were supposed to be for Jenny ended up on JB. One could be the need to match the day- certainly, especially if there was any chance that someone at the White's had helped her in the bathroom (a common thing for JB) and would have noticed a novelty panty that said "Wednesday" as opposed to a plain pair.
There is also the possibility that they did not wish to go upstairs to get a pair of her own because of the risk of BR hearing them or coming in to see what they were doing. I also feel that, despite what was happening, they didn't want to put a pair of her own panties on her because, as LE reported, ALL of the panties belonging to JB had fecal stains in them and, as unlikely as this may seem to people, they just didn't want her to be found in stained undies.

DeeDee249,

I see nothing in my comments that would infer that I was ruling out replacing the size 6 panties for a day of the week match. ALL I said was that I believed they did not think anyone would notice the SIZE.
mmm, well if you do not notice the size, should the day of the week be at all relevant?

ALL of the panties belonging to JB had fecal stains in them and, as unlikely as this may seem to people, they just didn't want her to be found in stained undies.
Now you can never rule anything out, but this explanation ranks well beneath a day of the week reason. How about the urine staining?

Personally I reckon JonBenet is wearing those size-12's because whomever redressed her, their staging scenario required underwear.

I do not think the size-12's are an arbitrary choice e.g. they were conveniently close to hand so on they went.

The person redressing JonBenet had a motive for doing so, maybe this conforms to cynic's suggestion of undoing, and if we add in your thought that underwear without stains were required then we are done.

At this point I think I'll opt for day of the week as being the motive for redressing JonBenet in those size-12's.


.
 
DeeDee249,


mmm, well if you do not notice the size, should the day of the week be at all relevant?


Now you can never rule anything out, but this explanation ranks well beneath a day of the week reason. How about the urine staining?

Personally I reckon JonBenet is wearing those size-12's because whomever redressed her, their staging scenario required underwear.

I do not think the size-12's are an arbitrary choice e.g. they were conveniently close to hand so on they went.

The person redressing JonBenet had a motive for doing so, maybe this conforms to cynic's suggestion of undoing, and if we add in your thought that underwear without stains were required then we are done.

At this point I think I'll opt for day of the week as being the motive for redressing JonBenet in those size-12's.


.


UK Guy, I already SAID that there is a possibility that the panties were needed because they said "WEdnesday". IF JB had been wearing a pair that said "Wednesday" in her own size, there was a possibility that someone at the White's may have helped her in the bathroom and noticed the panties. However, this would mean that Patsy bought a set for JB (size 6-8) as well as Jenny (size 12-14). And the small set would have been in JB's panty drawer. Police removed ALL of JB's panties that were there. NO "day of the week" panties. There is a possibility that they were not in the drawer, but already packed for the trip(s). They were recently bought, so would be newer than her other pairs. Lots of people pack new undies for a trip.

The urine staining was from urine released at the time of death. They were not stains that were already present on the panties. This is very different from all her other panties, which showed fecal stains that did not wash out, and were evidence of poor wiping or soiling one's pants.
I maintain the panties were not random either. The Wednesday pair would be in the middle of the package. If it was a matter of simply pulling out a pair, it woudn't be THAT pair.
JB didn't read yet. IF she wore a Wednesday pair that day at all- someone picked it out for her to put on.

I said they though no one would make a big deal of the size. This is different then not noticing the panties were too large. They were larger than she usually wore- so what? THIS was the parents' thinking. Again (and this is getting tiring)- JB was NOT walking around in the huge panties. She was unconscious and they were UNDER her snug-fitting lonhjohns. Had she not been undressed in the morgue, NO ONE would have noticed she was wearing such large panties, because not apparent when she was brought up from the basement or when the coroner first examined the body.
 
UK Guy, I already SAID that there is a possibility that the panties were needed because they said "WEdnesday". IF JB had been wearing a pair that said "Wednesday" in her own size, there was a possibility that someone at the White's may have helped her in the bathroom and noticed the panties. However, this would mean that Patsy bought a set for JB (size 6-8) as well as Jenny (size 12-14). And the small set would have been in JB's panty drawer. Police removed ALL of JB's panties that were there. NO "day of the week" panties. There is a possibility that they were not in the drawer, but already packed for the trip(s). They were recently bought, so would be newer than her other pairs. Lots of people pack new undies for a trip.

The urine staining was from urine released at the time of death. They were not stains that were already present on the panties. This is very different from all her other panties, which showed fecal stains that did not wash out, and were evidence of poor wiping or soiling one's pants.
I maintain the panties were not random either. The Wednesday pair would be in the middle of the package. If it was a matter of simply pulling out a pair, it woudn't be THAT pair.
JB didn't read yet. IF she wore a Wednesday pair that day at all- someone picked it out for her to put on.

I said they though no one would make a big deal of the size. This is different then not noticing the panties were too large. They were larger than she usually wore- so what? THIS was the parents' thinking. Again (and this is getting tiring)- JB was NOT walking around in the huge panties. She was unconscious and they were UNDER her snug-fitting lonhjohns. Had she not been undressed in the morgue, NO ONE would have noticed she was wearing such large panties, because not apparent when she was brought up from the basement or when the coroner first examined the body.

DeeDee249,
OK it was pragmatic redressing, the size was ignored, in favor of some other feature.


.
 
It was obviously important to someone that she have Wednesday panties on. From there it's also pretty obvious that someone knew there was Wednesday panties in the cellar. For me, this implies that it was Patsy who either redressed her or obtained the panties for whoever did. I really can't see John either knowing about or caring about what kind of panties were put on. If he did the staging alone he would have gotten a pair (in her size) out of her drawer and put them on. Like the rn this was an example of overkill. Had they put any pair on in her size no one would have noticed. It screams PATSY.
 
Y'all have certainly laid out the questions and issues of the too large Bloomies very well.

I've pondered these questions for years. Is the answer one of these presented? Or is there another explanation we haven't even thought of?

I once did some googling about those Bloomies from Bloomingdale's. I learned they were started a few decades ago as a novelty item for Christmas, actually meant for YOUNG LADIES more than girls, because it was common for teens to visit Bloomingdale's at Christmas, especially with dates; sort of a tradition of courtship for the tourists, as well.

Here's a quote from a blog about Bloomingdales:

Bloomingdale’s capitalized on its relationship with the young and trendy by stamping the name “Bloomie’s” on ladies’ panties as part of its launch for intimate apparel in 1973. The rising popularity launched Bloomingdale’s into a major tourist destination, and articles stamped with “Bloomie’s” became hot souvenirs. During Queen Elizabeth II’s visit to New York City in 1976, traffic was reversed on Lexington Avenue so the Queen could exit her vehicle on its right side and enter the famous Manhattan flagship through the main entrance. Her visit cemented the popularity of the store.

http://bloomingdalesnewyork.wordpress.com/

Here is the company's version of that story:

During the 1970s, Bloomingdale’s was a favorite stop of the international avant-garde, epitomized locally by the “Young East Sider” who lived right in the neighborhood. In 1973, the store wanted to stamp the Bloomingdale’s name on panties to launch an intimate apparel promotion; they chose the company nickname as a nod to the young, trendy crowd, and the “Bloomie’s” logo was born. Soon, New Yorkers were affectionately referring to the city’s second most popular tourist attraction after the Statue of Liberty as “Bloomie’s” and the hottest souvenir in town was anything emblazoned with “Bloomie’s.”

http://www.macysinc.com/pressroom/History/BloomingdalesAHistory.aspx

I bring this up because when I was googling the day I read about this, I also found a forum--not anything related to this case or any case, just some women on a message board having a girlie kind of discussion--on which one talked about actually buying the girl's largest sized Bloomies for herself as a young woman, something she and her girlfriends did as trendy. This woman was from no other than Atlanta.

That got me to thinking about those Bloomies and Patsy. Where was that package, so well concealed that LE never found it, but it ended up five years later being turned over to LE by Lin Wood to Mary Lacy, on behalf of the Ramseys. Having withheld important evidence in the investigation of the murder of their child, the Ramseys finally turned over that package, if the original package it was.

I wonder why then? Clearly, they could have been arrested for obstruction for withholding that evidence, but I guess with Lacy, it was a sure bet that would never happen.

So why turn the package over at all, at that late date? A couple of different stories were floated by Team Ramsey, mostly short shrift, considering the magnitude of what they'd "found" and the importance of the evidence: one story told was that the package was found when a retired PI working for the Ramseys found it in a box of their belongings in Atlanta while looking through them for the "mysterious Santa bear." I don't know the truth, of course, as nothing they said could ever be trusted on its face, but it does sound reasonable in that a retired cop would know not only the importance of the evidence to this case, but that destroying it would be illegal. Once found by someone who actually had some respect for the law and the investigation into the murder, it would stand to reason the Ramseys couldn't undo that little problem so easily as tossing the package.

So who ended up with it? Wood. And Wood, love him or hate him, doesn't strike me as a lawyer who would risk his own career by destroying evidence, either. Yet to turn it in would be to risk handing over evidence which might not further their claims of innocence, possibly--we don't know what the Ramseys told Wood, but as their lawyer, he had to keep that confidence. What if their story was clearly fishy to him--a man with enough skill and intelligence to detect a lie, possibly? What if he feared turning over the package could result in the case moving forward and the Ramseys being arrested?

Perhaps Wood simply stretched things out a bit...used his threats of suing the BPD to help Lacy, always Ramsey friendly, wrest the case from the hands of the BPD...and then turned the package over when he was fairly sure it would never be used against the Ramseys.

I have never seen any report on the processing of that package, by the way. Whose fingerprints were on it? Patsy said JB opened it in one version of her story to Boulder LE in Atlanta in 2000. Oh, Lin Wood fought like a wildcat to derail those questions, didn't he? NO question but that Wood was impeding LE from getting to the bottom of those Bloomies--no pun intended. They certainly did not sound like the helpful, innocent parents of a child murder victim and their reasonably cautious lawyer to me. But he still had that package of Bloomies in his possession then, didn't he, unbeknownst to LE for another couple of years, in fact.

Wood and his little chess games. But I digress....

So what did LE find from that package? Was there foreign DNA found in any of those Bloomies? Did they ever get to question the person who found them, to find out which box they were in, with what other items, so as to ascertain where this package was in the home when the CSI completely missed it during evidence collection which included all the underwear in the child's drawer?

So many questions...so much obstruction....

Okay, enough of my rambling. I guess my point is this: why was Team Ramsey hiding the origin of the package of Bloomies when LE clearly told Patsy in Atlanta in 2000, even had her admit she already knew their importance to the investigation into the murder of her child? If the story is true that the package was found when looking for the Santa toy bear in boxes taken from the Boulder home, the source of that bear had already been ascertained by the 2000 interviews, so Team Ramsey knew then.

Yet it was another two years before that package was turned over to LE by Team Ramsey. They love to say they didn't "trust" LE with the evidence: Tell it to the judge.
 
It was obviously important to someone that she have Wednesday panties on. From there it's also pretty obvious that someone knew there was Wednesday panties in the cellar. For me, this implies that it was Patsy who either redressed her or obtained the panties for whoever did. I really can't see John either knowing about or caring about what kind of panties were put on. If he did the staging alone he would have gotten a pair (in her size) out of her drawer and put them on. Like the rn this was an example of overkill. Had they put any pair on in her size no one would have noticed. It screams PATSY.

I agree. I can't think of any reason John would have for opening a brand new package of panties. If they were nearby, in the basement waiting to be sent to Atlanta, would John have even known that? I know my hubby is clueless about what I have bought for Christmas presents, even after I show it all to him--he pretends to listen, but his eyes are glazed over. I'd expect John to think, oops, gotta run upstairs and grab a pair of panties from her drawer.

When questioned by LE about JonBenet's drawers and clothing in them, however, I did notice his answers were rather accurate, which made me wonder a bit....

I remember that the maid, Linda, said JB wore day of the week panties, though. So what I would like to know is if there were any in JB's actual size in her drawer? If so, were they new? Were they all stained? The thing that gives me pause is Patsy saying JB wanted to keep the large ones because she liked them; considering that the Bloomies are a souvenir item, popular among girls and tourists, knowing how much money Patsy spent freely, I can't imagine that she didn't buy JB her own brand new Bloomies underwear, specifically for her, in her size, during the holiday season shopping especially, with JB right there with her seeing the packages. That has never made sense to me, that JB would have to beg for a set way too large for her when Patsy easily could have picked up several packages of them, particularly if JB was prone to staining them.

Other speculation I've read: that the Bloomies actually belonged to another child and were borrowed for JB at some point, and that's why the "size 12-14 package" wasn't found in the home and might account for the foreign DNA. That would make the package eventually turned over a ruse. I haven't been able to sink my teeth into this one, because there were other mothers and children on the New York trip; I think LE would have asked them about that. They certainly drilled Patsy about that trip and the Bloomies.
 
One more point, addressing the thread topic: was Burke involved?

The attack began in JB's room or near it, I believe. The blood on the pillowcase on her bed, hers it's safe to say because Patsy was asked in '98 if JB had nose bleeds when discussing that pillowcase, indicates she was attacked upstairs in that area.

Burke couldn't have carried JB down two flights of stairs to the basement, I don't believe. And I don't believe his parents, either or both, would have taken him down to the cellar to participate in such an unholy activity.

So if Burke contributed to this in any of the acts of abuse against his sister, it wasn't the strangulation by ligature, I don't believe, and probably not the insertion of the paintbrush, if that was the source of the birefringent material in the vagina.
 
I agree. I can't think of any reason John would have for opening a brand new package of panties. If they were nearby, in the basement waiting to be sent to Atlanta, would John have even known that? I know my hubby is clueless about what I have bought for Christmas presents, even after I show it all to him--he pretends to listen, but his eyes are glazed over. I'd expect John to think, oops, gotta run upstairs and grab a pair of panties from her drawer.

When questioned by LE about JonBenet's drawers and clothing in them, however, I did notice his answers were rather accurate, which made me wonder a bit....

I remember that the maid, Linda, said JB wore day of the week panties, though. So what I would like to know is if there were any in JB's actual size in her drawer? If so, were they new? Were they all stained? The thing that gives me pause is Patsy saying JB wanted to keep the large ones because she liked them; considering that the Bloomies are a souvenir item, popular among girls and tourists, knowing how much money Patsy spent freely, I can't imagine that she didn't buy JB her own brand new Bloomies underwear, specifically for her, in her size, during the holiday season shopping especially, with JB right there with her seeing the packages. That has never made sense to me, that JB would have to beg for a set way too large for her when Patsy easily could have picked up several packages of them, particularly if JB was prone to staining them.

Other speculation I've read: that the Bloomies actually belonged to another child and were borrowed for JB at some point, and that's why the "size 12-14 package" wasn't found in the home and might account for the foreign DNA. That would make the package eventually turned over a ruse. I haven't been able to sink my teeth into this one, because there were other mothers and children on the New York trip; I think LE would have asked them about that. They certainly drilled Patsy about that trip and the Bloomies.

KoldKase,
I know my hubby is clueless about what I have bought for Christmas presents, even after I show it all to him--he pretends to listen, but his eyes are glazed over. I'd expect John to think, oops, gotta run upstairs and grab a pair of panties from her drawer.
I would expect Patsy to do the same, she says she sourced the longjohns from a drawer in JonBenet's bathroom, so why not the underwear?

I agree. I can't think of any reason John would have for opening a brand new package of panties. If they were nearby, in the basement waiting to be sent to Atlanta, would John have even known that?
Here is John's Response to the size-12 question:

John's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt
2 Q. We asked Mrs. Ramsey about the
3 Bloomi's underpants that JonBenet was wearing
4 when she was found murdered, and we are
5 trying to kind of track those from purchase
6 to her. And again, I suspect you probably
7 don't have detailed information --
8 A. No.
9 Q. -- about your child's underwear,
10 but you can see why I need to ask the
11 questions; right?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. We believe that they were
14 purchased in November of 1996. Were you
15 aware of their existence before JonBenet's
16 death?
17 A. No, but I wouldn't have been.
18 But I mean, I -- what I know is what was
19 asked of Patsy when she said, you know, we
20 were on a trip to New York. She bought
21 them and I think had planned to give them to
22 her niece, who is older than JonBenet, and
23 then they, for some reason, decided that
24 JonBenet would have them. I don't know if
25 she wanted them or if Patsy gave them to
0092
1 her, but --
2 Q. The niece that they were purchased
3 for, I think, was Jenny Davis?
4 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
5 Q. Do you recall approximately how
6 big she was in 1996? I know it is a tough
7 question.
8 A. She's either a junior or a senior
9 in high school now. And she's fairly
10 stocky.

Patsy's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt
8 Q. Is that the trip -- which trip
9 was the November trip?
10 A. With the children.
11 Q. Was that -- that is the first
12 trip?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the second trip that you and
15 your husband and the Steins took, was that
16 also November, but later in the month, or
17 was that a December trip?
18 A. I think it was December.
19 Q. And maybe this will help jog your
20 memory as to time. I believe that was the
21 time of the Christmas parade in Boulder.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Were you out of town?
0080
1 A. I remember that.
2 Q. Which of those two trips did you
3 purchase the Bloomi's?
4 A. The first trip.
5 Q. Was it something that was selected
6 by JonBenet?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q. Was it your intention, when you
9 purchased those, for those to be for her,
10 not for some third party as a gift?
11 A. I bought some things that were
12 gifts and some things for her. So I
13 don't --
So looks like Patsy purchased a set of Bloomingdales for JonBenet, also note the confirmation that Patsy was not in town when JonBenet was in the Christmas parade, so who was looking after her?

Patsy's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
Nothing about Bloomindales or day of the week here.

Another source for the underwear is Holly Smith ex-member of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team
She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that.
Vaginal trauma may be code for staging, but prior vaginal trauma? IMO, the politically correct phrasing breaks down here.
 
KoldKase,

I would expect Patsy to do the same, she says she sourced the longjohns from a drawer in JonBenet's bathroom, so why not the underwear?

You may be right. The problem, as ever, is when we only have the testimony of the only prime suspects ever identified in this case, it's hard to know what really happened, in what sequence, other than what the evidence tells us. In the case of what JonBenet was wearing when her body was left in the basement, we don't really know when she was dressed in the longjohns or the large Bloomies. It could have been at two different times: perhaps the longjohns were put on JB upstairs, much as Patsy said, or maybe JB dressed herself; perhaps the too large Bloomies were then put on the body in the basement during the redressing.

Since there was so much staging, it's hard to even know what evidence is real or faked, like the ransom note. But JB's clothes that she wore to the White's party that evening can be seen on the adjacent twin bed in JB's bedroom, in crime scene photos, I believe. I've even played a bit with one photo to make sure her long socks were laid out there, as well, which you can see at FFJ in the case library photo section:

At the bottom of this page, the enlargement:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9867"]Miscellaneous - Forums For Justice[/ame]

And here are more photos from the bedroom with clothing scattered around:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9778"]Ramsey home interior - Forums For Justice[/ame]


Here is John's Response to the size-12 question:

John's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt


Patsy's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt

So looks like Patsy purchased a set of Bloomingdales for JonBenet, also note the confirmation that Patsy was not in town when JonBenet was in the Christmas parade, so who was looking after her?

Patsy's Atlanta 2000 Interview, excerpt

Nothing about Bloomindales or day of the week here.

Another source for the underwear is Holly Smith ex-member of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team

Vaginal trauma may be code for staging, but prior vaginal trauma? IMO, the politically correct phrasing breaks down here.

Thanks for posting these. It is still a bit ambiguous, though, don't you think? Logic would lead me to speculate that Patsy did buy JB her own size in the Bloomies. But still, it's not stated as a fact of evidence collected, more of a deduction...? It could be read that JB picked out the Bloomies for her cousin.

But for the sake of argument, let's say JB did pick a package out for herself; why would Patsy or John, or an intruder, for that matter, not just take a pair which fit her out of the drawer? I guess knowing if there were various weekdays of panties in the drawer and particularly a Wednesday pair, we might be able to deduce the large pair were not put on her because they were the only available day of the week that was accurate for that Christmas Day--Wednesday. So one small question would be answered: the too large Bloomies would have been put on for another reason.

Looking at what Holly Smith said, though, I believe there's a clue about the panties found in the drawer by LE: "Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material." If JB had an entire package of Bloomies in her own size which were new, astonishing that they would already be stained, as it had only been one month since the NY trip when they were purchased, in Nov. of '96, before Thanksgiving. Also I notice that Smith said the panties were in "dresser drawers," but Patsy said JB's underwear were kept in her bathroom cabinet in a drawer, didn't she? Maybe it's a slip of the tongue--bathroom drawer/dresser drawer, but I think of a "dresser" as a piece of furniture, like in a bedroom set. JB did have a dresser, right between her beds. See how the details can be so singular, yet can make all the difference: if JB had underwear in two places, for instance, then we have even more questions. But if there was only one drawer for underwear, and most were stained, then were all the "new" pairs in the laundry? Were they stained, as well? Could Patsy possibly allow her little girl to soil her underwear so without some kind of concern, leading to questions, maybe painful discoveries? Remember the three calls to Dr. Beuf within an hr., after office hrs., on or around Dec. 17th? Calls Patsy couldn't remember making, nor why?

I really believe that JonBenet had been molested prior to that night, according to the autopsy and the experts; so did Patsy ever notice blood in JB's underwear? I would think she had bled from the trauma to her hymen; how could Patsy not notice this? My opinion: she had noticed, and this led to the tension that ended in JB's death, whether it was related directly or indirectly. So maybe there were missing panties; I wonder if LE ever matched up a whole set of day-of-the-week Bloomies in JB's size from those they collected, determined if they were new, etc. What I want to know is where are the underwear JB was wearing before the size 12-14 ended up on her dead body.

Patsy's mother and father, Nedra and Don Paugh, were in Boulder and kept the children while John and Patsy were in New York with the Stines for a few days, during the Christmas Parade that year. We have a photo of JonBenet riding in the parade on the back seat of a convertible, I believe I remember. Burke marched with the Boy Scouts, as he and the son of JR's pilot, Archuleta, had done the previous Christmas Parade, as well. That was on a Friday night. The Ramseys returned to Boulder on Saturday, when John had a company party that night, if I haven't mixed the timeline up.

I guess I'm a bit anal retentive about the evidence. I want to see a credible source lay it out in black and white for me. I've never seen that credible source state JB had her own appropriate sized Bloomies day-of-the-week panties in her drawer, though I did see a credible source state the maid Linda said JB wore day-of-the-week panties. Can't remember who, though...probably in one of the earlier books? :waitasec:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
1,613
Total visitors
1,797

Forum statistics

Threads
589,974
Messages
17,928,574
Members
228,028
Latest member
Kac1991
Back
Top