Questions you'd like answers to...

[rashomon]

<...>
JonBenet had a full wardrobe of bedclothing why would Patsy select Burke's long johns as appropriate bedtime wear for a staged crime-scene?<...>

UKGuy,

Has it been definitely established that the longjohns were Burke's?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

Has it been definitely established that the longjohns were Burke's?

rashomon,
Nice to hear from you.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site21/2016/1027/20161027_081815_longjohn.jpg

Nope nobody has officially said these are BR's longjohns.

Yet, who else could they belong to given the circumstances?

They were dna tested so we would have heard about any definitive unknown dna profile from the longjohns!

As I mentioned before BPD are not saying exactly where BR's dna was found on JonBenet's person or clothing other than the longjohns and pink nightgown. Burke cannot be ruled out as being a contributer to the tDNA on the longjohns.

The nightgown has JonBenet's blood on it , including Burke's tDNA on four spots – the exterior and interior of the bottom hem, and on the front and back of her right and left shoulder.

From memory there is no blood on JonBenet, so how did it arrive on the nightgown?


The way I see it, if you are John or Patsy and you are going to stage a crime-scene in the wine-cellar the last thing you need are her brothers longjohns since they implicate him directly, similarly with the size-12's, i.e They Do Not Belong to JonBenet !

Like I mentioned before I reckon Patsy is taking a bullet for those longjohns by saying she redressed JonBenet in them , despite JonBenet having a drawer full of pajamas and nightgowns.

An alternative explanation is that the case is JDI and the clothing is deliberate staging to point away from JR?

p.s. Anyone noticed how that that artists impression showing JonBenet postmortem with the longjohns reaching down to her ankles, is probably incorrect?


.

 

[David Rogers]

rashomon,
Nice to hear from you.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site21/2016/1027/20161027_081815_longjohn.jpg

Nope nobody has officially said these are BR's longjohns.

Yet, who else could they belong to given the circumstances?

They were dna tested so we would have heard about any definitive unknown dna profile from the longjohns!

As I mentioned before BPD are not saying exactly where BR's dna was found on JonBenet's person or clothing other than the longjohns and pink nightgown. Burke cannot be ruled out as being a contributer to the tDNA on the longjohns.

The nightgown has JonBenet's blood on it , including Burke's tDNA on four spots – the exterior and interior of the bottom hem, and on the front and back of her right and left shoulder.

From memory there is no blood on JonBenet, so how did it arrive on the nightgown?


The way I see it, if you are John or Patsy and you are going to stage a crime-scene in the wine-cellar the last thing you need are her brothers longjohns since they implicate him directly, similarly with the size-12's, i.e They Do Not Belong to JonBenet !

Like I mentioned before I reckon Patsy is taking a bullet for those longjohns by saying she redressed JonBenet in them , despite JonBenet having a drawer full of pajamas and nightgowns.

An alternative explanation is that the case is JDI and the clothing is deliberate staging to point away from JR?

p.s. Anyone noticed how that that artists impression showing JonBenet postmortem with the longjohns reaching down to her ankles, is probably incorrect?


.

Maybe the unreleased White party photos show JonBenet in the long johns. Maybe there was an spill or she had an accident at the Whites.

 

[UKGuy]

Maybe the unreleased White party photos show JonBenet in the long johns. Maybe there was an spill or she had an accident at the Whites.

David Rogers,
Really, like Steve Thomas looked at them when considering his PDI, since what you suggest would conflict with his bedwetting PDI theory.

The reason no photos have been released from various events is because they show what the Ramsey's say in their interviews is not backed up with photographic evidence.

e.g. no photographs of the underwear taken from the Ramsey's house has ever been released, despite photographs of the longjohns and size-12 underwear being published, why, because they again tell us something about the Ramsey version of events that does not match reality.

.

 

[David Rogers]

David Rogers,
Really, like Steve Thomas looked at them when considering his PDI, since what you suggest would conflict with his bedwetting PDI theory.

The reason no photos have been released from various events is because they show what the Ramsey's say in their interviews is not backed up with photographic evidence.

e.g. no photographs of the underwear taken from the Ramsey's house has ever been released, despite photographs of the longjohns and size-12 underwear being published, why, because they again tell us something about the Ramsey version of events that does not match reality.

.[/QUOTE

David Rogers,
Really, like Steve Thomas looked at them when considering his PDI, since what you suggest would conflict with his bedwetting PDI theory.

The reason no photos have been released from various events is because they show what the Ramsey's say in their interviews is not backed up with photographic evidence.

e.g. no photographs of the underwear taken from the Ramsey's house has ever been released, despite photographs of the longjohns and size-12 underwear being published, why, because they again tell us something about the Ramsey version of events that does not match reality.

.

That makes sense if the bed wetting happened at home right after they got there to fit in the timeline. Would her bed have dried out by the time the cops got there? What if the bed wetting happened if she fell asleep at the Whites? That would be a huge embarrassment. Possibly punch that hot out of hand?

 

[k-mac]

UKGuy,

Has it been definitely established that the longjohns were Burke's?

jmo
no there is nothing to prove or deny about the long johns.
its really a non provable moot point.

people like uk have a really big problem with the idea that patsy could possibly put her little princess in boys long johns for bed. BY CHOICE.
and that's ok but jonbenet wasn't just a little princess out on display she was a little girl, with bed wetting issues.
from a mothers perspective keeping her dry and warm and layered up is completely rational and a NORMAL thing to do.

whether they were hand me down burke pants or patsy bought them specifically for jonbenet is here nor there.

any tDNA on anything or anywhere in that house is explained away from simply living there.

impossible to prove burke having any tDNA on items within his home where suspect or innocent.

its just moot.

cant believe its still a smoking gun around here for some!!

 

[UKGuy]

jmo
no there is nothing to prove or deny about the long johns.
its really a non provable moot point.

people like uk have a really big problem with the idea that patsy could possibly put her little princess in boys long johns for bed. BY CHOICE.
and that's ok but jonbenet wasn't just a little princess out on display she was a little girl, with bed wetting issues.
from a mothers perspective keeping her dry and warm and layered up is completely rational and a NORMAL thing to do.

whether they were hand me down burke pants or patsy bought them specifically for jonbenet is here nor there.

any tDNA on anything or anywhere in that house is explained away from simply living there.

impossible to prove burke having any tDNA on items within his home where suspect or innocent.

its just moot.

cant believe its still a smoking gun around here for some!!

k-mac,

no there is nothing to prove or deny about the long johns.
its really a non provable moot point.

Only if you buy the Ramsey's version of events.

Patsy claims to have dressed JonBenet in Burke's longjohns, if you consider that unremarkable, fine.

Patsy's claim need not be true regardless of her motive, she might be covering for Burke ?

.

 

[k-mac]

k-mac,

Only if you buy the Ramsey's version of events.

Patsy claims to have dressed JonBenet in Burke's longjohns, if you consider that unremarkable, fine.

Patsy's claim need not be true regardless of her motive, she might be covering for Burke ?

.

there is no account to say burke owns the long johns only yours.
no where does it say 'patsy dressed jonbenet in BURKES LONGJOHNS.'

the only truth, the only fact here is jonbenet was found in male longjohns.

stop stating your opinion as fact.
you do not know the long johns belong to burke.

these pants which clearly were too small in size for burke no matter which way you wanna inject burke into the crimescene simply don't fit the narrative.
you need to base your burke did it uk on something a whole lot more believable.

 

[Userid]

jmo
no there is nothing to prove or deny about the long johns.
its really a non provable moot point.

people like uk have a really big problem with the idea that patsy could possibly put her little princess in boys long johns for bed. BY CHOICE.
and that's ok but jonbenet wasn't just a little princess out on display she was a little girl, with bed wetting issues.
from a mothers perspective keeping her dry and warm and layered up is completely rational and a NORMAL thing to do.

whether they were hand me down burke pants or patsy bought them specifically for jonbenet is here nor there.

any tDNA on anything or anywhere in that house is explained away from simply living there.

impossible to prove burke having any tDNA on items within his home where suspect or innocent.

its just moot.

cant believe its still a smoking gun around here for some!!

Agree -- I think the long johns are a red herring. It isn't at all uncommon for siblings so close in age to wear each others long johns, as they easily get mixed in the wash when doing laundry. You honestly think that PR, or JR (who probably never did laundry), or the maids were sifting though the long johns and splitting them up, when they look all but identical? The size wouldn't be astronomically bigger. The children's wash -- especially if done by PR -- would all be washed and dried together; hence, the mix-up. I feel like the people who believe the long-johns hold this big significance are only children, because if you grew up with siblings, you would realize how easy and common it was for this type of thing to occur on a regular basis.

 

[UKGuy]

there is no account to say burke owns the long johns only yours.
no where does it say 'patsy dressed jonbenet in BURKES LONGJOHNS.'

the only truth, the only fact here is jonbenet was found in male longjohns.

stop stating your opinion as fact.
you do not know the long johns belong to burke.

these pants which clearly were too small in size for burke no matter which way you wanna inject burke into the crimescene simply don't fit the narrative.
you need to base your burke did it uk on something a whole lot more believable.

k-mac,

there is no account to say burke owns the long johns only yours.
no where does it say 'patsy dressed jonbenet in BURKES LONGJOHNS.'

Patsy says it herself, she said she could not find the previous nights pajama bottoms so decided on the longjohns, despite JonBenet having a wardrobe full of pajama bottoms and nightgowns, also the previous nights pajama bottoms are still missing !

BPD Interview with Patsy 1997, excerpt

PR: Well, she was just really zonked and John carried her up to her room.

TT: Okay.

PR: And I uh, you know, ran up behind him and, or in front of him, I can’t remember. Maybe, or it might have been in front of him to turn the bed down.

TT: Um hum.

PR: And he laid her down and I got her undressed and put her, I left her shirt on her and uh, went in the bathroom and tried to find some pajama pants and all I could find was some, like long underwear pants . . .

TT: Um hum.

PR: . . .and put those on.

So who owns them then, if not Burke? Burke practised basketball, baseball, sailing according to Patsy's Christmas letter, so maybe he wore them when playing basketball?

I'm just curious as to why Patsy would go for the size-12's and longjohns to stage the wine-cellar?

.

 

[kaykay543]

there is no account to say burke owns the long johns only yours.
no where does it say 'patsy dressed jonbenet in BURKES LONGJOHNS.'

the only truth, the only fact here is jonbenet was found in male longjohns.

stop stating your opinion as fact.
you do not know the long johns belong to burke.

these pants which clearly were too small in size for burke no matter which way you wanna inject burke into the crimescene simply don't fit the narrative.
you need to base your burke did it uk on something a whole lot more believable.

Good point. I also always took it that it was a fact that they were BR longjohns. And I agree in a family clothes get mixed all the time. PR wasn't the best housekeeper for sure.

I wonder if the pictures are hidden because it shows someone that shouldn't have been there

 

[k-mac]

k-mac,


Patsy says it herself, she said she could not find the previous nights pajama bottoms so decided on the longjohns, despite JonBenet having a wardrobe full of pajama bottoms and nightgowns, also the previous nights pajama bottoms are still missing !

BPD Interview with Patsy 1997, excerpt


So who owns them then, if not Burke? Burke practised basketball, baseball, sailing according to Patsy's Christmas letter, so maybe he wore them when playing basketball?

I'm just curious as to why Patsy would go for the size-12's and longjohns to stage the wine-cellar?

.

so uk u prove the point with your own statements and excerpts.

nowhere does it state by ANYONE that those long johns belong to burke.

it doesn't matter. its moot.
its an extremely poor argument that you fail to back up with proof.

 

[Cottonstar]

I'm just curious as to why Patsy would go for the size-12's and longjohns to stage the wine-cellar?

You just answered your own question. If it don’t fit, she didn’t do it.

 

[Cottonstar]

any tDNA on anything or anywhere in that house is explained away from simply living there.

Not exactly. The pink barbie nightgown is damning evidence against BR. Not only is is spattered with JBR blood, it has his tDNA all over it, including the front and back of the bottom hem area. I can see if it was perhaps in one or two of the spots tested, but it was on all four samples tested. JR and JAR tDNA is not on it.

 

[k-mac]

Not exactly. The pink barbie nightgown is damning evidence against BR. Not only is is spattered with JBR blood, it has his tDNA all over it, including the front and back of the bottom hem area. I can see if it was perhaps in one or two of the spots tested, but it was on all four samples tested. JR and JAR tDNA is not on it.

no smoking gun though certainly not damning evidence.
load of washing in the dryer.....burke is looking for a pair of socks.....one sock has statically clung to jonbenets nightie.....burke pulls both items out and has to physically man handle the nightie to grab his sock.

this is the point.
living with people tDNA isn't provable as evidence. (well we should all hope so)
a good lawyer should and could laugh family tdna out of court. imo

if it was the night stranglers tDNA on the nightie....sure pretty solid evidence because there is no justifiable way a strangers dna could or would be on her things.

but to be clear I wasn't referring to the nightie. but I get your point cotton.
I was talking about the long johns and family Tdna in general
siblings share and touch each others things. even.. wear each others clothes!!! especially sleep and under garments.

any mother here with boys and girls will attest a son who has worn a pink singlet under his pjs or a daughter wearing batman underpants under her nightie. its just a non event WHO OWNED THE LONG JOHNS. there is a justifiable reason as her mother stated that she was in them.
same deal with the nightie as the example above.
weather there is something underhanded about it all is unprovable. because they all lived together.

 

[Cottonstar]

no smoking gun though certainly not damning evidence.
load of washing in the dryer.....burke is looking for a pair of socks.....one sock has statically clung to jonbenets nightie.....burke pulls both items out and has to physically man handle the nightie to grab his sock.

this is the point.
living with people tDNA isn't provable as evidence. (well we should all hope so)
a good lawyer should and could laugh family tdna out of court. imo

if it was the night stranglers tDNA on the nightie....sure pretty solid evidence because there is no justifiable way a strangers dna could or would be on her things.

but to be clear I wasn't referring to the nightie. but I get your point cotton.
I was talking about the long johns and family Tdna in general
siblings share and touch each others things. even.. wear each others clothes!!! especially sleep and under garments.

any mother here with boys and girls will attest a son who has worn a pink singlet under his pjs or a daughter wearing batman underpants under her nightie. its just a non event WHO OWNED THE LONG JOHNS. there is a justifiable reason as her mother stated that she was in them.
same deal with the nightie as the example above.
weather there is something underhanded about it all is unprovable. because they all lived together.

I agree that the longjohns are a moot point, however, Patsy lied about dressing her in the longjohns that night. Really? She put on brand new way too big panties on her than put the long johns on her?

I disagree with you downplaying the significance of the pink nightgown. Not only does it have JBR blood all over it but it has Burke’s DNA all over it. When you break it all down with the nightie, Burke’s DNA on those specific spots is a problem, especially because of her blood being on it and also because she was sexually assaulted that night.

 

[k-mac]

I agree that the longjohns are a moot point, however, Patsy lied about dressing her in the longjohns that night. Really? She put on brand new way too big panties on her than put the long johns on her?

I disagree with you downplaying the significance of the pink nightgown. Not only does it have JBR blood all over it but it has Burke’s DNA all over it. When you break it all down with the nightie, Burke’s DNA on those specific spots is a problem, especially because of her blood being on it and also because she was sexually assaulted that night.

yeah I agree
not so much that it isn't important the dna I think its impossible to prove or deny. (because of the family living together)
i'm on the fence about that component of evidence for those reasons.

I am not aware of jonbenets blood being all over the nightgown though???
I thought it was a very minuscule amount?

its been awhile since ive looked though too.

and how do you know patsy lied about putting her in the longjohns ?
this is a revelation to me
appreciate your insights.

 

[Cottonstar]

yeah I agree
not so much that it isn't important the dna I think its impossible to prove or deny. (because of the family living together)
i'm on the fence about that component of evidence for those reasons.

I am not aware of jonbenets blood being all over the nightgown though???
I thought it was a very minuscule amount?

its been awhile since ive looked though too.

and how do you know patsy lied about putting her in the longjohns ?
this is a revelation to me
appreciate your insights.

The whole scenario of how/when Patsy purportedly put JB in the long johns is pure fiction. On the morning of the 26th, John told both Arndt and French, that he read to both kids before they went to bed the previous night. Four months later during their first police interviews is when the story changed to JR carrying a sleeping JB up to bed. JR says he took off her shoes and then left her there so Patsy could come in and change her. Patsy says she changed her into those longjohns. Really? But, she can’t explain how the oversized way-too-big underwear got on JB. Surely, she would have noticed when changing her because the bloomies would have fallen off of her. Also, why would she change just her bottoms? If she’s sleeping, why change anything at all. Let her sleep and get on the plane in the morning. Not to mention, JB had dozens of pajamas and nightgowns, it doesn’t make sense that she would choose longjohns that are clearly not hers. Patsy is covering for someone in claiming that she was the one that dressed her in the longjohns. It’s the same thing when she has to cover for BR and lie to investigators about her peeking at the presents in the wine cellar. It’s easy to see the Ramseys schema of deception here.


Guess why JR says he carried her up and took off her shoes and then left her there for Patsy to come in and change her bottoms? Because, JR knows of the vaginal injury to JB, so of course, and quite conveniently, he isn’t the one to change JB bottoms and isn’t the last one left in the room with her.

 

[Cottonstar]

I am not aware of jonbenets blood being all over the nightgown though???
I thought it was a very minuscule amount?

k-mac-

There are no less than 7 or 8 cut-outs on the front of the barbie nightgown. I know that two of the bloodstains were tested in 1997. The spotting of blood on the nightgown do not seem to be transfer, but rather, spots or droplets of blood. If so, this suggests that JB was wearing the nightgown that night when she was assaulted, and blood dripped from her nose, mouth, or ear onto the nightgown. The gown has guilt written all over it. There is no reason for it to show up at the crime scene and balled up in the cellar next to her body. Unless, it was used in commission of the crime.

 

[UKGuy]

so uk u prove the point with your own statements and excerpts.

nowhere does it state by ANYONE that those long johns belong to burke.

it doesn't matter. its moot.
its an extremely poor argument that you fail to back up with proof.

k-mac,

it doesn't matter. its moot.

You appear comfortable with Patsy's explanation regarding the redressing of JonBenet.

What if its not moot, what if you have been deceived by the staging, can you demonstrate beyond doubt that the longjohns were for JonBenet's regular use, as Patsy kept them in her bathroom drawer?

nowhere does it state by ANYONE that those long johns belong to burke.

I agree, but did you not notice that includes Patsy who describes them as long underwear, i.e. not Burke's longjohns?

So where did the longjohns originate:

1. Patsy purchased them for JonBenet.

2. They once belonged to Burke.

3. Unknown, e.g. a gift, on loan, etc.

Outside the context of a homicide case whether a child goes to bed wearing longjohns or pajama bottoms might be unremarkable, yet here we also have other forensic evidence linking all three remaining Ramsey residents to JonBenet in the wine-cellar.

Patsy's fibers should not be on the underside of the duct-tape or embedded into the knotting of the ligature.

John's Israeli manufactured shirt fibers should not be on the inside of the size-12's.

Burke's touch-dna should not be on the pink barbie nightgown, as it has been spattered with JonBenet's blood.

So one explanation for the origin of the longjohns is 2. i.e. they belonged to Burke. They are male long underwear they have a fly opening.

Obviously if the case is JDI or PDI then that they belonged to Burke is irrelevant, but if the case is BDI maybe it matters because it was Burke who initially redressed JonBenet in the longjohns?

.