The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[UKGuy]

I have an almost impossible time thinking Burke committed this cover-up. As a past teacher and parent of two my experience is that kids panic and make poor choices in trying to cover up "bad" behavior. Most times the child will run to an adult or parent seeking help. Burke would not be thinking like an adult and thinking about JonBenets undies, cleaning her up or staging. Burke would be concerned getting away from JonBenet and his parents finding out what he did. His birthday was coming and he would be worried about being punished. Burke was a child he wouldn't have thought about evidence.

Teresa,
Well I don't think BR did it all. I'm proceeding by elimination. If PR redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, how come she offered an inconsistent version of events, never mind realizing the size-12's would never fly, i.e. a red flag?

Similarly with JR except in his case why size-12's and not size-6 underwear, the size-12's are so obviously wrong if you are intending to stage a crime-scene since they are out of place.

Also there were two opportunities to get it right first when JonBenet was redressed then second when she was wiped down, so someone really thought those size-12's were OK?

Bear in mind we are theoretically staging a crime-scene, yet the size-12's are not even JonBenet's proper size, John would know this and correct it, similarly with Patsy?

It could be JR wiped JonBenet not realizing how large the size-12's were, but I can see BR attempting to redress JonBenet and claim she had an accident?

.

 

[andreww]

Teresa,
Well I don't think BR did it all. I'm proceeding by elimination. If PR redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, how come she offered an inconsistent version of events, never mind realizing the size-12's would never fly, i.e. a red flag?

Similarly with JR except in his case why size-12's and not size-6 underwear, the size-12's are so obviously wrong if you are intending to stage a crime-scene since they are out of place.

Also there were two opportunities to get it right first when JonBenet was redressed then second when she was wiped down, so someone really thought those size-12's were OK?

Bear in mind we are theoretically staging a crime-scene, yet the size-12's are not even JonBenet's proper size, John would know this and correct it, similarly with Patsy?

It could be JR wiped JonBenet not realizing how large the size-12's were, but I can see BR attempting to redress JonBenet and claim she had an accident?

.

UKGuy, I have said this several times, the reason for the size 12s could simply be that they were new and that the was zero percent possibility that a person's DNA would be found on them. Answer me this; If the sexual assault was simply to mask previous ongoing sexual abuse, what would the need be to wipe her groin down? Obviously whoever did this was wearing gloves, so what could possibly have been there that wouldn't have been on her face for instance? If they were trying to hide the presence of blood (which was there), why not replace the blood stained panties.

That aside, I think mildly gouging her vagina would draw attention to the prior abuse more than it would hide it IMO.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, I have said this several times, the reason for the size 12s could simply be that they were new and that the was zero percent possibility that a person's DNA would be found on them. Answer me this; If the sexual assault was simply to mask previous ongoing sexual abuse, what would the need be to wipe her groin down? Obviously whoever did this was wearing gloves, so what could possibly have been there that wouldn't have been on her face for instance? If they were trying to hide the presence of blood (which was there), why not replace the blood stained panties.

That aside, I think mildly gouging her vagina would draw attention to the prior abuse more than it would hide it IMO.

andreww,

UKGuy, I have said this several times

Sure, and repitition does not guarantee certainty, just consider those monotheistic verities that now look questionable.

was zero percent possibility that a person's DNA would be found on them.

But that never happened and BR's touch dna was discoverd on JonBenet's pink barbie nightgown which was deposited in the wine-cellar, so patently dna avoidance was not a priority.

If the sexual assault was simply to mask previous ongoing sexual abuse, what would the need be to wipe her groin down?

mmm, well you have to have the exact sequence of events to answer that one which we do not have.

Yet speculating wiping JonBenet down would be done on the basis it minimized forensic capture and contributed towards an Intruder sceanrio?

Bear in mind that a staged sexual assault might have happened after JonBenet was wiped down precisely because this was the stagers intention?

Do you get that, staging within staging?

If they were trying to hide the presence of blood (which was there), why not replace the blood stained panties.

Thats what either PR or JR should have done, its a no-brainer, we are staging a crime-scene, its not a Pants Are Us commercial, yet theoretically both parents opt for visibly bloodstained underwear, another interpretation via Occam's Razor or simply by fait accompli thats what they were presented with so made the best of a bad deal, as they saw it?

What everyone forgets is that BR may have staged a crime-scene that was simply adjusted from an adult perspective?


.

 

[Annapurna]

But that never happened and BR's touch dna was discoverd on JonBenet's pink barbie nightgown which was deposited in the wine-cellar, so patently dna avoidance was not a priority.


<snip>

Thats what either PR or JR should have done, its a no-brainer, we are staging a crime-scene, its not a Pants Are Us commercial, yet theoretically both parents opt for visibly bloodstained underwear, another interpretation via Occam's Razor or simply by fait accompli thats what they were presented with so made the best of a bad deal, as they saw it?

What everyone forgets is that BR may have staged a crime-scene that was simply adjusted from an adult perspective?


.

1) tDNA testing didn't exist in 1996.

2) The small amount of blood found in her panties (i.e. not enough to have been wiped from her thighs) suggests they were at the very, very least pulled up after she was assaulted/wiped. Additionally it is quite probable the blood dripped after death or assault and clean up. Blood is still liquid for sometime, it could have gotten there after she was moved, after her pants were pulled over the panties and therefore not visible to the stager.

From these two points, it becomes reasonable to believe that the panties were indeed placed on her because they were new. Probably the only new ones in the entire house.

Burke was only 9 (weeks away from 10). I find it beyond improbable (to the point of being totally implausible even) that BR had the foresight to stage a crime scene. A child wouldn't even think to do something like that. He may have been a bright kid but that's still a far cry from being "criminally intelligent" I'll say. A child would be way more likely to simply run away, with intent to avoid punishment by hiding. I know how it goes with siblings. 10 is still very much a child.

I think it is more likely that some of what we have come to regard as staging was actually part of the initial attack in some way. Kolar seems to believe the cord was not staging. Then PR comes along and finds her poor darling daughter brutalized and bloodied, so she cleans it all up. Makes an excuse in the form of the note.

Andreww, you make a great point about the paintbrush assault being more likely to draw attention to the previous SA.

 

[icedtea4me]

andreww,

Sure, and repitition does not guarantee certainty, just consider those monotheistic verities that now look questionable.


But that never happened and BR's touch dna was discoverd on JonBenet's pink barbie nightgown which was deposited in the wine-cellar, so patently dna avoidance was not a priority.


mmm, well you have to have the exact sequence of events to answer that one which we do not have.

Yet speculating wiping JonBenet down would be done on the basis it minimized forensic capture and contributed towards an Intruder sceanrio?

Bear in mind that a staged sexual assault might have happened after JonBenet was wiped down precisely because this was the stagers intention?

Do you get that, staging within staging?


Thats what either PR or JR should have done, its a no-brainer, we are staging a crime-scene, its not a Pants Are Us commercial, yet theoretically both parents opt for visibly bloodstained underwear, another interpretation via Occam's Razor or simply by fait accompli thats what they were presented with so made the best of a bad deal, as they saw it?

What everyone forgets is that BR may have staged a crime-scene that was simply adjusted from an adult perspective?


.

Let me guess. According to you, it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for Burke's t-DNA to be on her nightgown via some innocent means, right?

 

[Teresa]

Teresa,
Well I don't think BR did it all. I'm proceeding by elimination. If PR redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, how come she offered an inconsistent version of events, never mind realizing the size-12's would never fly, i.e. a red flag?

Similarly with JR except in his case why size-12's and not size-6 underwear, the size-12's are so obviously wrong if you are intending to stage a crime-scene since they are out of place.

Also there were two opportunities to get it right first when JonBenet was redressed then second when she was wiped down, so someone really thought those size-12's were OK?

Bear in mind we are theoretically staging a crime-scene, yet the size-12's are not even JonBenet's proper size, John would know this and correct it, similarly with Patsy?

It could be JR wiped JonBenet not realizing how large the size-12's were, but I can see BR attempting to redress JonBenet and claim she had an accident?

.

I feel the size wasn't the most important when dressing JonBenet but new from the package was.

 

[UKGuy]

1) tDNA testing didn't exist in 1996.

2) The small amount of blood found in her panties (i.e. not enough to have been wiped from her thighs) suggests they were at the very, very least pulled up after she was assaulted/wiped. Additionally it is quite probable the blood dripped after death or assault and clean up. Blood is still liquid for sometime, it could have gotten there after she was moved, after her pants were pulled over the panties and therefore not visible to the stager.

From these two points, it becomes reasonable to believe that the panties were indeed placed on her because they were new. Probably the only new ones in the entire house.

Burke was only 9 (weeks away from 10). I find it beyond improbable (to the point of being totally implausible even) that BR had the foresight to stage a crime scene. A child wouldn't even think to do something like that. He may have been a bright kid but that's still a far cry from being "criminally intelligent" I'll say. A child would be way more likely to simply run away, with intent to avoid punishment by hiding. I know how it goes with siblings. 10 is still very much a child.

I think it is more likely that some of what we have come to regard as staging was actually part of the initial attack in some way. Kolar seems to believe the cord was not staging. Then PR comes along and finds her poor darling daughter brutalized and bloodied, so she cleans it all up. Makes an excuse in the form of the note.

Andreww, you make a great point about the paintbrush assault being more likely to draw attention to the previous SA.

Annapurna,

2) The small amount of blood found in her panties (i.e. not enough to have been wiped from her thighs) suggests they were at the very, very least pulled up after she was assaulted/wiped. Additionally it is quite probable the blood dripped after death or assault and clean up. Blood is still liquid for sometime, it could have gotten there after she was moved, after her pants were pulled over the panties and therefore not visible to the stager.

Maybe but Coroner Meyer noted no blood on her body close to the bloodstains on the underwear!


December 27, 1996 Search Warrant, Excerpt

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

If the size-12's were placed on JonBenet because they were new then the redresser knew that this would focus attention onto JonBenet's pubic area since:

1. Underwear is clean on.

2. Underwear is not her normal size.

3. Underwear was a gift intended for another relative.

4. Only a Ramsey knew where the size-12's were located.

Burke was only 9 (weeks away from 10). I find it beyond improbable (to the point of being totally implausible even) that BR had the foresight to stage a crime scene.

Maybe the crime-scene enacted did not convince the parents so they made some adjustments, thats how it looks to me, it appears Patsy did not have full knowledge of all the events, i.e. size-12's and the pineapple snack, otherwise the staging and version of events would include these anomalies.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I feel the size wasn't the most important when dressing JonBenet but new from the package was.

Teresa,
What would new underwear add to a fabricated crime-scene that used underwear might detract?


I reckon it might be that the old size-6 underwear, worn to the White's party, was a Wednesday pair, a detail never released by BPD.

So the re-dresser was attempting to match the underwear on day of the week, hence the size-12's.

Kolar has stated BR opened the remaining Christmas Gifts on the afternoon of Christmas Day so would have been aware of where they were located.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Let me guess. According to you, it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for Burke's t-DNA to be on her nightgown via some innocent means, right?

icedtea4me,
That BR's touch-dna was found on the pink barbie nightgown might mean it arrived there independently of her assault and death, but the nightgown was also bloodstained with JonBenet's blood.

So patently the person who placed the pink barbie nightgown into the wine-cellar along with JonBenet's body knew something we do not, i.e. it is connected with her homicide?


.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
That BR's touch-dna was found on the pink barbie nightgown might mean it arrived there independently of her assault and death, but the nightgown was also bloodstained with JonBenet's blood.

So patently the person who placed the pink barbie nightgown into the wine-cellar along with JonBenet's body knew something we do not, i.e. it is connected with her homicide?


.

Oh, I see. So, according to you, it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for Burke not to have been there when the bloodstains got on the nightgown, right?

 

[UKGuy]

Oh, I see. So, according to you, it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for Burke not to have been there when the bloodstains got on the nightgown, right?

icedtea4me,
Who knows? BR's touch-dna might be present because he was involved, maybe not, but the pink barbie nightgown was not placed into the wine-cellar by accident.

.

 

[pukasonqo2]

icedtea4me,
Who knows? BR's touch-dna might be present because he was involved, maybe not, but the pink barbie nightgown was not placed into the wine-cellar by accident.

.

i agree, there could be a reasonable explanation why BR's touch DNA was on the barbie gown, as siblings they would have grabbed, hold, touch, push each other
having the nightgown in the cellar could have been another way of confusing an already very convoluted crime scene...but wonder if it was intentional from the Rs as part of the staging of the scene


Lupus est *advertiser censored* homini, non *advertiser censored*, quom qualis sit non novit

 

[Fides]

Burke was only 9 (weeks away from 10). I find it beyond improbable (to the point of being totally implausible even) that BR had the foresight to stage a crime scene. A child wouldn't even think to do something like that. He may have been a bright kid but that's still a far cry from being "criminally intelligent" I'll say. A child would be way more likely to simply run away, with intent to avoid punishment by hiding. I know how it goes with siblings. 10 is still very much a child.

I think it is more likely that some of what we have come to regard as staging was actually part of the initial attack in some way. Kolar seems to believe the cord was not staging. Then PR comes along and finds her poor darling daughter brutalized and bloodied, so she cleans it all up. Makes an excuse in the form of the note.

I'm confused. So in your opinion it is more likely that BR launched some sort of attack that included strangulation with a carefully constructed ligature and skull fracture? I strongly disagree - there is nothing in the information we have about this kid to indicate that he was an aggressive monster. On the other hand, kids hide mistakes and accidents all the time to avoid being caught. They are actually pretty good at it. When children are afraid of being punished, they can and will behave in very sneaky ways. I agree that most are not calm enough or bright enough to successfully fake a crime scene, but I think this was an unusual kid. Still, if the kid cover up theory is true BR would not have gotten away with it if his adults had not helped him out with a ransom note and several high priced lawyers.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
Who knows? BR's touch-dna might be present because he was involved, maybe not, but the pink barbie nightgown was not placed into the wine-cellar by accident.

.

What if the nightgown was there by accident? What if JonBenet had been wrapped in the blanket outside the wine cellar and the nightgown was inadvertently gathered up with the blanket?

 

[UKGuy]

What if the nightgown was there by accident? What if JonBenet had been wrapped in the blanket outside the wine cellar and the nightgown was inadvertently gathered up with the blanket?

icedtea4me,

What if the nightgown was there by accident?

Sure, what if it was, it still has JonBenet's blood on it, along with BR touch-dna, so thats three accidents along a curious homicide road.

What if JonBenet had been wrapped in the blanket outside the wine cellar and the nightgown was inadvertently gathered up with the blanket?

Well why not? It might have happened just as you suggest, yet where would the nightgown have to be, so to be inadvertently scooped up in a homicide staging?

Thats the thing about the nightgown and the size-12's maybe they arrived simply due to circumstance or accident, yet others think they might have been planned?

.

 

[Teresa]

Teresa,
What would new underwear add to a fabricated crime-scene that used underwear might detract?


I reckon it might be that the old size-6 underwear, worn to the White's party, was a Wednesday pair, a detail never released by BPD.

So the re-dresser was attempting to match the underwear on day of the week, hence the size-12's.

Kolar has stated BR opened the remaining Christmas Gifts on the afternoon of Christmas Day so would have been aware of where they were located.


.

UKGuy,
My thought process is brand new panties wouldn't have troublesome DNA. The fact that JonBenets original panties are missing says they may contain important clues to her murder.

 

[Teresa]

Teresa,
What would new underwear add to a fabricated crime-scene that used underwear might detract?


I reckon it might be that the old size-6 underwear, worn to the White's party, was a Wednesday pair, a detail never released by BPD.

So the re-dresser was attempting to match the underwear on day of the week, hence the size-12's.

Kolar has stated BR opened the remaining Christmas Gifts on the afternoon of Christmas Day so would have been aware of where they were located.


.

UKGuy,
My thought process is brand new panties wouldn't have troublesome DNA. The fact that JonBenets original panties are missing says they may contain important clues to her murder.

 

[andreww]

UKGuy,
My thought process is brand new panties wouldn't have troublesome DNA. The fact that JonBenets original panties are missing says they may contain important clues to her murder.

This had been my thought as well, that there was a fear that the underwear in her drawer may be contaminated with another persons DNA. But then why not remove the underwear from the drawer if you are that worried about it? Burke or Johns DNA on her underwear would have been just as damning whether it was on her or in her drawer. I assume those in her drawer were looked at closely.

My second explanation would be that the person staging the scene wanted to compartmentalize the scene. The fact that the garrotte was fashioned from items in the basement and the blanket came from the basement dryer leads me to believe that the stager realized that any trips upstairs increased the odds of transferring fibres and blood. The plan was that JB was taken to the basement, assaulted and killed. Any traces of blood outside of the basement would mean trouble, so they stayed in the basement and used items located there. We know that urine was found on the floor, and I think the stager wanted to preserve JBs dignity by having her found in clean underwear. The size 12s were handy, so they were used.

The third scenario is that Patsy is solely responsible and was terrified of waking either Burke or John, so she kept to the basement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Annapurna]

RE: BR tDNA on the nightgown. It is possible that small amounts of DNA were left there when the nightgown was washed and dried. Just because its called "touch" DNA does not mean that is how it got there.

Not saying that is 100% how i believe it got there, just something to remember.

Fides: what about the garrote seems carefully constructed? I see a sloppy collection of simple knots. Perhaps the paintbrush was tied on after the fact, but again it does not appear "professional" (in LS's words and repeated by JR) or "careful" in the least.

What would have had to have been careful and meticulous, was the cover up.


This child was assaulted, cleaned up, re-dressed and hidden. Even allowing the fact that perhaps BR put the size 12's on her, he would have still had to have gotten supplies to clean her, and wiped her down well. Let us not forget, there is a bruise on her inner thigh that was suggested to have been someone's thumbprint. Someone grasping her leg hard to assault or clean. If it were a child-sized thumbprint bruise, I don't think it would have even been identified as such. It would have simply been thought of as a small bruise.

BR may have been bright, but evidence suggests he was not a neat child. Particularly if Kolar is to be believed in regard to the feces.

In my previous statement I was really just trying to expand any idea beyond thinking of everything as staging, which I think might be slightly shortsighted. We don't know much about BR's personality at all. We have no way of knowing if he was violent. One incident of violence as a child, unfortunately one with horrible consequences, does not necessarily mean that he was a psychopath. I know my sister and I got into some serious tussles as children. She pulled a knife on me at one point. Children don't always know cause and effect well.

I think this crime looks pretty deliberate. The actions may not have been intended to kill her (though the strangulation certainly looks that way) but at minimum someone tried to hurt her by hitting her on the head. I recall hearing that BR's DNA was found on the "garotte". If I'm wrong I retract that.

UKguy,
These people were not expert criminals. They did not consider every possibility that LE would notice. They would not necessarily think that the size 12's would attract attention.

I also object to the idea that JR would have thought they were ridiculous. It honestly seems to me like something a man would not consider, as boys can wear very large boxers and still be comfortable.

There does not have to be blood on her skin corresponding to blood on the panties. There was a small amount of blood found around the perineum and in the vestibule of her genitals. Since we agree that the panties are ridiculously large, consider how they would have bunched or folded in her leggings. This would have been undone when they were removed. Perhaps when the leggings were on the panties were right against her skin and when unfolded, appeared in quite a different spot.

 

[otg]

Going back to the discussion on the Barbie nightgown found in the WC with the blanket wrapped around JonBenet, it might be good to re-read interviews with the Ramseys regarding it and previous discussions here at WS. For that reason, I'm going to bump another thread started by UKGuy a couple of years ago:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?195071-Pink-Barbie-Nightgown

​