Am I the only one who finds this alarming???

[LazyCat08]

"Familial incest becomes a real possibility. For instance, John, because of Patsy's ovarian cancer problem, has been without sex -- and he comes home after imbibing on an unknown number of Christmas libations at the White's house and undresses JonBenet to put her to bed ... black fibers from John's shirt are transferred to JonBenet's crotch during the oral sex"
_________________________________________________________________

The fact that we live in a society where the logical conclusion is if a 40 year old father off 4 - isn't getting sex (MIND YOU because his wife HAS CANCER) ....he obviously MUST be molesting his 6 year old daughter - is terribly alrming to me. Not only because - I know that although we'll all say how sick and depraved this behavior is - unfortunately there are more people than I want to know about out there doing this kind of stuff to children..... Jesus Christ! - go to a strip club, find a prostitute - but WHY turn your ADULT DESIRES on a CHILD?

It seems that Jonbenet was exposed to alot of people who may have had opportunities to molest her, she was after all "a pedophiles dream" right? Is there any real evidence to support JR sexually abusing is daughter? It seems more likely that it would be someone who she knew or someone stalking her....

When the murder happened my mother always said she thought it was Burke and that Pasty was covering up for him. If it was Burke, and I know some posters rabidly disagree on this - I would say that he was too young to not have learned sexual depraved behavior from some one else outside the family...

Just thoughts

 

[BlueCrab]

"Familial incest becomes a real possibility. For instance, John, because of Patsy's ovarian cancer problem, has been without sex -- and he comes home after imbibing on an unknown number of Christmas libations at the White's house and undresses JonBenet to put her to bed ... black fibers from John's shirt are transferred to JonBenet's crotch during the oral sex"
_________________________________________________________________

The fact that we live in a society where the logical conclusion is if a 40 year old father off 4 - isn't getting sex (MIND YOU because his wife HAS CANCER) ....he obviously MUST be molesting his 6 year old daughter - is terribly alrming to me. Not only because - I know that although we'll all say how sick and depraved this behavior is - unfortunately there are more people than I want to know about out there doing this kind of stuff to children..... Jesus Christ! - go to a strip club, find a prostitute - but WHY turn your ADULT DESIRES on a CHILD?

It seems that Jonbenet was exposed to alot of people who may have had opportunities to molest her, she was after all "a pedophiles dream" right? Is there any real evidence to support JR sexually abusing is daughter? It seems more likely that it would be someone who she knew or someone stalking her....

When the murder happened my mother always said she thought it was Burke and that Pasty was covering up for him. If it was Burke, and I know some posters rabidly disagree on this - I would say that he was too young to not have learned sexual depraved behavior from some one else outside the family...

Just thoughts

Brie,

Please reword the last sentence in your post. I'm not sure what your point is, so I can't respond. Thanks.

JMO

 

[Nehemiah]

"Familial incest becomes a real possibility. For instance, John, because of Patsy's ovarian cancer problem, has been without sex -- and he comes home after imbibing on an unknown number of Christmas libations at the White's house and undresses JonBenet to put her to bed ... black fibers from John's shirt are transferred to JonBenet's crotch during the oral sex"
_________________________________________________________________
Just thoughts

Welcome Brie, not sure where the above "quote" came from, but Patsy was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 1993, went thru treatment, and was pronounced cancer free in 1994. Now I don't profess to know their sex life by Christmas of '96, but I'm not sure that John had been "without". Can you source your info? Thanks.

Nehemiah

 

[sissi]

Hmm..It would seem the "editor" of LHP's book made this rather clear. However, we do know her roots!

 

[BlueCrab]

Welcome Brie, not sure where the above "quote" came from, but Patsy was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 1993, went thru treatment, and was pronounced cancer free in 1994. Now I don't profess to know their sex life by Christmas of '96, but I'm not sure that John had been "without". Can you source your info? Thanks.

Nehemiah

Nehemiah,

That quote was from me from one of my posts, and the information for that theory came from the Atlanta interviews of the Ramseys in 2000. We were discussing the black fibers found in the crotch of JonBenet's underwear. The fibers were sourced as coming from the black shirt that John wore that night to the White's dinner party.

MR. LEVIN: "Mr. Ramsey, it is our belief based on forensic evidence that there are hairs that are associated, that the source is the collared black shirt that you sent us that are found in your daughter's underpants, and I wondered if you -- "

MR. RAMSEY: ". I don't believe that. I don't buy it. If you are trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter -- "

LATER IN THE INTERVIEW:

CHIEF BECKNER: "Did you, the night of the 25th, did you help undress JonBenet?"

MR. RAMSEY: "I did. I think I was asked that before, but I don't -- I mean, I at least took her shoes off, I believe, later on. I carried her upstairs, laid her in bed, took her shoes off. I don't know if I took her coat off. Usually what I would do is try to get her semi-ready for bed because it wasn't infrequent she would fall to sleep when we came home like that, before we got home. Patsy would come in, get her in bed totally."

CHIEF BECKNER: "I guess what I mean is, did you notice at that time whether she was or was not wearing underwear?"

MR. RAMSEY: "I mean, I think I would have noticed if she wasn't. But I don't remember. I really don't."

CHIEF BECKNER: "Do you recall if you took her underwear off?"

MR. RAMSEY: "No, I'm sure I did not."


So John contradicts himself; he said he "would have noticed" if she was wearing underwear. JonBenet was wearing black velvet slacks. John obviously took off more than JonBenet's shoes and coat for him to be able to notice if she was or was not wearing underwear.

JMO

 

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab: ... "So John contradicts himself; he said he "would have noticed" if she was wearing underwear. JonBenet was wearing black velvet slacks. John obviously took off more than JonBenet's shoes and coat for him to be able to notice if she was or was not wearing underwear."

Also just to emphasize the evidential symmetry here are some excerpted remarks by Patsy from her Atlanta Interviews, on the very same subject:

"
4 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey,

5 prior to going to the Whites, did you see

6 JonBenet in panties? In other words, were

7 you at any point, prior to going to the

8 Whites, in the process of her getting

9 dressed, did you ever see if she was wearing

10 panties?

11 A. I mean, I just probably didn't

12 notice. I would, she must have had them on

13 or I would have certainly noticed if she

14 didn't have any on.
"

Like John she answers another question, but on this subject , they seem to have similar answers. Does this suggest prior collaboration, or collusion?

 

[Miss Daisey]

It's OBVIOUS the Ramsey's reply to the questions about whether JonBenet had underwear on was.....they would have noticed it if she DIDN'T have any on. IMO, they weren't avoiding the question.

Think of what happens when you pick up a sleeping child, especially, one that age. The arms wrap around your neck and the legs wrap around your waist. If any of JR's black shirt fibers were found on JBR's underwear, that's how they got there, IMO. Perhaps, her black velvet slacks had already been taken off when her father picked her up.

 

[UKGuy]

It's OBVIOUS the Ramsey's reply to the questions about whether JonBenet had underwear on was.....they would have noticed it if she DIDN'T have any on. IMO, they weren't avoiding the question.

Come on, now.

Sure but they never answered the proposed question, they both either directly or indirectly answered another question e.g. Q: "When you undressed JonBenet was she naked beneath the waist?"

A: "Oh definitely not, I would have noticed that!"

 

[Miss Daisey]

Then the question was answered that her underwear were ON..."I would have noticed that"...if they weren't.

IMO there's nothing to question on this issue.

 

[UKGuy]

Then the question was answered that her underwear were ON..."I would have noticed that"...if they weren't.

IMO there's nothing to question on this issue.

It may appear so, but due to possible staging and/or posing, missing or recovered underwear, the questioning was attempting to confirm or deny any knowledge of these activities, even by an intruder, who could have brought their own preferred underwear to the murder scene for posing purposes:

"
20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you

21 in possession of or what do you know about

22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing

23 at the time she was found murdered?

24 A. I have heard that she had on a

25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
"

 

[Miss Daisey]

It may appear so, but due to possible staging and/or posing, missing or recovered underwear, the questioning was attempting to confirm or deny any knowledge of these activities, even by an intruder, who could have brought their own preferred underwear to the murder scene for posing purposes:

"
20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you

21 in possession of or what do you know about

22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing

23 at the time she was found murdered?

24 A. I have heard that she had on a

25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
"

Granted.....but you've now moved from whether her underwear were on when she was put to bed to the "Bloomi's" she had on when she was found murdered.

 

[UKGuy]

Sure, but only to join the dots... , as the investigators were attempting to do. If you dont think what underwear she wore prior to or after to her murder is of any import then thats fine. Just like JR or PR possibly only their absence would be of any concern to you?

 

[Miss Daisey]

Sure, but only to join the dots... , as the investigators were attempting to do. If you dont think what underwear she wore prior to or after to her murder is of any import then thats fine. Just like JR or PR possibly only their absence would be of any concern to you?

UKGuy,

You are deliberatly twisting what I said to make your point.

Of course, the difference in the underwear JBR was wearing prior to what she was found wearing after death is important because somebody put different underwear on her, obviouly.

My point....and you know exactly what that is....was they both said IF she had not been wearing underwear when they deposited her sleeping body in her bed after arriving home...THEY WOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT !

Get real ! You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[TLynn]

You do realize that her longjohns would have been pulled completely off to put new underwear on - Then put back on....those things aren't easy. Why would someone take the time to do that --

PLUS, go back upstairs to JonBenet's room, pull out the drawer and open a new set of panties....take them back down to the cellar?!

Or, maybe she was changed upstairs....before her death.

How do we know JonBenet was wearing the smaller size previously? They were never found. How do we know they even existed?

 

[BlueCrab]

You do realize that her longjohns would have been pulled completely off to put new underwear on - Then put back on....those things aren't easy. Why would someone take the time to do that --

PLUS, go back upstairs to JonBenet's room, pull out the drawer and open a new set of panties....take them back down to the cellar?!

Or, maybe she was changed upstairs....before her death.

How do we know JonBenet was wearing the smaller size previously? They were never found. How do we know they even existed?

TLynn,

JonBenet normally wore size 4 and size 6 underwear. There were 15 pairs of underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom and all of them were size 4 and size 6. There was also a package of the day-of-the-week size 12-14's in the drawer that Patsy had bought for her niece but didn't send them. JonBenet was wearing a pair of the 12-14's when found dead. The niece was 12 years old and twice the size of JonBenet. The oversized underwear had to have been put on JonBenet after death because size 12-14 underwear on JonBenet would have fallen down into her pant legs when she walked.

Both John and Patsy would have known better than to put size 12-14 underwear on JonBenet if they had been involved in that part of the staging. IMO the underwear were put on JonBenet after death by someone who didn't know what they were doing -- such as two 9-year-old boys.

JMO

 

[K777angel]

TLynn,

JonBenet normally wore size 4 and size 6 underwear. There were 15 pairs of underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom and all of them were size 4 and size 6. There was also a package of the day-of-the-week size 12-14's in the drawer that Patsy had bought for her niece but didn't send them. JonBenet was wearing a pair of the 12-14's when found dead. The niece was 12 years old and twice the size of JonBenet. The oversized underwear had to have been put on JonBenet after death because size 12-14 underwear on JonBenet would have fallen down into her pant legs when she walked.

Both John and Patsy would have known better than to put size 12-14 underwear on JonBenet if they had been involved in that part of the staging. IMO the underwear were put on JonBenet after death by someone who didn't know what they were doing -- such as two 9-year-old boys.

JMO

This is a curious part to the murder - or so it may seem.
Keep in mind that the reason Patsy kept those large undies in the first place was because JonBenet whined and whined to have them.
Perhaps this is exactly part of what happened that night. JonBenet needed (or wanted) to put on different underwear for whatever reason, and she INSISTED on those Bloomingdale undies that her mother kept at her insistence.
It is not at all unusual for a very young child to obsess about what they want to wear - or not wear. (Eat or not eat...)
My daughter did not want to wear pants to school for the longest time when she was JonBenet's age. She just loved dresses.
At age 2 she became very attached to a red rain slicker she had. I heard noises one night and got up to find her awake in her rain slicker! LOL!
I can see a "struggle" between Patsy and JonBenet (a power struggle really) that night over what to wear. They'd had a similar struggle earlier in the day and as I suspect probably was the case most of the time - JonBenet won and her mother gave in. Perhaps JonBenet knew just how far to push to wear her mother down. Indulged children are basically "trained" to behave this way.

So it may not have been ANYONE re-dressing JonBenet in those size 12/14 underwear - it may have been JonBenet herself. Before she was molested and killed of course.

 

[sissi]

You do realize that her longjohns would have been pulled completely off to put new underwear on - Then put back on....those things aren't easy. Why would someone take the time to do that --

PLUS, go back upstairs to JonBenet's room, pull out the drawer and open a new set of panties....take them back down to the cellar?!

Or, maybe she was changed upstairs....before her death.

How do we know JonBenet was wearing the smaller size previously? They were never found. How do we know they even existed?

They were never found?
Interesting in this, two days previous, lhp's daughter was given a very last minute invitation to join in the party. Patsy said she let her borrow clothes to look "nice". Hmm..did she shower and break into the new panty package? Did someone "return" them when stopping by to pick up a check,ran into Jonbenet, killed her, gave her the panties back, and took the ones she was wearing?? Is this the reason for the very late dna check of Arianna?

 

[BlueCrab]

Interesting in this, two days previous, lhp's daughter was given a very last minute invitation to join in the party. Patsy said she let her borrow clothes to look "nice". Hmm..did she shower and break into the new panty package? Did someone "return" them when stopping by to pick up a check,ran into Jonbenet, killed her, gave her the panties back, and took the ones she was wearing?? Is this the reason for the very late dna check of Arianna?

sissi,

That's an interesting thought about Ariana taking a pair of the size 12-14's while changing clothes in JonBenet's room on the 23rd. They were her size. However, the underwear on JonBenet said "Wednesday" on them. Ariana, had she opened the package, would have likely selected the pair that had "Monday" on them on the 23rd.

JMO

 

[gaia]

I find this whole family to be alarming. The term "dysfunctional" is too trite to describe how weird and sicko they are!!

 

[Eagle1]

At the Whites', Fleet went into the bathroom to wipe JonBenet, and didn't he rinse out her (small) panties because she had either slightly wet or soiled them?? Didn't he put a pair of Daphne's panties on JonBenet?

Surely they wouldn't have removed them when leaving for home, afraid they wouldn't remember to bring them back, or because JonBenet didn't like them? Good thinking, MissDaisy about JonBenet probably putting her feet around her Dad and getting the fibers that way.

Didn't Fleet give them her balled-up wet panties when they were leaving? And it wasn't mentioned, but maybe her long johns and black velvet pants too? Maybe they were slightly wet because she almost didn't make it to the bathroom at the Whites' ?