Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Nuisanceposter]

So whose size 12/14 panties was JonBenet dressed in? If they weren't hers, and there's no way I'll believe that they belonged to her and even came close to looking like they fit her correctly, whose panties were they?

The fact that JonBenet was cleaned up and redressed after the assault that killed her tells me there was no intruder. Nobody who has broken in to molest/kidnap/murder a child is going to go to the trouble of wiping her off and redressing her.

A kidnapper would not have stopped to molest her in her own house, and if he did, and ended up killing her, he most definitely would have taken her with him. He could have ransomed the body. Kidnappers also do not write three page notes, nor do they rely upon the occupants of the home they are abducting a child from to supply them with the pen and paper they need to write a ransom note.

A killer would not have written a ransom note, unless he was trying to cover things up, and if he was out to make the Ramseys pay, a note saying "I killed your daughter" would have been much more succinct and effective. A killer also would not have bothered to treat the child with any respect, such as cleaning and redressing her. A killer who was bent on revenge against the Ramseys would have left the dead child in a prominent location, to make sure he truly achieved revenge.

I also see the way the Ramseys thought nothing of calling every single person they could think of the morning of the 26th as an indication that one of them was the author of the ransom note. They were fully aware that there was no one watching them, ready to behead their daughter if they were seen speaking to cops or even a dog. I don't believe they wouldn't sit and read through that whole letter before calling people such as police and all of their friends, telling every one of them to come right on over. There's no way I'll believe they wouldn't sit and read through that whole letter before dialling anybody.

 

[aussiesheila]

So whose size 12/14 panties was JonBenet dressed in? If they weren't hers, and there's no way I'll believe that they belonged to her and even came close to looking like they fit her correctly, whose panties were they?

Nuisanceposter,

I am not sure, but I think the information regarding the panties is this - there was a packet of size 12/14 panties, each with the name of a different day of the week printed on the waistband, which were stored in a cupboard in JonBenet's bedroom. The packet was found opened and with the 'Wednesday' pair missing. JonBenet's body was found wearing a urine and blood stained 'Wednesday' pair underneath her white longjohns. The size 6 panties she normally wore were all stored in a chest of drawers in her bathroom.

As you read around the various threads on this site you will find theories as to why she was found in size
12/14s instead of a pair of size 6s.

 

[Jayelles]

Just a reminder: the panties found on JonBenet were size 12/14.

Huge. They had piles and piles of Bloomies all around the children's dept. There were even piles of them at the tills. I recently came across the clear zipped plastic bag they came in. My little girl keeps some small toys in it.

 

[BlueCrab]

The fact that JonBenet was cleaned up and redressed after the assault that killed her tells me there was no intruder.

Nuisanceposter,

I fully agree. Only a Ramsey would have tried to hide the fact that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted and try to point the finger at a non-existant intruder.

 

[LinasK]

So whose size 12/14 panties was JonBenet dressed in? If they weren't hers, and there's no way I'll believe that they belonged to her and even came close to looking like they fit her correctly, whose panties were they?

I think I had read somewhere that Patsy had bought them to give to a niece and JB really liked them.

 

[BlueCrab]

I think I had read somewhere that Patsy had bought them to give to a niece and JB really liked them.

LinasK,

Could you possibly find the source that states JonBenet really liked the size 12/14 panties bought for the niece? I'm pretty sure that's an internet rumor that grew legs.

 

[tipper]

Nuisanceposter,

I am not sure, but I think the information regarding the panties is this - there was a packet of size 12/14 panties, each with the name of a different day of the week printed on the waistband, which were stored in a cupboard in JonBenet's bedroom. The packet was found opened and with the 'Wednesday' pair missing. JonBenet's body was found wearing a urine and blood stained 'Wednesday' pair underneath her white longjohns. The size 6 panties she normally wore were all stored in a chest of drawers in her bathroom.

As you read around the various threads on this site you will find theories as to why she was found in size
12/14s instead of a pair of size 6s.

Actually it sounds like they were a 10/12:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4665

0083
1 [Kane] Q. Ms. Ramsey, would you say that it
2 would, it is safe to assume that, if she is
3 wearing underpants designed for someone who
4 weighs 85 pounds, who is 10 to 12 years old,
5 that those would not fit her?

 

[LinasK]

LinasK,

Could you possibly find the source that states JonBenet really liked the size 12/14 panties bought for the niece? I'm pretty sure that's an internet rumor that grew legs.

I think I read it in a book I was browsing through while in Barnes & Noble quite a while ago. Possibly it was Schiller's book?

I'm not saying they were on JB because she really liked them, only that Patsy still had them in the drawer and I think JB wanted some for herself.

 

[Zman]

So whose size 12/14 panties was JonBenet dressed in? If they weren't hers, and there's no way I'll believe that they belonged to her and even came close to looking like they fit her correctly, whose panties were they?

The fact that JonBenet was cleaned up and redressed after the assault that killed her tells me there was no intruder. Nobody who has broken in to molest/kidnap/murder a child is going to go to the trouble of wiping her off and redressing her. .

Why not? Please expand.

A kidnapper would not have stopped to molest her in her own house, and if he did, and ended up killing her, he most definitely would have taken her with him. He could have ransomed the body. Kidnappers also do not write three page notes, nor do they rely upon the occupants of the home they are abducting a child from to supply them with the pen and paper they need to write a ransom note..

Do parents who murder their children write three page notes?

A killer would not have written a ransom note, unless he was trying to cover things up, and if he was out to make the Ramseys pay, a note saying "I killed your daughter" would have been much more succinct and effective. A killer also would not have bothered to treat the child with any respect, such as cleaning and redressing her. A killer who was bent on revenge against the Ramseys would have left the dead child in a prominent location, to make sure he truly achieved revenge..

You think JBR was treated with respect? Have you seen the autopsy photo's? Sorry no way.

I also see the way the Ramseys thought nothing of calling every single person they could think of the morning of the 26th as an indication that one of them was the author of the ransom note. They were fully aware that there was no one watching them, ready to behead their daughter if they were seen speaking to cops or even a dog. I don't believe they wouldn't sit and read through that whole letter before calling people such as police and all of their friends, telling every one of them to come right on over. There's no way I'll believe they wouldn't sit and read through that whole letter before dialling anybody.

I don't think you would believe them anymore if they waited to call the police would you?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Of course, everything I say is my personal opinion based upon the information I have read through the years.

I don't believe an intruder who came in with the intent of harming JB either by kidnapping or murder would have bothered to wipe her off or redress her. That, to me, is an act of compassion, something I expect a person who cared about her would have done.

A kidnapper would have just grabbed her and left with her...a smart one, anyway. There's all the time in the world to molest her after they left the house and are in whatever secret place he might hide her in. The fact that she was tortured by the neck device (which I believe preceeded the head injury) in her own home leads me to believe the person who did that was comfortable enough in that house to sit and twist the cord around her neck. I doubt a kidnapper would have stayed a moment longer than necessary to catch the child and make a get-away, much less sit and get a sick thrill before he absconded.

A killer who meant to kill her to gain some type of revenge against the Ramseys would not have cared for a second if the child was naked or dressed. In fact, it would have been more like a killer seeking to hurt and shock the Ramseys to have killed the child and left her dead body openly visible. He wants to hurt JR, right? How is hiding the body of his daughter in the basement hurting him? It would have been much more hurtful to leave the dead girl in her own bed, or under the Christmas tree, or even right outside J and P's bedroom door. Why stop with JB? Why not kill Burke, too? Why bother to wipe down and dress the dead child in underpants if you're out to kill her to get back at her parents? Leaving her propped up completely naked would have been ten times more vile and hurtful if the killer meant to achieve hurt. Wiping her down and dressing her is something someone who cared about her did.

Where did the panties come from? I'd love to sit and read through every thread and find where you guys have been discussing it (you all are so informed) but I'm at work and don't have that much time. I vaguely remember hearing about the Wednesday being written on them. Who were they bought for? Had JB ever worn them before? How did the killer know where to find them?

Yes, I think parents who kill their children write three page ransom notes. I think it's obvious that someone unfamiliar with how an actual kidnapping is pulled off was the author of that note. I believe Patsy wrote that note. A real kidnapper uses the least amount of words possible to avoid giving themselves away. A kidnapper writes their own note and brings it with them, they do not rely upon the home of the child being kidnapped to supply them with pen and paper. And the amount of detail that went into that RN! First he's Mr Ramsey, then he's John. The $118,000, come on! Kidnappers want millions, not some obscure petty amount like 118,000. The author referred to him as Southern. Called him a "fat cat". That's an American term, not one I would expect to see from a foreign faction. Use of "we" turns into "I". And what kidnapper tells their victim's family to be well-rested? It was obviously an amateur inside job. I believe the Ramseys never obeyed the note (in regards to phoning police and friends) because they wrote it and knew it was bogus.

I might have an easier time swallowing the note and the kidnapping idea if the Ramseys had waited to call police. I still think it looks every bit like an inside job and nothing like an intruder's work. I imagine (and I have to imagine as this has never happened to me) that once I realized the note was a ransom note, I would have read through every single word on the note a couple of times to fully digest the situation. Certainly if the note said we're watching you, and if you call the cops, we'll cut your kid's head off, I would have held off on calling the cops for a bit. I certainly wouldn't be calling every friend I had and asking them to come over right away.

I don't think JB was treated with very much respect in the time just prior to her death. This is consistent with how I view the Ramseys, though. I see JR as a man who is very business-oriented and distant. I see PR as a woman who is very superficial and materialistic. I think she often talked about her daughter as if JB were a prized possession to put on display to make PR and the rest of the clan look good - but mostly PR herself. I think the way JB was treated after she died, by being wiped clean and redressed, as a show of a little too late. It looks like the act of a contrite parent to me to clean and dress the dead girl, not a killer. I believe a killer would have left her naked and messy.

I know you think the Ramseys didn't do it, and I look forward to reading your posts, Zman, to hear your point of view. There are too many loose ends that point right back at the Ramseys and a cover-up for me. I'm not sure which Ramsey killed JB, but I suspect it was Patsy. I think she was up all night, and when she had to tell John to get him to help her stage the cover up, he felt he had no choice but to help. JB was already dead, and they didn't want to lose the rest of the life they had.

Very interesting to me also is the Burke is the killer theory. I can't see any reason to believe Burke was that mean to his sister though, enough to torture her and cause her death. I can't find any accounts of Burke intentionally mistreating her prior to her death, and in DOI almost every photo that shows B and JB together makes mention of them being close and loving. How could Burke at 9 years old have known about the neck device? If he did that, there would have to be other behavior pointing to his animosity and intolerance of his sister, and I just don't see it.

And lastly, if Burke really is the killer, and law enforcement knows it, why would they participate in allowing him to get away with it? Why wouldn't they just come right out and say, "She was killed by her brother, and now we're putting him in jail"? I don't care if he is a kid, a kid who would do something like that needs to be removed from society. Needs to answer to for a crime like that. It isn't fair or safe to any other person out there to let a child who kills his sister run around like nothing happened.

 

[BrendaStar]

And lastly, if Burke really is the killer, and law enforcement knows it, why would they participate in allowing him to get away with it

I have followed this case for years. There was a lot of discussion about that in the beginning. It boils down to Burke not being 10 years old and, therefore, cannot be charged with the crime.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I have followed this case for years. There was a lot of discussion about that in the beginning. It boils down to Burke not being 10 years old and, therefore, cannot be charged with the crime.

Okay, that works for back in 1996...now he's 18. If he's the killer, even if there's no way he could be charged with the crime in any way, I still think someone official ought to know the public know who it was so people aren't still worried about a predator. And, for crying out loud, I think the public deserves to know that BR is the type of person who would brutally and sadistically murder his own six year old sister.

I might be dumb, but I still don't get it. Even if they all thought and maybe even could prove he was the killer but wasn't old enough to be charged, why not tell everyone it was him? I can see the Ramseys lying to protect Burke, but why would law enforcement officials do it too?

And I still do not see any type of behavior coming from Burke prior to JB's murder that would indicate that he was capable of such a cruel and vicious act toward his sister. You would think that if a child his age felt the amount of anger and ruthlessness that it took to kill JB in the manner she died in that it would surface and be evident in instances preceeding the murder. Kids at age nine aren't all that adept at hiding negative feelings of jealously and resentment...that's something people have to learn as they mature. I would certainly think that if Burke harbored such feelings of anger and revenge on his sister then someone somewhere would have noticed that he had a problem with her, but I've never heard anyone say Burke was ever intentionally mean to JonBenet, just the incident where he accidentally struck her with a golf club. And that has every appearance of being nothing more than an accident.

 

[tipper]

I agree Burke had no history of violent behavior. If he had we'd have heard it from former schoolmates etc.

Also I've never read anything to suggest the Ramseys held any kind of political sway in Boulder. And they certainly didn't when they were the most hated couple in the country. If Burke were guilty and the GJ decided that, the news would have leaked out somehow. The tabs alone had a vested interest in having a Ramsey publically declared guilty and not even their checkbooks could swing it.

 

[Rupert]

Nuisancepost,
You wrote a very intelligent post and many of your points echo in my mind and keep me on the fence between IDI and RDI.

It is bothersome that the perp appears to have wanted to hurt JR by hurting only JB and then cared about JB after. Maybe the perp (while having some beef with JR) had a fetish for little girls only and then felt guilty after.

I too think she was first tortured by the garrote, but I think it was done in the basement and that is why the intruder was comfortable.

Why the long note? Maybe to make his mark and go further than Leopold & Loeb and live out the kidnap movie fantasies, including hiding the body just like in "Rope" and misleading the parents.

So, maybe it's an intelligent perp, who had a sick fetish for little girls plus a rage against what JR stood for, yet a concience after the act.

Yes indeed, how did the killer know where to find the "Wednesday" panties? But then why would the R's use those panties? They were meant for a friend and it looks more like a set-up.

Yet when I read what I wrote above, it becomes a tall order for IDI (and a perp that has no repeats). Maybe it was just simply an amateur inside job with mistakes that make us think too much.

I think the garrote came first, but how could one parent do that and the other go along with it? That is what bothers me the most.

I can only conclude that whoever the perp was (IDI or RDI), the perp was no doubt into kidnap crime movies. That fit's with the RN, the hiding of the body, the torture by garrote.

 

[tipper]

Excellent Rupert. Thank you.

 

[Zman]

I have followed this case for years. There was a lot of discussion about that in the beginning. It boils down to Burke not being 10 years old and, therefore, cannot be charged with the crime.

Then why would the case still be officially open. Why would LE still be trying to match DNA? Even if they could not prosecute the killer LE would have closed the case.

 

[BlueCrab]

Then why would the case still be officially open. Why would LE still be trying to match DNA? Even if they could not prosecute the killer LE would have closed the case.

Murder cases cannot be closed until they are solved.

 

[Zman]

Murder cases cannot be closed until they are solved.

OK don't want to belabor the point but you have told us the case is solved many times.

 

[tipper]

Murder cases cannot be closed until they are solved.

If what you're saying is true (the GJ solved the case. It was Burke. etc. etc.), why would Smit have gone back on the case when the DA's office took over? Why would Keenan have had that long meeting with the Ramseys? Why would Bennett's replacement have contacted the Ramseys to introduce himself when he took over? Why would CODIS have taken the sample?

 

[BlueCrab]

OK don't want to belabor the point but you have told us the case is solved many times.

Zman,

IMO it can't be publicly disclosed that the case was solved by the grand jury in 1999 because it would violate Colorado law protecting the identities of children. If the court disclosed the truth (that it was solved), the next question from the press would be: "Well, who did it?"

Boulder authorities ( primarily the DA's office and the courts) are using smoke and mirrors to get through this catch 22 situation. Incidentally, under the Colorado Children's Code, the authorities are allowed to lawfully lie to protect the identities of the children.

BlueCrab