John & the Basement

[JMO8778]

From what I read, every single pair of undies that she owned had a poop stain in them. Clean undies (the ones in the pack) would be free of stains that points to toileting issues). I am torn between these two scenarios.....the size 12 panties were unopened and in the drawer...Patsy sent John to fetch some more panties, and he just decided to open the pack (because the were clean, and since he is a man, and pays no attention to size...like my husband, he would have NO clue what size panties my daughters wore)...and the panties were wrapped and in the basement. I can't make up my mind about that one.

me either,for certain,but they likely wanted clean new ones that said Wed. on them,as if they never changed her clothes,it was Wed. when she went to bed,as if that proves it?

 

[UKGuy]

From what I read, every single pair of undies that she owned had a poop stain in them. Clean undies (the ones in the pack) would be free of stains that points to toileting issues). I am torn between these two scenarios.....the size 12 panties were unopened and in the drawer...Patsy sent John to fetch some more panties, and he just decided to open the pack (because the were clean, and since he is a man, and pays no attention to size...like my husband, he would have NO clue what size panties my daughters wore)...and the panties were wrapped and in the basement. I can't make up my mind about that one.

Ames,

From what I read, every single pair of undies that she owned had a poop stain in them. Clean undies (the ones in the pack) would be free of stains that points to toileting issues).

Then a look at her other size-6's would tell the investigators that there might be a toileting issue here?

I am torn between these two scenarios.....the size 12 panties were unopened and in the drawer...Patsy sent John to fetch some more panties, and he just decided to open the pack (because the were clean, and since he is a man, and pays no attention to size...like my husband, he would have NO clue what size panties my daughters wore)...and the panties were wrapped and in the basement. I can't make up my mind about that one.

Sure, because they were removed from the house or discovered later in some packing crate, makes analysing this aspect difficult.

Surely the gift wrapping would have a recipient name on it, particularly since it was after the 25th, and John had stated he had prepared some gifts for flying out?

Whether they were in the basement or upstairs is a moot point, either location allows John or Patsy to use them to redress JonBenet, I'm leaning towards the gift-wrapping feature since it is simple, but since John has linked himself with the wine-cellar and in particular the xmas gifts, this places him in the frame for rederessing JonBenet?

.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

So the size-12's have to be removed for some reason, then they are handed back, mmm?

the way Dee dee stated it,it makes sense to me.the R's flip floped on a lot of issues.Is there some reason you think too large underwear would be bought for a sexual reason? I see it bought for an innocent reason,then used for staging b/c it happened to be there.I don't think it's an odd thing to buy underwear for a niece..my sister buys my daughter VS(Victoria's Secret) underwear sometimes,no big deal.And if they said Bloomies on them,that would make a cute gift,perhaps she had enough t shirts already? And maybe since Patsy was right there,maybe not wanting to go to another dept for a gift,she just chose underwear since she was already buying some for JB.I just don't see it as an odd thing.

Sure, from memory, she said they were in the dresser drawer, for long enough I confused the dresser drawer with the bathroom panty drawer.

they could have been stored there until she was ready to wrap them.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Maybe, but why not dress her in a pair of size-6's, any pair would do for the dna avoidance issue?

a used pair could still have R dna on them,could they not? I have a feeling they were chosen for more than one reason,though,perhaps b/c they were clean,new and said Wed. on them.

I disagree, imo, they went to great lengths to cleanup JonBenet's body. If the urine-release was post-mortem how come the blankets are not wet, why is the staining mainly on the front and not the rear?

If not enough urine was released to soak anything other than her LJ's,then why would it go through to the blanket? Didn't Patsy mention the toilet looked as if it hadn't been flushed? if so,then could it be that JB did make it to the toilet,but something else set off her rage? I'm not disagreeing with you though,on any aspect...only considering more than one situation.you could be 100% right on all counts.
It sounds like she was on her stomach at some point.

 

[JMO8778]

Ames,

Then a look at her other size-6's would tell the investigators that there might be a toileting issue here?


Sure, because they were removed from the house or discovered later in some packing crate, makes analysing this aspect difficult.

Surely the gift wrapping would have a recipient name on it, particularly since it was after the 25th, and John had stated he had prepared some gifts for flying out?

.

I bet they removed the tags.why not,we know the underwear was removed from the house.
are you saying you believe the R's are telling the truth when they say they 'found' the package of underwear the size 12's came from?

 

[UKGuy]

the way Dee dee stated it,it makes sense to me.the R's flip floped on a lot of issues.Is there some reason you think too large underwear would be bought for a sexual reason? I see it bought for an innocent reason,then used for staging b/c it happened to be there.I don't think it's an odd thing to buy underwear for a niece..my sister buys my daughter VS(Victoria's Secret) underwear sometimes,no big deal.And if they said Bloomies on them,that would make a cute gift,perhaps she had enough t shirts already? And maybe since Patsy was right there,maybe not wanting to go to another dept for a gift,she just chose underwear since she was already buying some for JB.I just don't see it as an odd thing.

they could have been stored there until she was ready to wrap them.

JMO8778,
I agree the size-12's may have purchased for an innocent reason then used pragmatically for staging.

they could have been stored there until she was ready to wrap them.

Or John?

 

[UKGuy]

a used pair could still have R dna on them,could they not? I have a feeling they were chosen for more than one reason,though,perhaps b/c they were clean,new and said Wed. on them.




If not enough urine was released to soak anything other than her LJ's,then why would it go through to the blanket? Didn't Patsy mention the toilet looked as if it hadn't been flushed? if so,then could it be that JB did make it to the toilet,but something else set off her rage? I'm not disagreeing with you though,on any aspect...only considering more than one situation.you could be 100% right on all counts.
It sounds like she was on her stomach at some point.

JMO8778,
Yes the other size-6's may have had ramsey dna on them.

I have a feeling they were chosen for more than one reason,though,perhaps b/c they were clean,new and said Wed. on them.

This aspect must surely rule out an ad-hoc approach to redressing JonBenet e.g. they were not randomly selected?

So size-12 features:

1. Clean as in no ramsey dna.
2. Wednesday Day Of the Week
3. Too big for JonBenet

So whomever chose them must have known about 3. assuming that 1 and 2. were deliberated choices.

Did the Ramsey's realize belatedly that removing the remaining size-12's was a big mistake so returned them with an excuse?

 

[UKGuy]

I bet they removed the tags.why not,we know the underwear was removed from the house.
are you saying you believe the R's are telling the truth when they say they 'found' the package of underwear the size 12's came from?

JMO8778,
Removed the tags? Maybe, Steve Thomas should post here as Concerned Investigator and tell us if they had tags and if any prints were lifted from the gift-wrapping?

are you saying you believe the R's are telling the truth when they say they 'found' the package of underwear the size 12's came from?

No, I reckon they made a mistake, particularly when Patsy makes numerous inconsistent statements about the size-12's and their location. They realized no intruder would take the remaining size-12's with him, and although we speculate that the ramsey's redressed JonBenet their intention was to make it appear JonBenet was wearing appropriate day of the week underwear e.g. no problem in that area.

Also the form of staging in JonBenet's lower torso contrasts with the violent style applied to her upper torso e.g the lower is being hidden and the upper emphasised?

 

[BOESP]

Why not just remove the panties altogether? Patsy could have said she took them off with JBs black jeans,it would have been simpler.

Daffodil, I'm going to speculate here, but I'm guessing Patsy would be the type mother who would never want her child found without underwear. I suspect she was raised in a "Don't forget to wear clean underwear. You may be in a wreck" type of household. Male daffodils might not understand this but I bet female daffodils would.

 

[daffodil]

:laugh: You're right BOESP!! I doubt that JB slept in her knickers every night though.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Yes the other size-6's may have had ramsey dna on them.


This aspect must surely rule out an ad-hoc approach to redressing JonBenet e.g. they were not randomly selected?

So size-12 features:

1. Clean as in no ramsey dna.
2. Wednesday Day Of the Week
3. Too big for JonBenet

So whomever chose them must have known about 3. assuming that 1 and 2. were deliberated choices.

Did the Ramsey's realize belatedly that removing the remaining size-12's was a big mistake so returned them with an excuse?

obviously they did.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Removed the tags? Maybe, Steve Thomas should post here as Concerned Investigator and tell us if they had tags and if any prints were lifted from the gift-wrapping?

possibly they had tags on them,UK.we don't know for sure,but if they did,it appears they were removed(?)I can't see why Patsy would say they were put aside for JB,but then leave a tag w. her niece's name on it,w. the gift box either partially wrapped or partly unwrapped.
it would be interesting to know if any prints were lifted from the wrappings,seeing as there were no prints on the RN,even though they admitted to handling it.

Also the form of staging in JonBenet's lower torso contrasts with the violent style applied to her upper torso e.g the lower is being hidden and the upper emphasised?

not only that,John's fibers appear only underneath her clothing,while Patsy's are above it.JR took a shower,Patsy did not.JR changed clothes,Patsy did not.JB's shirt from the prior night stayed on (perhaps it was changed earlier) but her bottom half is changed completely,despite the fact that the White's were called over,and had just seen them both in those clothes the night before.Any thoughts there? Did JR keep Patsy busy on purpose so she would not have time to shower or change clothes? Did he do that on purpose,hoping the White's would realize this?

 

[UKGuy]

possibly they had tags on them,UK.we don't know for sure,but if they did,it appears they were removed(?)I can't see why Patsy would say they were put aside for JB,but then leave a tag w. her niece's name on it,w. the gift box either partially wrapped or partly unwrapped.
it would be interesting to know if any prints were lifted from the wrappings,seeing as there were no prints on the RN,even though they admitted to handling it.



not only that,John's fibers appear only underneath her clothing,while Patsy's are above it.JR took a shower,Patsy did not.JR changed clothes,Patsy did not.JB's shirt from the prior night stayed on (perhaps it was changed earlier) but her bottom half is changed completely,despite the fact that the White's were called over,and had just seen them both in those clothes the night before.Any thoughts there? Did JR keep Patsy busy on purpose so she would not have time to shower or change clothes? Did he do that on purpose,hoping the White's would realize this?

JMO8778,

possibly they had tags on them,UK.we don't know for sure,but if they did,it appears they were removed(?) I can't see why Patsy would say they were put aside for JB,but then leave a tag w. her niece's name on it,w. the gift box either partially wrapped or partly unwrapped.
it would be interesting to know if any prints were lifted from the wrappings,seeing as there were no prints on the RN,even though they admitted to handling it.

If she was that observant, why leave the gift-wrapping in the basement at all? That reminds me of the urine-soaked longjohns?

not only that,John's fibers appear only underneath her clothing,while Patsy's are above it.JR took a shower,Patsy did not.JR changed clothes,Patsy did not.JB's shirt from the prior night stayed on (perhaps it was changed earlier) but her bottom half is changed completely,despite the fact that the White's were called over,and had just seen them both in those clothes the night before.Any thoughts there? Did JR keep Patsy busy on purpose so she would not have time to shower or change clothes? Did he do that on purpose,hoping the White's would realize this?

Applying KISS and occam's razor John showered to remove damning forensic evidence, whilst Patsy assumed she contributed none, possibly on the basis she did not kill or assault JonBenet, so never bothered redressing or showering, then again maybe she did and was first into Johns shower, then he went next?

Assuming the fiber evidence is correct, just what impelled John to wipe JonBenet's genitals with his Israeli manufactured shirt, what was it that made it imperative that he use the nearest thing to hand, and not JonBenet's underwear, which might suggest she was naked?

 

[DeeDee249]

Trust me, having raised a daughter, little girls want to wear undies (knickers) to bed, regardless of what kind of nightie or pajamas they are wearing. My daughter would NEVER not have had underwear on at that age with one exception...she was a ballerina and never wore undies under the tights/leotard. Even as a 2-year old. When she was a bit older and dancing professionally, they were not allowed to wear anything under the tights/leotards/costumes.
As said before, there were TWO things the Rs never expected to be noticed, nor to be made a big deal of: 1. the fact that the panties on their daughter were not her usual size, and 2. the fact that pineapple would be found in her digestive tract in a form that could be both identified and traced to pineapple still in the R home.
I've seen those Bloomies panties...they've been sold for years and years. They are packaged in a way as to make a cute gift, and cute undies are quite a common gift for little girls. Nothing would be unusual or sinister about the purchase of those undies as a gift for a niece.

 

[UKGuy]

Trust me, having raised a daughter, little girls want to wear undies (knickers) to bed, regardless of what kind of nightie or pajamas they are wearing. My daughter would NEVER not have had underwear on at that age with one exception...she was a ballerina and never wore undies under the tights/leotard. Even as a 2-year old. When she was a bit older and dancing professionally, they were not allowed to wear anything under the tights/leotards/costumes.
As said before, there were TWO things the Rs never expected to be noticed, nor to be made a big deal of: 1. the fact that the panties on their daughter were not her usual size, and 2. the fact that pineapple would be found in her digestive tract in a form that could be both identified and traced to pineapple still in the R home.
I've seen those Bloomies panties...they've been sold for years and years. They are packaged in a way as to make a cute gift, and cute undies are quite a common gift for little girls. Nothing would be unusual or sinister about the purchase of those undies as a gift for a niece.

DeeDee249,
So although JonBenet was known to wet the bed, do you reckon she was allowed to wear panties to bed?

I've seen those Bloomies panties...they've been sold for years and years. They are packaged in a way as to make a cute gift, and cute undies are quite a common gift for little girls. Nothing would be unusual or sinister about the purchase of those undies as a gift for a niece.

I agree, just wonder what the niece thnks about it after all these years? With the bloomies we have Patsy making totally inconsistent statements, whereas with the pineapple snack, there is some room for debate?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

If she was that observant, why leave the gift-wrapping in the basement at all? That reminds me of the urine-soaked longjohns?

I don't know other than I think it was HELL night,panic ensued,and there were obvious things that were forgotten about,such as her room..her bed wasn't even fixed in such a way as to imply she was taken from it by an intruder.I think they were more concerned with where her body would be found,and even then,there were things they forgot about.
Patsy said she wrapped gifts in the basement anyway,and if they were in a box there,that would have been no big deal,or so she thought at the time.

Applying KISS and occam's razor John showered to remove damning forensic evidence, whilst Patsy assumed she contributed none, possibly on the basis she did not kill or assault JonBenet, so never bothered redressing or showering, then again maybe she did and was first into Johns shower, then he went next?

I don't think she showered,IMO,I think in that case she would have put on fresh clothes,since she was already in the bedroom area.that would take little extra time.
I really think Patsy's mind was in such turmoil that she was counting on JR to guide her,and not for one instant was he about to let anything point to himself.So he kept her busy while he showered,perhaps making the last copy of the RN, or wiping down the FL.

Assuming the fiber evidence is correct, just what impelled John to wipe JonBenet's genitals with his Israeli manufactured shirt, what was it that made it imperative that he use the nearest thing to hand, and not JonBenet's underwear, which might suggest she was naked?

..and that her underwear was not nearby,or handy,as in within his reach? Is it also possible he just leaned over her (for whatever reason) and they got there that way,during the staging (that Patsy was doing)? He obviously didn't think anything of handing the shirt over.
Even if JB was molested that night,is it not possible that it could have been done *before he went to bed,JB was put to bed,and the rest happens later by Patsy?I see the guilt was all over Patsy,the signs were there,and plenty of them.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know other than I think it was HELL night,panic ensued,and there were obvious things that were forgotten about,such as her room..her bed wasn't even fixed in such a way as to imply she was taken from it by an intruder.I think they were more concerned with where her body would be found,and even then,there were things they forgot about.
Patsy said she wrapped gifts in the basement anyway,and if they were in a box there,that would have been no big deal,or so she thought at the time.

I don't think she showered,IMO,I think in that case she would have put on fresh clothes,since she was already in the bedroom area.that would take little extra time.
I really think Patsy's mind was in such turmoil that she was counting on JR to guide her,and not for one instant was he about to let anything point to himself.So he kept her busy while he showered,perhaps making the last copy of the RN, or wiping down the FL.

..and that her underwear was not nearby,or handy,as in within his reach? Is it also possible he just leaned over her (for whatever reason) and they got there that way,during the staging (that Patsy was doing)? He obviously didn't think anything of handing the shirt over.
Even if JB was molested that night,is it not possible that it could have been done *before he went to bed,JB was put to bed,and the rest happens later by Patsy?I see the guilt was all over Patsy,the signs were there,and plenty of them.

JMO8778,

..and that her underwear was not nearby,or handy,as in within his reach? Is it also possible he just leaned over her (for whatever reason) and they got there that way,during the staging (that Patsy was doing)? He obviously didn't think anything of handing the shirt over.
Even if JB was molested that night,is it not possible that it could have been done *before he went to bed,JB was put to bed,and the rest happens later by Patsy?I see the guilt was all over Patsy,the signs were there,and plenty of them.

Something forced John to use his shirt, whether it was JonBenet not wearing underwear or it had already been used, who knows, but those fibers link John not only to the crime-scene but any alleged sexual assault.

Yes JonBenet may have been molested before she went to bed, then killed later for whatever reason?

That is probably a pragmatic synthesis of the PDI and JDI theories, and once accepted its a short step to recognizing that Patsy may have been fully aware of the molestation, and that rather than a toileting incident being the causal factor, it may have been something related to the prior abuse?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
So although JonBenet was known to wet the bed, do you reckon she was allowed to wear panties to bed?


I agree, just wonder what the niece thnks about it after all these years? With the bloomies we have Patsy making totally inconsistent statements, whereas with the pineapple snack, there is some room for debate?

Sure- what's the difference? Wet is wet. Whether a child is wearing undies, a nightgown, pajamas or sleeps nude- the bottom line is the SHEETS get wet. Once you have to wash the sheets (and maybe blanket) the undies and nighhtclothes just go into the wash right along with them. The only thing that would prevent this is having the child wear pull-up diapers, which PR said she used to do, then stopped.
As far as the niece, who knows what she thinks? I'd be freaked out if it were me. Interesting that NONE of JBR's relatives other than Aunt P. have said anything at all about this case that I can tell. Nothing about finding the killer, nothing about the "innocence" of her parents, Nothing. Even during the Karr fiasco. Jenny (the relative for whom the panties were bought) should be a young adult by now.

 

[UKGuy]

Sure- what's the difference? Wet is wet. Whether a child is wearing undies, a nightgown, pajamas or sleeps nude- the bottom line is the SHEETS get wet. Once you have to wash the sheets (and maybe blanket) the undies and nighhtclothes just go into the wash right along with them. The only thing that would prevent this is having the child wear pull-up diapers, which PR said she used to do, then stopped.
As far as the niece, who knows what she thinks? I'd be freaked out if it were me. Interesting that NONE of JBR's relatives other than Aunt P. have said anything at all about this case that I can tell. Nothing about finding the killer, nothing about the "innocence" of her parents, Nothing. Even during the Karr fiasco. Jenny (the relative for whom the panties were bought) should be a young adult by now.

DeeDee249,

Sure- what's the difference? Wet is wet.

The difference might explain why JonBenet was missing underwear, then again you would expect to find a wednesday pair in the washing basket, or on her floor etc. Also if as you suggest Wet is wet and Patsy is resigned to JonBenet wetting the bed, so allows her to continue wearing her underwear, then why should she become so enraged when she does wet the bed?

 

[Solace]

JMO8778,


Something forced John to use his shirt, whether it was JonBenet not wearing underwear or it had already been used, who knows, but those fibers link John not only to the crime-scene but any alleged sexual assault.

Why do you say that he used his shirt. Could not the fibers been transferred to her if John were doing the staging. He has to be leaning over her or even carrying her and then the transferrence happens. I really doubt that he would intentionally USE his shirt. He is smarter than that.