Nedra & Patsy's sisters

[BBB167893]

And please do not use Lin Wood in an argument, because he serves no purpose but to embarrass you. The man is not above threatening anyone as Wendy Murphy can attest to.

Her account of it was hysterical, wasn't it?

Hoffman says one thing that's correct: the Ramseys have never released a handwriting report. Never.

Someone once said, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

 

[UKGuy]

indeed.
I think so,too.What I find odd is that,in the autopsy pics,you can see that even though tape was applied to her lips,her face wasn't wiped off,even though we know the rest of her body was,(due to the fiber evidence).
Any opinion on that? Why not take the time to wipe her off b/f applying the tape? in staging the crime,why wouldn't this matter?(aside from,other than the fact she wasn't fighting against the tape anyway,from being unconcious).

JMO8778,

Because I suspect that either there was a prior staging, which included a post-mortem assault focusing on her face and head, where the majority of her injuries are itemised, or this occurred outwith the wine-cellar.

So not wiping her face clean was intended to focus whomever discovered JonBenet upon the upper half of her body and away from the wiped down lower half.

Without reciting what we all know, I do not reckon JonBenet was assaulted with a paintbrush handle to cover up prior abuse, simply because, it would serve no purpose e.g. JonBenet is now dead, and cannot talk, also it draws unwanted attention to that topic?

So it helps to view the wine-cellar crime-scene as wholly staged, one intended to hide the real reason as to why JonBenet was killed.

Confirmation of this will be realised if its ever found that the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet and this was redacted from the autopsy report?

I thought that the fluid on JonBenet's face had resulted from her severe fracture, e.g through her nose or mouth, Coroner Meyer states:

There are no defects noted in the shirt but the upper
anterior right sleeve contains a dried brown-tan stain measuring
2.5x1.5 inches, consistent with mucous from the nose or mouth.

So its an open question on the origin of the mucous on her face?

If you rewind the staging backwards, and imagine JonBenet elsewhere in the house, just prior to her death, then a kiss asummption is that she was wearing what she returned from the White's in, e.g. white gap top, black velvet pants?

When discovered in the wine-cellar she is minus her black velvet pants and size-6 underwear, but is now wearing those longjohns, and size-12 underwear.

So the conclusion I draw from the available evidence is this, that JonBenet was not wearing the black velvet pants when she was killed, otherwise they would have the same forensic status her size-6 underwear has. Now there is a further possibility which is that JonBenet was entirely naked from the waist down when she was killed e.g. she wore no size-6 underwear to the White's, which is simply an alternative explanation for her being redressed in size-12 underwear. The police will have answers to this since they will have access to any fiber forensics done on her black pants?

If JonBenet was killed out of Toilet Tage then why is she left wearing urine soaked clothing, and soiled pants are left in full view upstairs in her bathroom, these latter features do not fit in with the effort put into the basement staging?

So putting the Toilet Tage theory to one side, since it is inconsistent with the current evidence, lets concentrate upon the period prior to JonBenet's death: now we know she was sexually assaulted just before being killed, if the masking of a sexual motive, is what lies behind her death, then would her killer undress JonBenet her down to her underwear, or would she have been fully undressed? I suspect the latter and that the size-6 underwear was used to clean her up, either blood or/and semen?

The likelyhood that a male committed a sexual asault upon JonBenet is pretty high, if you then factor in probable chronic sexual abuse, and also note that one male Ramsey resident is prepubescent, then a possible profile of her killer becomes clearer, not unless you consider that JonBenet's mother was routinely sexually assaulting her?

So although the fibers are important they may be a red herring, a product of the staging, in court they may not prove who killed JonBenet, simply who may have been there when the staging occurred.



.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Just a little caveat, but imo, an important one. The fibers sourced to John and Patsy were found in locations on or near JonBenet's corpse!

The actual location associated with JonBenet's death is likely elsewhere in the house.

you are right, Ukguy. I originally wanted to write that the fibers sourced to Patsy were found in the murder weapon, but since I don't believe the garrote was used to murder JB, did not want to put it that way.
I'll change it to "the fibers sourced to Patsy an John were found in incriminating locations on and near JB's corpse".

 

[BlueCrab]

I suspect the latter and that the size-6 underwear was used to clean her up, either blood or/and semen?

UKGuy,

Excellent thought, except for one problem. As you know, the cloth that was used to wipe down JonBenet has never been found. The dark fibers on JonBenet's body could not be matched to any material or item of clothing in the Ramsey house. JonBenet's size six panties are indeed missing, but there were a dozen or so duplicates in her dresser drawer in the bathroom, so it couldn't have been her panties that were used to wipe down the body unless she had a sexy one-of-a-kind dark blue or black pair of panties in the drawer with the others and wore them that night.

IMO the wipedown cloth was more likely an item of clothing from the killer, such as his dark blue shirt. IOW, the killer, who had probably been invited into the house by a Ramsey, wore the wipedown cloth (his shirt) when he vacated the house that night carrying other missing crime scene items of evidence (the roll of black duct tape, the roll of white nylon cord, etc.).

But black size six panties makes sense too as the possible wipe-down cloth, since they are also missing.

BlueCrab

 

[Jay78]

UKGuy,

Excellent thought, except for one problem. As you know, the cloth that was used to wipe down JonBenet has never been found. The dark fibers on JonBenet's body could not be matched to any material or item of clothing in the Ramsey house. JonBenet's size six panties are indeed missing, but there were a dozen or so duplicates in her dresser drawer in the bathroom, so it couldn't have been her panties that were used to wipe down the body unless she had a sexy one-of-a-kind dark blue or black pair of panties in the drawer with the others and wore them that night.

IMO the wipedown cloth was more likely an item of clothing from the killer, such as his dark blue shirt. IOW, the killer, who had probably been invited into the house by a Ramsey, wore the wipedown cloth (his shirt) when he vacated the house that night carrying other missing crime scene items of evidence (the roll of black duct tape, the roll of white nylon cord, etc.).

But black size six panties makes sense too as the possible wipe-down cloth, since they are also missing.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab, I wonder where you draw you conclusion that there was someone else in the house. Why were there no fingerprints? why is there no evidence of another person? Another thing i wonder, why would the ramsey's not point to this person? was there secrets there that couldn't be exposed?

 

[Toltec]

I did not begin this thread in order to provide an arena for an arguement. It was merely to hear people's thoughts about Nedra. I was struggling to understand how a loving grandmother(if she was) could know the identity of her sweet, innocent granddaughter's killer and live with the fact...

What I've read about Nedra Paugh is that she is:

#1...A RACIST: She called a black person "boy". Not surprising to me coming from a woman from West Virginia.

#2...POTTY MOUTH: Discussing the size of Burke's penis???

Nedra, no doubt wanted her granddaughter JonBenet to become Miss America. Her two daughters going to the Miss America Pageant wasn't enough for her...she wanted a winner.

That's where JonBenet comes in...beauty, talent, and Daddy's money. Nedra was nothing more than a typical stage mother. Patsy and Nedra were cut from the same cloth.

JonBenet was subjected to Shirley Temple videos...videos of Patsy and Pam's Miss America pageants, etc...

The pageant business is another thing. I have nothing against pageants but I object to the outfits and dance moves JonBenet was taught. Her dance instructor watched her "Cowboy Sweetheart" tape and said she did not teach JonBenet those sexualized moves. My belief is that Patsy and Pam taught her those provocative moves.

The "Hi, I'm Marilyn Monroe" takes the cake. JonBenet was NOT Marilyn Monroe....nor was she a Vegas Showgirl!

Patsy's youngest sister Polly wanted nothing to do with the pageant business...maybe she knew what dirty little secrets came along with participating. Perhaps Daddy Paugh became a little too involved with his daughters.

I don't mean any disrespect for the dead but IMO, Nedra was not this sweet innocent person...to me she was a stage mother who wanted nothing but fame for her family. Boy did she get it.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

Excellent thought, except for one problem. As you know, the cloth that was used to wipe down JonBenet has never been found. The dark fibers on JonBenet's body could not be matched to any material or item of clothing in the Ramsey house. JonBenet's size six panties are indeed missing, but there were a dozen or so duplicates in her dresser drawer in the bathroom, so it couldn't have been her panties that were used to wipe down the body unless she had a sexy one-of-a-kind dark blue or black pair of panties in the drawer with the others and wore them that night.

IMO the wipedown cloth was more likely an item of clothing from the killer, such as his dark blue shirt. IOW, the killer, who had probably been invited into the house by a Ramsey, wore the wipedown cloth (his shirt) when he vacated the house that night carrying other missing crime scene items of evidence (the roll of black duct tape, the roll of white nylon cord, etc.).

But black size six panties makes sense too as the possible wipe-down cloth, since they are also missing.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Yes it does seem a problem, not unless her size-6 underwear is not missing, and was lying elsewhere in the house, as you know there are no sizes itemised on the list of underwear removed from the house.

1. An obvious solution is that JonBenet wore no underwear to the Whites?

2. She did wear underwear to the Whites, but wore them whilst being sexually assaulted, and although not used to wipe her down, they were removed since they may have the killers dna, semen etc on them?

3. She wore a size-6 black pair of underwear prior to being sexually assaulted, thereafter they were used to wipe her down?

4. JonBenet was wiped down twice once by her killer who had sexually assaulted her, then again by another person using a cloth that matched the unknown black fibers?

2. and 3. are variants of each other, 1. and 4. seem to be complex explanations but plausible.

Combining some of the above and simplifying:

I speculate that JonBenet wore black size-6 underwear to the whites, was either sexually assaulted whilst wearing these or, not wearing them and they may have been used to wipe her down, the reason being an obvious transfer of forensic evidence e.g. seme or/and blood?

JonBenet wore black velvet pants to the Whites, so would a pageant princess, not wear dark/black underwear to avoid a contrast?

Do the size-6 bloomingdales packs come with a dark pair, or did she wear another make?



.

 

[JMO8778]

What I've read about Nedra Paugh is that she is:

#1...A RACIST: She called a black person "boy". Not surprising to me coming from a woman from West Virginia.

#2...POTTY MOUTH: Discussing the size of Burke's penis???

Nedra, no doubt wanted her granddaughter JonBenet to become Miss America. Her two daughters going to the Miss America Pageant wasn't enough for her...she wanted a winner.

That's where JonBenet comes in...beauty, talent, and Daddy's money. Nedra was nothing more than a typical stage mother. Patsy and Nedra were cut from the same cloth.

JonBenet was subjected to Shirley Temple videos...videos of Patsy and Pam's Miss America pageants, etc...

The pageant business is another thing. I have nothing against pageants but I object to the outfits and dance moves JonBenet was taught. Her dance instructor watched her "Cowboy Sweetheart" tape and said she did not teach JonBenet those sexualized moves. My belief is that Patsy and Pam taught her those provocative moves.

The "Hi, I'm Marilyn Monroe" takes the cake. JonBenet was NOT Marilyn Monroe....nor was she a Vegas Showgirl!

Patsy's youngest sister Polly wanted nothing to do with the pageant business...maybe she knew what dirty little secrets came along with participating. Perhaps Daddy Paugh became a little too involved with his daughters.

I don't mean any disrespect for the dead but IMO, Nedra was not this sweet innocent person...to me she was a stage mother who wanted nothing but fame for her family. Boy did she get it.

good points.I've always wondered about her 'as long as JR keeps making the money,we'll spend it' comment.HER hubby worked for the same Co.,she's the gma...why not spend their own money if she wanted JB to win so much???

 

[JMO8778]

Confirmation of this will be realised if its ever found that the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet and this was redacted from the autopsy report

weren't investigators looking for it though? or was that possibly just a ruse?

I thought that the fluid on JonBenet's face had resulted from her severe fracture, e.g through her nose or mouth, Coroner Meyer states:


So its an open question on the origin of the mucous on her face?

could be,I was j/w why her face wasn't wiped as well.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778, this is one of the things that 'works' with my theory, that JR alone was responsible for the wiping down of JBR, and PR didn't even know he'd done it. Thus, when she becomes involved in the staging at a later point, it's not considered important to 'clean up' the rest of her body. IMHO, of course.

that works,sure;my gut feelings always lead me back to PR though,although I admit,anything's possible (except for IDI,imo,per the evidence).
It's in the way she says 'help me Jesus' after the 911 call,is so heavily medicated and cries on CNN,cries in the piano scene,poses at the grave,goofs off with JR in those staged antics,etc.When someone keeps on with the pious scenes to 'prove' their innocence,I can't help but wonder about that;her motives for all of those seem so self-centered,IMO.
But I do respect your POV,I really do,and I always appreciate the way you look at it differently and think out of the box;it's interesting and neat to read.

 

[UKGuy]

weren't investigators looking for it though? or was that possibly just a ruse?

could be,I was j/w why her face wasn't wiped as well.

JMO8778,

weren't investigators looking for it though? or was that possibly just a ruse?

Yes that would be standard operating procedure, since only JonBenet's killer would know this, assuming it had been inserted by the killer? Also it does not make sense to remove one piece, when the other piece is around JonBenet's neck, and the remaining piece in the paint-tote?

could be,I was j/w why her face wasn't wiped as well.

Its a good question to ask, since some have suggested JonBenet was wiped down on the grounds of presentation?

The more obvious answer is that something was required to be hidden or masked down below, whereas her facial presentation offers no visible motive for her death?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,


Yes that would be standard operating procedure, since only JonBenet's killer would know this, assuming it had been inserted by the killer? Also it does not make sense to remove one piece, when the other piece is around JonBenet's neck, and the remaining piece in the paint-tote?

what if it was staged to appear BR was the abuser? in that case, the paintbrush handle would suited for that (KWIM?),and so then it would be removed and hidden,as was the size 6 underwear? His knife was left at the scene.Was it to possibly implicate him?

Its a good question to ask, since some have suggested JonBenet was wiped down on the grounds of presentation?

The more obvious answer is that something was required to be hidden or masked down below, whereas her facial presentation offers no visible motive for her death?


.

that makes sense

 

[Ames]

Ohh! I wasn't aware of this rule.. When did this go into effect?
Thank you for this information I could have been tossed.

I have used initials before... as many other poters. :waitasec:

kaykay

Well, gosh...I am surprised that I haven't been banned...because I ALWAYS use the whole name. No need for initials....I just spell the whole thing out. I didn't know that we weren't supposed to do that. OOPS!

 

[UKGuy]

what if it was staged to appear BR was the abuser? in that case, the paintbrush handle would suited for that (KWIM?),and so then it would be removed and hidden,as was the size 6 underwear? His knife was left at the scene.Was it to possibly implicate him?

that makes sense

JMO8778,

Well thats a contentious thought, since BR was resident that night. But why remove it, whats the percentage in removing it, used as a penetrative weapon what does removing it achieve, since we know whats missing is the likely assault weapon?

What was left at the scene may simply be the consequence of circumstance rather than a particular planning, you reckon its a viable scenario for BR to sexually assault his sister then kill her?

There are better ways to implicate BR than leaving his knife, how about wiping JonBenet down with a piece of BR's clothing?

I doubt that the knife was left there to implicate BR, now if he was 12 or older and pubescent, then possibly.


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Well thats a contentious thought, since BR was resident that night. But why remove it, whats the percentage in removing it, used as a penetrative weapon what does removing it achieve, since we know whats missing is the likely assault weapon?

that's just it,I don't think the R's wanted anyone to know it was done with a weapon..it was staged as a sexual assault,designed to cover past sexual abuse,IMO.So I beleive the paintbrush was hidden and removed from the house,along with the size 6 underwear.

What was left at the scene may simply be the consequence of circumstance rather than a particular planning, you reckon its a viable scenario for BR to sexually assault his sister then kill her?

more likely just an assualt would be believeable,not that he killed her,at least not on purpose.but I think they would have been desperate for a scenerio,*anything than besides the truth.Dru brought up the fact they may have left a golf club out as well.maybe so?

There are better ways to implicate BR than leaving his knife, how about wiping JonBenet down with a piece of BR's clothing?

what kid is neat enough to bother,well,at least not BR.even the housekeeper said he didn't put anything away,and he whittled all over the place.so they didnt think it logical ?

I doubt that the knife was left there to implicate BR, now if he was 12 or older and pubescent, then possibly.


.

ok,why do you think it was there? my only other guess is to implicate LHP and her husb.,since they knew the basement area and house layout,needed money,and she was the only one besides PR who knew where the knife was.
wasn't there something said about an abuse book given to one of the R's?and didn't LHP say something about BR and JB being in his room ?

 

[Dru]

that works,sure;my gut feelings always lead me back to PR though,although I admit,anything's possible (except for IDI,imo,per the evidence).
It's in the way she says 'help me Jesus' after the 911 call,is so heavily medicated and cries on CNN,cries in the piano scene,poses at the grave,goofs off with JR in those staged antics,etc.When someone keeps on with the pious scenes to 'prove' their innocence,I can't help but wonder about that;her motives for all of those seem so self-centered,IMO.
But I do respect your POV,I really do,and I always appreciate the way you look at it differently and think out of the box;it's interesting and neat to read.

Thanks!

I do agree that PR, in a manner of speaking, "lit herself up" like a giant neon sign saying, "Look at me!" And she was so good at it that even after her death, we still do!

But my explanation for why she did this is twofold: one, because she would have been involved in some (most?) of the p.m. staging and therefore would feel 'guilty.'

And two, because I think she showed classic signs of Histrionic Personality Disorder, described as follows:

"Histrionic Personality Disorder:


A pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention
2. interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior
3. displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions
4. consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self
5. has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail
6. shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion
7. is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances
8. considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are"

IMO, PR's personality was the type that couldn't help trying to be the center of attention, even if that ended up making her, in the public's eye anyway, chief suspect in the death of her daughter!

 

[Dru]

I'd like to chime in on a couple of points raised in this thread.

One, I seriously doubt JBR had any black or dark colored underwear. Though there's a trend to put younger and younger girls into 'sexy' clothes, a disturbing fashion trend I think of as 'pedophile chic,' most children's underwear manufacturers still stay away from dark colored underwear in size 4-6, since it's the second smallest size for girls and lots of girls wearing that size are still having 'accidents', which can be hard to see in dark underwear.

Two, in my theory I don't see the BR staging as being designed to fool anyone but PR; it's never meant to be seen by anyone else, since JR, if he were the one responsible, would be counting on her cooperation in hiding the truth and 'saving' their son. But it's very important that any evidence that looks like a sexual assault be removed, as PR won't accept such a scenario with BR as the main actor, which is why the wiping down/replacing of underwear takes place.

Interesting idea about the pocket knife and LHP. But I think this is where some of the "split staging" can be seen.

PR tries to implicate LHP early on, mentioning the money that LHP has asked to borrow among other things. Yet aside from the knife, which is not actually next to the body but in a section of the basement not too far removed from the crime scene, there isn't any suggestion that LHP is responsible in any of the other staging.

Consider the RN, for example. It seems to suggest that the person or persons responsible a) have some kind of grudge against JR, and b) have access to the information about the $118,000 bonus. LHP doesn't fit a) at all, and even if she had snooped and knew about the bonus, it would be an extremely odd amount for her to ask. In fact, it's an extremely odd amount for anyone to ask, which is my point: I think JR told PR to write this amount in the RN so he could suggest that someone tied to Access Graphics, some present or past employee, was responsible--which is exactly what he did do at first! In the first CNN interview days after the murder JR said something about not knowing whether this was an attack on him or on his company, and he soon suggested both Jeff Merrick and Mike Glynn as possible suspects with a grudge against Access Graphics.

Later JR seems to have backed away from such specific suggestions, but only, I think, when he realized how impossible it would be to find someone who was both angry with him/Access Graphics and absent from home on Christmas night. At that point he seems to have faded into the background, allowing PR to take the lead in the 'throwing people under the R bus' operation. No matter how ridiculous PR's suggestions or accusations were, JR doesn't seem to have ever said something like, Oh, no, we know that X is a good friend and couldn't possibly have been involved. He seems perfectly willing to let PR speak for him on the subject, once it's clear that there are no Access Graphics employees unaccounted for on Christmas night--something which I think seriously upset his original plans.

If JR really was responsible, and yes, this is just my opinion, but if he was, then PR was exactly what he needed. I think she confused the case beyond repair.

 

[Solace]

Her account of it was hysterical, wasn't it?

Hoffman says one thing that's correct: the Ramseys have never released a handwriting report. Never.

Someone once said, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Hi SD, Yes it was. Just who does he think he is leaving a message like that on her voice mail. Where does he think he is East Germany in the 80s. The audacity. :furious:

 

[Solace]

Well, gosh...I am surprised that I haven't been banned...because I ALWAYS use the whole name. No need for initials....I just spell the whole thing out. I didn't know that we weren't supposed to do that. OOPS!

What rule are you talking about? I have re read the posts and I can't find your conversations. Let me know, thanks.

I thought we could speak of anyone who has been named as a suspect, but that must be wrong, since we cannot name Burke, am I right. I know I am wrong, so someone help me out. I too want to post correctly. THANK YOU FOLKS.

 

[JMO8778]

What rule are you talking about? I have re read the posts and I can't find your conversations. Let me know, thanks.

I thought we could speak of anyone who has been named as a suspect, but that must be wrong, since we cannot name Burke, am I right. I know I am wrong, so someone help me out. I too want to post correctly. THANK YOU FOLKS.

I *think it's that we can't name anyone who's been cleared(and BR was),or hasn't ever been a suspect.