No staging

[SunVenus]

if we take out of the picture everything we think was probably part of the staging (wrist ligatures,tape on mouth,garotte (?),ransom note,new panties)...what does it leave us with?

a 6years old dead female,bleeding from her vagina,who has been strangled and hit on the head

every cop on this planet willing to solve such a case would know who to start with
but this NEVER happened in this case
it happened,but on the other side...the defence team knew instantly who they needed to prepare a defence for and knew who to call in to enlighten them (J.Douglas was brought in because they wanted to know if JR is capable of this)

I am starting to accept the fact that it's not the Ramsey's who I have to blame for all the mess...this is what guilty people do,lie,spend money on lawyers,everything to get away with what they've done...

They were basically ALLOWED to walk away with it ...and this is what I can't accept...it happened from day one and NOTHING changed

Wow madelaine, I've never looked at tuis mess in this way before. Brilliant thinking on your part. I agree, if staging is taken out, the obvious suspects due to crime statistics say look to the people closest to JBR. Put in the staging as it was done in this case and you get the same result.

So simple, but so ignored. Someone got away with a crime and I feel one of those someones is still alive.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Are those not the black velvet pants lying on the pink duvet in JonBenet's bedroom?

Could the black play pants found on the bathroom floor be what Jonbenet wore when outside playing on her bike?

Perfect Murder/Perfect Town, Hardback page 181; Linda Hoffmann Pugh


Any idea if the date was left on the underwear, as worn, i.e. would the underwear in the black pants or lying on the floor offer any clue as to when they were worn?

So does the above suggest BPD know what underwear is missing since the pair dated 12/25/1996 might be missing? Assuming some of the others were dated as according to Linda Hoffmann Pugh's account.


.

The black pants on the bed certainly could be the black velvet pants she wore to the White's. LE didn't seem to ask about them, so we don't know for sure. They sis ask about a pair on the (bathroom?) floor that had fecal staining. Those were the ones Patsy described as "play pants".
Don't misunderstand what LHP meant by "dating" the underwear. That does not mean the every pair had the date that it was WORN, it simply means that when the underwear was bought, it was dated with the month/year of purchase, probably with a laundry pen. This way, it was easy to tell how old they were. Silly, IMO. You replace undies when they get worn or gruny whenever they were bought. Patsy took the time to write dates on all their undies but didn't toss out JB's fecal-stained panties because they were not old enough?

 

[Chrishope]

The black pants on the bed certainly could be the black velvet pants she wore to the White's. LE didn't seem to ask about them, so we don't know for sure. They sis ask about a pair on the (bathroom?) floor that had fecal staining. Those were the ones Patsy described as "play pants".
Don't misunderstand what LHP meant by "dating" the underwear. That does not mean the every pair had the date that it was WORN, it simply means that when the underwear was bought, it was dated with the month/year of purchase, probably with a laundry pen. This way, it was easy to tell how old they were. Silly, IMO. You replace undies when they get worn or gruny whenever they were bought. Patsy took the time to write dates on all their undies but didn't toss out JB's fecal-stained panties because they were not old enough?

Thank you. I was assuming the "dated" was a very imprecise way of referring to the DOTW feature on the panties.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Patsy suggested JonBenet wore whatever was to hand.

Which suggests she may not have worn Wed.

Yet Linda Hoffmann Pugh states JonBenet's underwear was dated for wear. Not sure what form this took, hence my questions.

It appears, from what DeeDee said, that the date was the date of purchase. I had thought it was LHPs rather sloppy way of referencing the DOTW feature.

If they have been dated either by LHP or PR then presumably JonBenet will have had a drawer containing, lets say, seven days of dated underwear?


Excluding any being tossed in such a small time-frame, I would expect to see remaining dated pairs, this would at least corroborate LHP.

So knowing what remains might suggest what was missing? Also if they were dated this might explain the significance of the Day Of The Week to the R's.

Even just using he simple DOTW feature it's possible to determine what is missing, but not how long it's been missing, and why. If PR has suggested JB wore whatever was at hand it's difficult to see why the DOTW would have significance. DOTW might have more significance (the importance being misunderstood) by someone less familiar with JB's dressing habits?

That is they knew the dating sytem might become public knowledge, so the correct day Of The Week was applied i.e. size-12's.

I've never heard that the 12s had a date (in addition to DOTW) but perhaps I've simply missed that bit of info, or it's not public knowledge?

Knowing that there was a dating system, it does not follow that JonBenet wore a Wednesday size-6 pair, since presumably its the date that matters and not the Day Of The Week. If you compare this with what PR suggested about strict adherence not being observed then this is consistent with LHP's remarks.

.

The dating system that you are suggesting would correspond with the DOTW, wouldn't it?

It appears from DeeDee's remarks that you're looking at the possibility of a very precise system -e.g. 12/25/96, whereas I was considering the possibility of a very imprecise way of referring to DOTW. It seems we have both misunderstood the dating system?

I don't see anything in PMPT on p. 181 that suggests the dating system DeeDee suggests -dating them with the date of purchase. But DeeDee usually knows case details that elude me, so I'll assume she is right for the time being.

 

[midwest mama]

Which suggests she may not have worn Wed.

It appears, from what DeeDee said, that the date was the date of purchase. I had thought it was LHPs rather sloppy way of referencing the DOTW feature.

Even just using he simple DOTW feature it's possible to determine what is missing, but not how long it's been missing, and why. If PR has suggested JB wore whatever was at hand it's difficult to see why the DOTW would have significance. DOTW might have more significance (the importance being misunderstood) by someone less familiar with JB's dressing habits?

I've never heard that the 12s had a date (in addition to DOTW) but perhaps I've simply missed that bit of info, or it's not public knowledge?

The dating system that you are suggesting would correspond with the DOTW, wouldn't it?

It appears from DeeDee's remarks that you're looking at the possibility of a very precise system -e.g. 12/25/96, whereas I was considering the possibility of a very imprecise way of referring to DOTW. It seems we have both misunderstood the dating system?

I don't see anything in PMPT on p. 181 that suggests the dating system DeeDee suggests -dating them with the date of purchase. But DeeDee usually knows case details that elude me, so I'll assume she is right for the time being.

BBM. I'll go along with DOTW most likelybeing what LHP was saying, but her quote does say "their" underclothes. Burke's would not have had DOTW. So, if there were dates in them, DeeDee249 has the most sensible take on what they might have been. Though for the life of me, I can't imagine why a parent would do this other than for an OCD reason? I've never known anyone who puts the purchase date inside of children's underwear. Maybe a name if they're going to camp or to a lot of sleepovers, in case something gets left behind, but at a minimal cost per pair, even a loss during one of those times wouldn't bother most.

Very right DeeDee249, that it would have been very silly to do - to mark a date inside so you would know when to replace them - as in every 3 - 6 months, even if they weren't worn out, or grown out of or stained beyond liking? Maybe that's what the very wealthy do? I surely wouldn't know.

Your thought that whoever put the size 12's on JB didn't do it so they would be thought to be a match for some she would have worn earlier, but simply because there were DOTW available, and they thought JB most likely was wearing Weds, suggests that whoever redressed JB might not have had to handle other undies of JB's from that day?? Maybe JB was not wearing them when she came in contact with her attacker, or had removed them earlier herself and replaced them with just the longjohn's, or had been wearing a pull up when the attacker confronted her? Or for a couple of other innocent reasons.

If the redresser thought it important enough to pull the Weds. pair from the middle of a new package of too large underwear, it then would have been because they assumed she should be found wearing the DOTW since that's what the underwear depicted and the reason JB owned that type? IMO, Patsy would not have cared which day of the week JB was wearing because she would have known that most likely no one else in the family would have given much importance to the fact that JB was not in the "right" day of week undies.

 

[Chrishope]

BBM. I'll go along with DOTW most likelybeing what LHP was saying, but her quote does say "their" underclothes. Burke's would not have had DOTW. So, if there were dates in them, DeeDee249 has the most sensible take on what they might have been.

Agreed. It there are dates on BR's undies too, DeeDee's interpretation is the most sensible. I also got the impression DeeDee knew about the dating from another source besides PMPT.

Though for the life of me, I can't imagine why a parent would do this other than for an OCD reason?

You've heard of the woman diagnosed with CDO? CDO is an advanced form of OCD where the letters have to be in the right order.

I've never known anyone who puts the purchase date inside of children's underwear. Maybe a name if they're going to camp or to a lot of sleepovers, in case something gets left behind, but at a minimal cost per pair, even a loss during one of those times wouldn't bother most.

Very right DeeDee249, that it would have been very silly to do - to mark a date inside so you would know when to replace them - as in every 3 - 6 months, even if they weren't worn out, or grown out of or stained beyond liking? Maybe that's what the very wealthy do? I surely wouldn't know.

Children grow out of clothes so fast I don't see why anyone would bother with dating them from the time of purchase. So maybe my interpretation isn't too far off? I don't know.

Your thought that whoever put the size 12's on JB didn't do it so they would be thought to be a match for some she would have worn earlier, but simply because there were DOTW available, and they thought JB most likely was wearing Weds, suggests that whoever redressed JB might not have had to handle other undies of JB's from that day?? Maybe JB was not wearing them when she came in contact with her attacker, or had removed them earlier herself and replaced them with just the longjohn's, or had been wearing a pull up when the attacker confronted her? Or for a couple of other innocent reasons.

Or saw that she was in fact wearing Wed panties before the assault and thought that was of importance when it was really coincidence? I'm just suggesting the Wed feature might be imagined to have greater importance by someone less familiar with dressing JB on a regular basis.

If the redresser thought it important enough to pull the Weds. pair from the middle of a new package of too large underwear, it then would have been because they assumed she should be found wearing the DOTW since that's what the underwear depicted and the reason JB owned that type? IMO, Patsy would not have cared which day of the week JB was wearing because she would have known that most likely no one else in the family would have given much importance to the fact that JB was not in the "right" day of week undies.

If the 12s came from the package in the basement, as seems likely, then the Wed feature was no accident, it was selected specifically. I agree that PR wouldn't have cared, for the reason you suggest - neither JR or BR were likely to know what DOTW she'd been wearing. Additionally, the police wouldn't know, and if they asked "Why was she found wearing Tuesday panties" PR could simply say there was a bedwetting episode and I changed her into a pair that were handy w/o reference to DOTW.

It has sometimes been suggested that someone at the White's party helped JB in the bathroom, and this person might have noticed the Wed. feature. I don't think this theory makes much sense. First, wearing the "wrong" DOTW could be explained as a late night change of undies due to a bed wetting incident. Second, the "helper" would have noticed if JB was wearing size 12s, or not noticed anything unusual if she was wearing size 6. So putting size 12/wed panties on her to conform with what some helper may have seen wouldn't work unless JB had in fact worn size 12/Wed to the party. This seems unlikely.

So why 12s, and why Wed?

It seems likely to me that the size issue is explained simply - it's what was available in the basement. The person who redressed JB didn't want to go back upstairs to get the correct size? Maybe for fear of waking others?

The Wed. feature might be almost as simple. It was imagined to be of importance but really wasn't.

So if PR/JR are working together, there is no reason for selecting the wrong size, and no reason to obsess over WED? PR would know that DOTW isn't important, and neither JR/PR needed to worry about going upstairs to retrieve the correct size.

As much as I dislike BDI theory, it actually makes some sense that BR would redress her in the wrong size while still obsessing over the correct DOTW? He might have been reluctant to go upstairs and he might have thought Wed was more important than it actually was. But this makes BR responsible for the wiping down, and therefore causing the bleeding? It also means if the adults were covering for BR neither pulled down the ljs and thus didn't know of the size 12/Wed?

JR working alone is also a possibility because, as with BR, he might have been unable to go upstairs and might have thought Wed was important.

PR working alone is the least likely? She'd be able to go upstairs w/o arousing suspicion, and would know that DOTW isn't important.

That still leaves us with your point that it seems the body was meant to be found wearing WED panties. What to make of that?

If the body is meant to be found, either in the house or outside, it seems the size is a problem even if correct DOTW isn't. Why should she be found wearing size 12s? Who's going to notice the WED feature w/o noticing the size problem?

 

[DeeDee249]

I could be wrong, but I thought Patsy made only TWO trips to NYC that November. One with JB and one without. The trip without, Nedra and Don P watched JB and BR, and JB had won the "Little Miss Christmas" pageant and rode a float in the Christmas parade. It this pageant, JB was given the Santa Bear that Patsy denied knowing about (later admitting it had been given to JB at that at the pageant). This Santa bear can be seen in the crime photos on the twin bed next to JB's bed in her room. Close-up photos reveal a gold earring (looks like a clip-on style to me) clipped onto the Santa bear's belt. A matching earring was found in the street outside the R home.
While R supporters try to paint a sinister picture of this, I have a much more likely and logical theory.
JB probably did not have pierced ears at that age. She always wore earrings in her pageants, usually adult-style earrings far too large and grown-up for her. These had t be clip-on earrings, if her ears were not pierced. She could have worn these large gold ear-clips the night of the pageant (when she got the Santa Bear). I can tell you that these clip style earrings can hurt- they are very uncomfortable. I can see her removing them and she or someone else clipping them on the belt of the Santa bear so they wouldn't get lost. Between the car and the house, one of them fell off the bear into the street.

 

[DeeDee249]

That Santa Bear had been on the spare bed in JB's room since the night she got it, IMO. Patsy had clothes strewn all over that bed that night. The house was always messy, but Patsy had also been packing for their trips. She had to have seen that bear. The Rs pulled the same thing with the flashlight. They KNEW the one in the crime photos was theirs, yet they deny it by saying silly things like "Ours is just LIKE that - but not as dirty". The "dirt" was fingerprint powder. And as they did so many times, police simply let it go....never confronting them or explaining that it looked "dirty" because it had been dusted for prints.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I believe it started in March 1997:





Another interesting RN tidbit is this:



It makes it sound like SBTC is definitely Subic Bay...yet today, SBTC is seen as a huge mystery of the case?

I keep thinking of Pasty and her faith, and that could be saved by the cross, much like JonBenet's little hands in prayer over her chest. Held in place by a cord tied to her wrist.

 

[bettybaby00]

They were basically ALLOWED to walk away with it ...and this is what I can't accept...it happened from day one and NOTHING changed

I couldn't agree more!!! I also agree thats its even more infuriating, and tragic how it continues to this day

Kolar's disillusionment was palpable at the end of his book, and it was shocking for me to learn how far reaching the cover up went :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[bettybaby00]

so many great comments. i was trying to reply to some of the earlier ones when my iPad crapped out

i wanted to comment on the RN and Patsy before i got distracted by later conversation

Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye
Steve's book did not come out until August 2000. I'm guessing the loud speculation about Patsy started in March 1997 when the report about her handwriting came out. I wonder...who was the main suspect prior to that? Like who did the media and public lean towards? I think "Patsy did it" theory (in the 90s) was also fueled by the recent Susan Smith case, and the whole beauty pageant footage, so like the stage mom thing. And also Patsy's dramatics during the CNN interview.

Originally Posted by BOESP
There is no way to tell whether the damage consistent with digital penetration to JonBenet's private region was for sexual gratification or corporal cleansing. In fact, there was disagreement among the experts as to whether or not JonBenet was digitally penetrated.

Patsy could have done the damage in a corporal cleansing session. That session could have been precipitated for any number of reasons. It's stated all over the records that JonBenet was a bedwetter and that creatinine was found on her sheets. We also know feces was found in her bedroom. Seems clear to me that Steve Thomas's theory is a relevant as any other.

i have the following thoughts regarding why team Ramsey would allow the idea that Patsy "could have" written the ransom note go mostly uncontested.

IA that sexual molestation plays a big role in this case as well as being a big motivator for a cover-up. the prior "sexual contact" IMO points directly to either BR or JR. yes, i will agree that if PR meted out corporal cleansing, it could be argued that her actions might have been responsible for the older injuries seen by the Medical Examiner. However, i don't feel that is likely, and i don't feel its the reason the sexual assault staging was done to JB.

1) i feel that even if Patsy did inflict corporal cleansing on JB, i don't believe she would have necessarily made the leap that she had in fact done internal damage to JonBenet. i just don't see PR or JR thinking, "oh god, you know when you 'clean' JonBenet after an accident???? we better cover that up, b/c otherwise its going to look like she was being sexually molested!" Also, again, assuming PR did do this type of thing to JB, i believe she would be arrogant enough to feel what she did would not be viewed negatively.

2) i consider the manner in which the sexual assault was staged as well. not only did the staging seek to give the appearance that she had been penetrated at the time of her death, but also the manner in which this was done attempted to eliminate any evidence of previous penetration. i just can't see such a vile staging tactic being used to cover up aggressive cleaning behavior by PR.

i feel that its very possible Team Ramsey allowed the perception that Patsy could have written the note b/c it very effectively deflected the conversation away from the idea that JB had been a victim of sexual molestation prior to her death. if that had been highlighted more, i doubt JR would have gotten off the hook so easily.

as someone who followed the case in MSM when it first happened, and would read or watch MSM reports as they happened over the years, i think its fair to say i was representative of what the average person knew about the case. until i got involved with this case here at WS, i only knew the details that MSM and Team Ramsey fed me; meaning, not much. as such i can tell you that the idea JB was a victim of sexual molestation was not common knowledge. i've had a lot of discussions with friends about this case recently, and they have been floored by the amount of information that was either never brought to light or was minimized by the Rs and their defense team. we only need to look back at the recent NG special and the 'facts' she presented in her 'investigative report' to be reminded of what's out there in MSM.

so for me, the perception that PR wrote the note was something they saw as a risk worth taking. especially when it so effectively buried the issue of sexual abuse. if you consider that risk versus how good their legal team were at what they do....c'mon its a no brainer.

i can imagine L. Wood....

"Ta da...if Patsy wrote the note = no one focuses on child molestation."

so from their standpoint the perception "patsy might have written the note is worth the reward.

k, now i need to read the rest of the thread!

 

[BOESP]

If Patsy's proposed corporal cleansing caused the bleeding, and it very well could have, then Patsy had reason to know she had injured JonBenet.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM. I'll go along with DOTW most likelybeing what LHP was saying, but her quote does say "their" underclothes. Burke's would not have had DOTW. So, if there were dates in them, DeeDee249 has the most sensible take on what they might have been. Though for the life of me, I can't imagine why a parent would do this other than for an OCD reason? I've never known anyone who puts the purchase date inside of children's underwear. Maybe a name if they're going to camp or to a lot of sleepovers, in case something gets left behind, but at a minimal cost per pair, even a loss during one of those times wouldn't bother most.

Very right DeeDee249, that it would have been very silly to do - to mark a date inside so you would know when to replace them - as in every 3 - 6 months, even if they weren't worn out, or grown out of or stained beyond liking? Maybe that's what the very wealthy do? I surely wouldn't know.

Your thought that whoever put the size 12's on JB didn't do it so they would be thought to be a match for some she would have worn earlier, but simply because there were DOTW available, and they thought JB most likely was wearing Weds, suggests that whoever redressed JB might not have had to handle other undies of JB's from that day?? Maybe JB was not wearing them when she came in contact with her attacker, or had removed them earlier herself and replaced them with just the longjohn's, or had been wearing a pull up when the attacker confronted her? Or for a couple of other innocent reasons.

If the redresser thought it important enough to pull the Weds. pair from the middle of a new package of too large underwear, it then would have been because they assumed she should be found wearing the DOTW since that's what the underwear depicted and the reason JB owned that type? IMO, Patsy would not have cared which day of the week JB was wearing because she would have known that most likely no one else in the family would have given much importance to the fact that JB was not in the "right" day of week undies.

midwest mama,
Well, well guess what? In The paperback version of Perfect/Murder page 236, and the eBook version the following is available.

These weren’t naughty children. They dressed themselves, and Patsy did JonBenét’s hair. All her daughter’s clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Days of the week on all their underclothes.

Yet in the hardback version of Perfect/Murder page 181, the following is available:

These weren’t naughty children. They dressed themselves, and Patsy did JonBenét’s hair. All her daughter’s clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Dates on all their underclothes.

So has Dates been transposed to Days of the week, or is this a deliberate amendment say at the request of a another party?

Or is it simply a detail error, i.e. Shiller's shorthand for DOTW is Dates?

A well known search engine offers: http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02181999lindapughstorypmpt.htm

Also the National Enquirer Account is available here:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second Floor

To clear the air on some underwear detail:
Excerpt from Atlanta August 28, 2000 Interview with Patsy Ramsey

1 Q. The underwear that she was

2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you

3 know where they come from as far as what

4 store?

5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.

6 Q. Who purchased those?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased

9 them?

10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.

11 Q. In the fall of 1996, how many

12 trips did you make to New York?

13 A. Two, I believe.

14 Q. Do you recall, and again, the

15 same, same qualification I gave you when we

16 started, which is, I understand that you are

17 not going to give me exact dates, but the

18 two trips you made, did you make those with

19 different groups of people?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The first trip, who was that trip

22 with?

23 A. The first trip was a

24 mother-daughter trip with my mother Nedra

25 Paugh, my sister Pam Paugh, friends Susan

0079

1 Flanders from Charlevoix, Michigan, and her

2 daughter and a friend of Susan's, Ms.

3 Kirkpatrick I believe was her name, and her

4 daughter, and JonBenet and myself.

5 Q. And the second trip you made was?

6 A. The second trip we made was with

7 Glen and Susan Stein.

8 Q. Is that the trip -- which trip

9 was the November trip?

10 A. With the children.

11 Q. Was that -- that is the first

12 trip?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the second trip that you and

15 your husband and the Steins took, was that

16 also November, but later in the month, or

17 was that a December trip?

18 A. I think it was December.

19 Q. And maybe this will help jog your

20 memory as to time. I believe that was the

21 time of the Christmas parade in Boulder.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is that correct?

and ...

Excerpt from Atlanta August 28, 2000 Interview with Patsy Ramsey

Here's a question

20 that was not asked, Mrs. Ramsey. Did you

21 dress JonBenet Christmas Day?

22 A. I can't remember.

23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mrs. Ramsey, do

24 you know whether or not she changed her

25 underwear Christmas Day?

0103

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. We are going to assume the fact

3 that she did not take a bath because you

4 previously stated that. Would she change her

5 underwear if she didn't take a bath on

6 Christmas Day?

...

Excerpt from Atlanta August 28, 2000 Interview with Patsy Ramsey

2 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Do you know if

13 she changed her underwear?

14 A. I do not know.

15 Q. Would it be her routine habit or

16 practice, if she is going out for dinner at

17 friends, for her to change from head to toe,

18 including her underwear, getting dressed to

19 go out for the evening, even if she didn't

20 take a bath?

21 A. I don't know that there is any

22 particular routine. She may have. I don't

23 know.

There is nothing regarding adding Dates to the underwear in this interview.

Then again assuming Patsy did Date the underwear why were the size-12's not dated?


.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

midwest mama,
Well, well guess what? In The paperback version of Perfect/Murder page 236, and the eBook version the following is available.


Yet in the hardback version of Perfect/Murder page 181, the following is available:


So has Dates been transposed to Days of the week, or is this a deliberate amendment say at the request of a another party?

Or is it simply a detail error, i.e. Shiller's shorthand for DOTW is Dates?

A well known search engine offers: http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02181999lindapughstorypmpt.htm

Also the National Enquirer Account is available here:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682505/Second Floor

To clear the air on some underwear detail:
Excerpt from Atlanta August 28, 2000 Interview with Patsy Ramsey


and ...

Excerpt from Atlanta August 28, 2000 Interview with Patsy Ramsey


...

Excerpt from Atlanta August 28, 2000 Interview with Patsy Ramsey



There is nothing regarding adding Dates to the underwear in this interview.

Then again assuming Patsy did Date the underwear why were the size-12's not dated?


.

The size twelve were spanking new, fresh out of the pack. They were to be a Christmas present for a neice, but Pasty maintained that JonBenet wanted them and they were put in JonBenet's panty drawer.
All of the panties found were size 4 - 6 and had stains, no size twelve were found in the house, but they "showed up" several years later, much like Pasty's red sweater and John's black shirt made in Israel.

 

[DeDee]

Possibly. We'll never know. Remember there is also the dark cotton duvet/comforter in the suitcase, along with a children's Dr. Seuss book. Like a portable molestation kit.

This section of the interview substantiates the Dr. Seuss book as being the one written for adults with the nude drawings:


With Tom Haney & Patsy

11 TOM HANEY: When is the last time you were in
12 the basement?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I was down there on
14 Christmas day at the washer and dryer. I was wrapping.
15 TOM HANEY: Was that window open then?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know because I didn't
17 go in there. I don't know if that is what the suitcase
18 is doing there anyway.

Then, while discussing photo 252:

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that wasn't one of the
15 suitcases that I normally use. We use the roller ones.
16 I think that is one that John Andrew had brought over
17 from his college stuff, you know, like unpacked and
18 brought the suitcase over to our house, but I didn't
19 think it was in there. I thought it was back in --
20 back there toward the cellar room more, back in the
21 (inaudible).
22 TRIP DEMUTH: Let's pull out a diagram.
23 TOM HANEY: We don't have a basement here.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, somewhere back like kind
25 of over in here, by the -- where the hot water heater

0414
1 area was is another little area. I thought it was more
2 in here. Unless Linda moved it over here when she put
3 the paint stuff there, I don't know. That looks out of
4 place.
5 TOM HANEY: You are thinking it was last in
6 that area between the wine cellar and the bathroom by
7 the stairs.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Right, that little door there.
9 TOM HANEY: Were there other suitcases or
10 items of John Andrews stored in that area?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Seems like at one time he left
12 a printer there, a printer, a computer printer. I want
13 to say it was down in the corner too like on the
14 counter top there.

0415
1 PATSY RAMSEY: 252.
2 TOM HANEY: Do you know what was stored in it,
3 if anything?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I have no idea.
5 TOM HANEY: Did you ever handle it?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember. I don't
7 remember.
8 TOM HANEY: You might have.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I didn't put it there, let's
10 put it that way. I don't know if I -- I mean, I may
11 have moved it out of my way, but I don't remember
12 specifically moving it or putting it somewhere.
13 TOM HANEY: Did you ever put anything into
14 it, take anything out of it?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I presume it is empty.
16 You know, I think I thought it. Was, he packed the
17 college clothes and brought them in the suitcase or he
18 brought the suitcase out. There is probably nothing in
19 it.
20 TOM HANEY: If there was something in it it
21 would belong to John Andrew then?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
23 TOM HANEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss
24 book.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr.
0416
1 Seuss book? (Inaudible).
2 TOM HANEY: Or when he was older, like now?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope not. He is supposed to
4 have college books, not Dr. Seuss books.
5 Why would you ask such a question?
6 TOM HANEY: Well, that is because in that
7 suitcase was a Dr. Seuss book.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What book was it? Did it have
9 any kid's name in it?
10 TRIP DEMUTH: That I don't know. I think it
11 had John Andrews' name in it.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, it did?
13 TRIP DEMUTH: I think. I haven't personally
14 seen it.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible). I don't know.
16 You got me. I don't know.

Notice Patsy repeats the question: "Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss book?"
If she was at the washer and dryer wrapping gifts on Dec. 25, then why would the suitcase located near the hot water heater, by the WC, be in her way?


Patsy knew full well that particular book was inside the suitcase. That is why she placed it to be found where it was.



http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/03/02/dr-seuss-seven-lady-godivas/

I also believe Patsy broke the window, on purpose, prior to the 26th.

0420
1 TRIP DEMUTH: You did ever have it cleaned
2 out?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
4 TRIP DEMUTH: Did the boys ever play in the
5 window?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I mean, because there was
7 a grate on there for that purpose so nobody falls in
8 there. If you were going in the window you had to lift
9 the grate out. It was pretty heavy.

How would Patsy, who had housekeepers, groundskeepers and nannies, lift an iron grate to know it was pretty heavy?


OMO

 

[UKGuy]

This section of the interview substantiates the Dr. Seuss book as being the one written for adults with the nude drawings:


With Tom Haney & Patsy

11 TOM HANEY: When is the last time you were in
12 the basement?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I was down there on
14 Christmas day at the washer and dryer. I was wrapping.
15 TOM HANEY: Was that window open then?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know because I didn't
17 go in there. I don't know if that is what the suitcase
18 is doing there anyway.

Then, while discussing photo 252:

14 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that wasn't one of the
15 suitcases that I normally use. We use the roller ones.
16 I think that is one that John Andrew had brought over
17 from his college stuff, you know, like unpacked and
18 brought the suitcase over to our house, but I didn't
19 think it was in there. I thought it was back in --
20 back there toward the cellar room more, back in the
21 (inaudible).
22 TRIP DEMUTH: Let's pull out a diagram.
23 TOM HANEY: We don't have a basement here.
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, somewhere back like kind
25 of over in here, by the -- where the hot water heater

0414
1 area was is another little area. I thought it was more
2 in here. Unless Linda moved it over here when she put
3 the paint stuff there, I don't know. That looks out of
4 place.
5 TOM HANEY: You are thinking it was last in
6 that area between the wine cellar and the bathroom by
7 the stairs.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Right, that little door there.
9 TOM HANEY: Were there other suitcases or
10 items of John Andrews stored in that area?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Seems like at one time he left
12 a printer there, a printer, a computer printer. I want
13 to say it was down in the corner too like on the
14 counter top there.

0415
1 PATSY RAMSEY: 252.
2 TOM HANEY: Do you know what was stored in it,
3 if anything?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I have no idea.
5 TOM HANEY: Did you ever handle it?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember. I don't
7 remember.
8 TOM HANEY: You might have.
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I didn't put it there, let's
10 put it that way. I don't know if I -- I mean, I may
11 have moved it out of my way, but I don't remember
12 specifically moving it or putting it somewhere.
13 TOM HANEY: Did you ever put anything into
14 it, take anything out of it?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I presume it is empty.
16 You know, I think I thought it. Was, he packed the
17 college clothes and brought them in the suitcase or he
18 brought the suitcase out. There is probably nothing in
19 it.
20 TOM HANEY: If there was something in it it
21 would belong to John Andrew then?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
23 TOM HANEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss
24 book.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Did John Andrew have a Dr.
0416
1 Seuss book? (Inaudible).
2 TOM HANEY: Or when he was older, like now?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope not. He is supposed to
4 have college books, not Dr. Seuss books.
5 Why would you ask such a question?
6 TOM HANEY: Well, that is because in that
7 suitcase was a Dr. Seuss book.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: What book was it? Did it have
9 any kid's name in it?
10 TRIP DEMUTH: That I don't know. I think it
11 had John Andrews' name in it.
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, it did?
13 TRIP DEMUTH: I think. I haven't personally
14 seen it.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible). I don't know.
16 You got me. I don't know.

Notice Patsy repeats the question: "Did John Andrew have a Dr. Seuss book?"
If she was at the washer and dryer wrapping gifts on Dec. 25, then why would the suitcase located near the hot water heater, by the WC, be in her way?


Patsy knew full well that particular book was inside the suitcase. That is why she placed it to be found where it was.



http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/03/02/dr-seuss-seven-lady-godivas/

I also believe Patsy broke the window, on purpose, prior to the 26th.

0420
1 TRIP DEMUTH: You did ever have it cleaned
2 out?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
4 TRIP DEMUTH: Did the boys ever play in the
5 window?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I mean, because there was
7 a grate on there for that purpose so nobody falls in
8 there. If you were going in the window you had to lift
9 the grate out. It was pretty heavy.

How would Patsy, who had housekeepers, groundskeepers and nannies, lift an iron grate to know it was pretty heavy?


OMO

DeDee,

I also believe Patsy broke the window, on purpose, prior to the 26th.

Why would she do this, also why would JR say it was him who broke it? A PDI theory suggests collusion on the part of the parents.

.

 

[DeDee]

DeDee,

Why would she do this, also why would JR say it was him who broke it? A PDI theory suggests collusion on the part of the parents.

.

No, there was no collusion between husband and wife. If you take everything John said and did, in the beginning, as if he were innocent of wrongdoing, he did not know what happened but soon enough he surely began to suspect his wife, which was unbearable for him to consider. John handed LE the exact pad the RN was written on. He looked for places of possible entry. He took binoculars and looked out several bedroom windows hoping to see someone suspicious watching his home. He said, "It's an inside job." He avoided his wife, but when he brought JonBenet upstairs from the WC, he took her to show Patsy what she had done. I believe he was shattered. I believe Patsy was frightened of being caught.

If PDI, with premeditation, which is what I tend to believe occurred, then, she broke the window, slightly wiped around the window ledge so it would appear as if an intruder entered this way. Doing it in advance, gives her the opportunity to toss the larger pieces of glass into the trash for pickup removal from the property before the 26th.

JR did break the same window in the summer of '96. That is perhaps where PR got the idea to do it again as a possible entry for the "intruder".

Patsy and the two children went to their lake house in early June and remained until the end of August of '96. John is explaining the timeframe in which the he broke the window's glass so he could enter him home. He had arrived home either by cab or limo and did not have his house keys nor a way to enter into the garage. He phoned Patsy at the lake and told her to come home bc he was locked out of the house.

John with ST in April 1997 interview:

ST: And on the morning of the 26th, you made one trip alone to the basement, and it was only on the second trip with Fleet that you, then shortly thereafter that you went to this basement room?
JR: Right.
ST: OK. When you had previously broken that basement window to gain entry to the home when you had been locked out, can you approximate what month that was?
JR: Well, I think it was last summer. Because Patsy was up at Lake (inaudible) all summer, and it would have been July or August probably, somewhere in that time frame.


Then, John with Smit in June 1998:

0172
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, there were some boxes
3 and there was like a barstool kind of thing
4 sitting there. It wasn't obvious to me that
5 anybody had gone through because I had to move the
6 chair to get in, which I did. And then I came back
7 in here and I noticed the window was broken, which
8 fits from when I did it. But the window was open
9 slightly.

0215
1 JOHN RAMSEY: <snip>

But usually if I don't drive my car I
12 take a cab or something to the airport and back,
13 and I don't have a key and the house keys are on
14 the key ring.
15 But that was the time, it was in the summer I had
16 come back from a business trip. I think I had a
17 suit on.
18 JOHN RAMSEY: It would have blown a lot of
19 dust in there. (INAUDIBLE) to clean it off. I
20 mean, there was a nasty window well with spider
21 wells. It was just dirty.
22 LOU SMIT: And for your information also,
23 there is some spider webs also. I just want to
24 make sure that you're not misled.
25 JOHN RAMSEY: I appreciate it. I mean these

0228
1 spots look clean; cleaner than the rest. That's
2 glass there. A piece of glass there. I don't know
3 why -- I mean if there's enough wind, it kinds of
4 kicks things up. I don't know why this would have
5 been cleaner than the next two. I wouldn't have
6 been down there for six months. I would have
7 expected a more uniform (INAUDIBLE).
8 That's kind of an odd state to be in too.


This is what Patsy says about it in April 1997:

TT: When did John break that window in the basement?
PR: He, I don’t know exactly when he did it, but I think it was last summer sometime when we, the kids and I were at the lake.
TT: In Charlevoix.
PR: In Charlevoix and he told me to come back from out of town or whatever and he didn’t have a key and the only way he could get in was to break the window.


Patsy in June 1998:

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, one of these windows is
16 the one that John -- John got locked out one time,
17 can't remember, at the lake, I think. And he said he
18 broke a window pane and, you know, he reached in and
19 came in through this window right into the house.
20 TRIP DEMUTH: What did you do after the
21 window was broken, did you have some involvement with
22 that at all?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, yes. When I came back,
24 you know, from the lake, I mean there was glass
25 everywhere all over the floor, and I cleaned out --
0418
1 picked up pieces of glass, you know. He never cleaned
2 it up, obviously


Patsy does not seem too pleased that obviously John did not clean up the broken shards of glass, does she?


These are my own opinions formed from studying the evidence and are subject to change without notice.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Why did ST continue to push the PDI theory AFTER finding out JB was chronically abused?

Patsy was the abuser. IMO.

 

[Anyhoo]

JR says in one of the interviews that it might not be a T but a J....could this mean anything?after all,he is the one enjoying all those "little,funny clues" and seems so proud of how clever the killer was.

Saved by Jesus Christ

 

[Tawny]

Saved by Jesus Christ

*Imagine Dragons Radioactive gasp*