Partially Wrapped Gifts

[UKGuy]

I know we've been over this many times, but still the question is in my mind: why didn't John just grab a pair of the many size 4-6 pairs from JonBenet's drawer upstairs?
Or why didn' t Patsy just tell him to get a fitting pair from JonBenet's drawer?
For all of Jonbenet's size 4-6 underwear had days of the week written on them also, so if it was important for the stager(s) of the scene that she wear a Wednesday pair, they could have obtained that from the size 4-6s too.
Why go to the trouble of removing a (far too large) pair from a partially wrapped Christmas gift set to put on the victim? Why not just run upstairs quickly and get a size 6 pair?

UKGuy,
do you think the Ramseys left the flashlight behind there there accidentally or on purpose?

rashomon,

I know we've been over this many times, but still the question is in my mind: why didn't John just grab a pair of the many size 4-6 pairs from JonBenet's drawer upstairs?

Possibly because from John's perspective, he was attempting to conceal something and he may not have been downstairs when he was cleaning up JonBenet. She may have been in his bedroom, and the size-12's may also have been in the same room, a gift awaiting to be packaged, and to John, this was just panties, ones just like he had just removed, even a Wednesday pair with a flower?

Or why didn' t Patsy just tell him to get a fitting pair from JonBenet's drawer?

Because she may not have been there at this point, JR may have been engaged in some activity which he did not want PR attending e.g. she could attend once JonBenet appeared dressed and normal?

For all of Jonbenet's size 4-6 underwear had days of the week written on them also, so if it was important for the stager(s) of the scene that she wear a Wednesday pair, they could have obtained that from the size 4-6s too.

Not unless she was already wearing a Wednesday pair. But I agree with your main point, why not go the extra Kilometre and fetch a pair of size-4-6's, especially if you are a PDI proponent, and if you did not do this and you decide for whatever reason to add the size-12's then why not set up the staging to account for the size-12's e.g. place the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer? Not doing this proves that the crime-scene has been staged and that only a Ramsey would know about the size-12's, and that no intruder requires a set of 6-clean size-12's.

With Patsy then claiming, belatedly, to have placed the size-12's into JonBenet's prior to her death, but is told none were discovered in her panty drawer, then she returns a pack of recently discovered size-12's found in a packing crate, what does all this mean. It must mean Patsy never knew about the size-12's in the first place and that she is covering up for another person, e.g. the script she is following is not hers!

Why go to the trouble of removing a (far too large) pair from a partially wrapped Christmas gift set to put on the victim? Why not just run upstairs quickly and get a size 6 pair?

Absolutely, precisely, 100% correct, why not indeed, so apply KISS, and Occam:

The person who opened up the size-12's was not Patsy, and the person who did, did not want to draw attention to their current predicament e.g. a bloodied corpse, by running upstairs or even going into JonBenet's bedroom?

To my knowlege only three gifts were itemised as partially open e.g.

Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (55KKY)
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (56KKY)
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (57KKY)

both Patsy and John refered to these as gifts for Burke's birthday, its unlikely that they would be Jenny's gift since they were wrapped in Schwartz paper, Jenny's gift was probably wrapped in Bloomingdales. So none of the remaining gifts were Jenny's. Since the remaining size-12's went missing we cannot infer anything from the absence of evidence, other than a Ramsey probably removed them. So the size-12's being located in the basement may be a red-herring?

do you think the Ramseys left the flashlight behind there there accidentally or on purpose?

It has to have been left there on purpose. Why because whomever left it wiped it clean, both on the outside and the inside no intruder needs to clean the latter. So the removal of evidence is deliberate, so its placement must have been intentional. Its original purpose may have been part of a prior staging or simply the object that dealt the death blow to JonBenet?



.

 

[UKGuy]

yes,and it does appear the wrist 'restraints',(I put it that way since they were tied so loosely),were applied *after she went into rigor.The duct tape sounds just as poorly done,seeing as it sounds like it was nothing more than a used piece of skinny tape.And the garrote wasn't functional as such,but,on that note,I do have a question...seeing as there was a splinter or something (possibly varnish?) found inside JB, that could be attributed to the paintbrush being broken,would it not be more likely that JR broke the brush,and possibly even did ALL of the staging? (the hand that broke the brush would be more likely to have made the garrote as well,would it not?) For one,I think he would have been more likely to have known how to tie that knot (from sailing) than Patsy would have,and to be familiar w. something such as a garrote,to begin with.
My thought is that perhaps he told Patsy what items he needed,and as she retrieved them,she unknowingly left her fiber evidence on them.The fact that JR took a shower and Patsy did not,demonstrates to me that she,or perhaps they both..thought she had no forensic evidence to wash off.

it's obvious she didn't.but if she and JR didn't bother to corroborate on the crime scene...then perhaps she wasn't there for any of it? JAT.

JMO8778,

And the garrote wasn't functional as such,but,on that note,I do have a question...seeing as there was a splinter or something (possibly varnish?) found inside JB, that could be attributed to the paintbrush being broken,would it not be more likely that JR broke the brush,and possibly even did ALL of the staging? (the hand that broke the brush would be more likely to have made the garrote as well,would it not?) For one,I think he would have been more likely to have known how to tie that knot (from sailing) than Patsy would have,and to be familiar w. something such as a garrote,to begin with.

Absolutely, if you can intuit that there was possibly at least two separate staging events, one by John, hence his fibers, and one by Patsy hence her fibers. The PDI error is to assume Patsy did all the staging because more of her fibers are discovered at the crime-scene. But due to inherent contradictions, not only in the PDI, but from Patsy's own interviews, she may never have known about the size-12's, she may only have applied the latter surface staging?

imo, this theory is an improvement on either the PDI or JDI etc since it explains the current evidence whereas the former does not

 

[Ames]

I know we've been over this many times, but still the question is in my mind: why didn't John just grab a pair of the many size 4-6 pairs from JonBenet's drawer upstairs?
Or why didn' t Patsy just tell him to get a fitting pair from JonBenet's drawer?
For all of Jonbenet's size 4-6 underwear had days of the week written on them also, so if it was important for the stager(s) of the scene that she wear a Wednesday pair, they could have obtained that from the size 4-6s too.
Why go to the trouble of removing a (far too large) pair from a partially wrapped Christmas gift set to put on the victim? Why not just run upstairs quickly and get a size 6 pair?

UKGuy,
do you think the Ramseys left the flashlight behind there there accidentally or on purpose?

Rashie, I know that this is directed to UKGuy...but, IMO...the size 12's were used...because they were new. Alot of JB's other panties were stained, and trying to find a pair that wasn't, could have taken all night. The Ramsey's knew that a new pair would be free of stains..and thought that they would be free of DNA. That IMO...is the only logical explaination.

 

[DeeDee249]

Rashie, I know that this is directed to UKGuy...but, IMO...the size 12's were used...because they were new. Alot of JB's other panties were stained, and trying to find a pair that wasn't, could have taken all night. The Ramsey's knew that a new pair would be free of stains..and thought that they would be free of DNA. That IMO...is the only logical explaination.

I've spoken many times about the panties...yes, they were new. But they also said Wednesday. That day was a Wednesday, and there is a good possibility that JBR may have worn her OWN pair (sz 4-6) that day. She couldn't read- that we know, so she wouldn't have picked them herself, but whether PR helped dress her or simply picked out her clothes (including underwear) and let her dress herself doesn't matter. Matching the panties to the day is something PR would do. And they were new, having been bought just a few weeks before. So let's assume she did wear her own Bloomies Wednesday panties...the Rs HAD to consider that she MAY have asked for help in wiping on the toilet, as she was known to do. IMO, they couldn't take that chance, so they opted to match color and day of week and simply didn't worry about the size because they though no one would notice. After all, she wasn't going to be walking around in them. To the Rs, they were girls' panties and that was that. I am sure they were shocked when it DID become such an issue. They never expected that all her panties would be taken in evidence.
In my mind, the panties are like the pineapple. The Rs never thought it'd become an issue. The Rs were shocked when it became an issue. So that's why they lied about the pineapple, and that's why they took the size 12s from the house. Once that package was opened, they felt they needed to remove them from the house. The real mystery to me is why they chose to send along the rest later. I don't recall ever seeing if the panties on the body were ever tested against the panties sent to LE months later by the Rs to see if they came from the same set- or even if it was possible to test for that. I don't recall seeing anything about that, and the panties, like so much more of the evidence, are probably rotting away in that infamous "warehouse of evidence".

 

[JMO8778]

I've spoken many times about the panties...yes, they were new. But they also said Wednesday. That day was a Wednesday, and there is a good possibility that JBR may have worn her OWN pair (sz 4-6) that day. She couldn't read- that we know, so she wouldn't have picked them herself, but whether PR helped dress her or simply picked out her clothes (including underwear) and let her dress herself doesn't matter. Matching the panties to the day is something PR would do. And they were new, having been bought just a few weeks before. So let's assume she did wear her own Bloomies Wednesday panties...the Rs HAD to consider that she MAY have asked for help in wiping on the toilet, as she was known to do. IMO, they couldn't take that chance, so they opted to match color and day of week and simply didn't worry about the size because they though no one would notice. After all, she wasn't going to be walking around in them. To the Rs, they were girls' panties and that was that. I am sure they were shocked when it DID become such an issue. They never expected that all her panties would be taken in evidence.
In my mind, the panties are like the pineapple. The Rs never thought it'd become an issue. The Rs were shocked when it became an issue. So that's why they lied about the pineapple, and that's why they took the size 12s from the house. Once that package was opened, they felt they needed to remove them from the house. The real mystery to me is why they chose to send along the rest later. I don't recall ever seeing if the panties on the body were ever tested against the panties sent to LE months later by the Rs to see if they came from the same set- or even if it was possible to test for that. I don't recall seeing anything about that, and the panties, like so much more of the evidence, are probably rotting away in that infamous "warehouse of evidence".

amen to that,and they could have even been tested to see if there was any dna on any of them that matched what was found in JB's underwear.

 

[DeeDee249]

As far as the staging, PR's jacket fibers entwined in the garrote put her there. I think both parents did the staging, though they may not have done so at the same time.
If PR's jacket fibers were on JR's fingers, say, and transferred when he tied the knot- well, why weren't they found other places? If JR staged alone, and got PR's fibers from touching that jacket while PR was wearing it, say, helping her put it on or something, why would the fibers be limited to the garrote knot?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Absolutely, if you can intuit that there was possibly at least two separate staging events, one by John, hence his fibers, and one by Patsy hence her fibers. The PDI error is to assume Patsy did all the staging because more of her fibers are discovered at the crime-scene. But due to inherent contradictions, not only in the PDI, but from Patsy's own interviews, she may never have known about the size-12's, she may only have applied the latter surface staging?

imo, this theory is an improvement on either the PDI or JDI etc since it explains the current evidence whereas the former does not

one other thought that hits me is that Patsy could have been wearing that same jacket when doing presents,either before or after going to the White's,or both.By that I mean if she had used the cord previously on a painting,or had gotten it out to use it for one,while wearing the jacket,then her fibers could be on it from that.
But there was another AG doll sent to JR's office shortly after the murder,so it appears they did collaborate on this part of the staging,i.e.-possibly the tape,since Patsy's fibers were on it?

But the one thing that strikes me is that *Patsy's items were used for the staging,would Patsy really set herself up like that? If she were staging it,wouldn't she likely look for items that either weren't hers,or were mutual property? What I'm getting at is I think JR would have been more likely to have done that.We know Patsy agreed to using her writing tablet,but that may have been just b/c it was always out and available on the counter? (if not then she could easily say it was).
Is it possible she didn't know what was used until later,with JR telling her nothing more than the staging was complete?

 

[DeeDee249]

I think PR was asked if she ever wore that jacket in her basement and she said NO.

 

[UKGuy]

I've spoken many times about the panties...yes, they were new. But they also said Wednesday. That day was a Wednesday, and there is a good possibility that JBR may have worn her OWN pair (sz 4-6) that day. She couldn't read- that we know, so she wouldn't have picked them herself, but whether PR helped dress her or simply picked out her clothes (including underwear) and let her dress herself doesn't matter. Matching the panties to the day is something PR would do. And they were new, having been bought just a few weeks before. So let's assume she did wear her own Bloomies Wednesday panties...the Rs HAD to consider that she MAY have asked for help in wiping on the toilet, as she was known to do. IMO, they couldn't take that chance, so they opted to match color and day of week and simply didn't worry about the size because they though no one would notice. After all, she wasn't going to be walking around in them. To the Rs, they were girls' panties and that was that. I am sure they were shocked when it DID become such an issue. They never expected that all her panties would be taken in evidence.
In my mind, the panties are like the pineapple. The Rs never thought it'd become an issue. The Rs were shocked when it became an issue. So that's why they lied about the pineapple, and that's why they took the size 12s from the house. Once that package was opened, they felt they needed to remove them from the house. The real mystery to me is why they chose to send along the rest later. I don't recall ever seeing if the panties on the body were ever tested against the panties sent to LE months later by the Rs to see if they came from the same set- or even if it was possible to test for that. I don't recall seeing anything about that, and the panties, like so much more of the evidence, are probably rotting away in that infamous "warehouse of evidence".

DeeDee249,

Matching the panties to the day is something PR would do.

Maybe, its also PDI spin, since its also something John or Burke would do. The glaring contradiction is if you reckon this is something which Patsy would do, even whilst not knowing if the Wednesday size-6's are missing or are amongst those taken in on the search search warrant, then why did Patsy not validate her staging by leaving the remaining size-12's in JonBenet's panty drawer or her bedroom? Her subsequent attempts to explain away the size-12's further demonstrate her ignorance on this subject.

the Rs HAD to consider that she MAY have asked for help in wiping on the toilet, as she was known to do. IMO, they couldn't take that chance, so they opted to match color and day of week and simply didn't worry about the size because they though no one would notice.

Anyone that would notice the day-of-the-week, would also notice the size. The size would visually be more prominent than the day-of-the-week e.g. they would spill out of JonBenet's black velvet pants, and worse if JonBenet took her panties and pants off to use the toilet. So the assumption the day-of-the-week was a deciding staging factor and that the size was irrelevant, appears arbitrary on your part.

The size-12's become an issue not because they are a Wednesday pair, but because firstly they demonstrate that a crime-scene has been staged and secondly that it is highly probable this was done by one of the residents that night.

So again as you state:

Matching the panties to the day is something PR would do.

Then why did Patsy deliberately link herself and her family to the death of JonBenet by removing the remaining size-12's, something no intruder needs to do, just as no intruder needs to place a pair on her initially, just as no intruder would know about the existence of the size-12's. Unfortunately the PDI is full of holes.

 

[UKGuy]

Rashie, I know that this is directed to UKGuy...but, IMO...the size 12's were used...because they were new. Alot of JB's other panties were stained, and trying to find a pair that wasn't, could have taken all night. The Ramsey's knew that a new pair would be free of stains..and thought that they would be free of DNA. That IMO...is the only logical explaination.

Ames,
Old panties do not matter, old dna or stains do not matter, they neither prove or disprove anything! On the same basis why not redress JonBenet in a brand new top, because her white gap-top has been contaminated in some manner?

That IMO...is the only logical explaination.

Not quite, the size-12's may have been used precisely because the redresser did not want to be seen or heard going anywhere near JonBenet's bedroom e.g. they are simply girl's panties!

 

[UKGuy]

As far as the staging, PR's jacket fibers entwined in the garrote put her there. I think both parents did the staging, though they may not have done so at the same time.
If PR's jacket fibers were on JR's fingers, say, and transferred when he tied the knot- well, why weren't they found other places? If JR staged alone, and got PR's fibers from touching that jacket while PR was wearing it, say, helping her put it on or something, why would the fibers be limited to the garrote knot?

DeeDee249,
Nobody is suggesting this. What I am suggesting is that there was two separate distinct staging events. And that the first undertaken by John involves him in redressing JonBenet in the size-12's, this is unknown to Patsy. A second staging event undertaken by Patsy involves her in adding further staging elements e.g. the wrist restraints, garrote to the ligature, duct-tape on her mouth. All of which can be done whilst JonBenet is wrapped in the blanket.

These assumptions explain why Patsy cannot explain why JonBenet is wearing size-12's, even although by any PDI she should have know the question was going to arise, since she originally purchased them, and that the forensic evidence appears to be partitioned the way it is?



.

 

[Blondieskatz]

Thanks DeeDee the link worked.

Just a thought, why would the size 12 panties still be in the basement partially wrapped if JR had taken the gifts to the airport and loaded them already? Maybe they were in JBR room . Was it ever disclosed as to what was in the partially wrapped gift boxes? Another question, it was so important to get the golf clubs out, but why not the left over gifts especially if they were BR's birthday gifts?

 

[Ames]

I've spoken many times about the panties...yes, they were new. But they also said Wednesday. That day was a Wednesday, and there is a good possibility that JBR may have worn her OWN pair (sz 4-6) that day. She couldn't read- that we know, so she wouldn't have picked them herself, but whether PR helped dress her or simply picked out her clothes (including underwear) and let her dress herself doesn't matter. Matching the panties to the day is something PR would do. And they were new, having been bought just a few weeks before. So let's assume she did wear her own Bloomies Wednesday panties...the Rs HAD to consider that she MAY have asked for help in wiping on the toilet, as she was known to do. IMO, they couldn't take that chance, so they opted to match color and day of week and simply didn't worry about the size because they though no one would notice. After all, she wasn't going to be walking around in them. To the Rs, they were girls' panties and that was that. I am sure they were shocked when it DID become such an issue. They never expected that all her panties would be taken in evidence.
In my mind, the panties are like the pineapple. The Rs never thought it'd become an issue. The Rs were shocked when it became an issue. So that's why they lied about the pineapple, and that's why they took the size 12s from the house. Once that package was opened, they felt they needed to remove them from the house. The real mystery to me is why they chose to send along the rest later. I don't recall ever seeing if the panties on the body were ever tested against the panties sent to LE months later by the Rs to see if they came from the same set- or even if it was possible to test for that. I don't recall seeing anything about that, and the panties, like so much more of the evidence, are probably rotting away in that infamous "warehouse of evidence".

Well, I agree with that. I believe that those panties had a dual purpose...they had WEDNESDAY on them...and they were free of stains...or DNA. IMO JB probably did wear her size 6's of the Wednesday pair to the White's Christmas party. Someone suggested that just in case she had used the bathroom and had asked someone at the party to wipe her...as she was famous for doing...the Ramsey's wanted to cover their bases. IOW...IF JB had of been wiped by someone that had seen her WEDNESDAY panties...and IF she had of been found in a pair other than ones that say WEDNESDAY....(say, plain ones...or Barbie ones for example)...then that just wouldn't mesh with JB being asleep when she arrived home...and didn't get up for anything. I would love to know what is in that "warehouse full of evidence". I think that I will try to find the transcript for that show...that mentioned that.

 

[Ames]

Thanks DeeDee the link worked.

Just a thought, why would the size 12 panties still be in the basement partially wrapped if JR had taken the gifts to the airport and loaded them already? Maybe they were in JBR room . Was it ever disclosed as to what was in the partially wrapped gift boxes? Another question, it was so important to get the golf clubs out, but why not the left over gifts especially if they were BR's birthday gifts?

Good question....guess because Burke's gifts didn't hide any evidence. That's the only thing that makes sense to me. The fact that JR wanted his precious golf bag, after his baby had been murdered...when Patsy said that she couldn't even recall the last time he played golf...raises a red flag in my book.

 

[SeekingJana]

I have wondered why the SW says " Partially Wrapped" instead of " Partially Unwrapped".

It appears to be the same thing on first glance, but to me, it isn't. The term used assumes that the item was not disturbed and that wrapping paper was applied in an orderly fashion for gift giving, but was incomplete, as if the task was interrupted. We WRAP a gift much differently than we UNWRAP a gift.

If the paper was torn off or otherwise showed signs of having been complete but when found by BPD, was in disarray or torn, crumpled, etc, then why wasn't the wording " Partially UNwrapped" gifts?
This is not the first time the question of partially wrapped vs. wrapping paper torn off a completely wrapped package or packages has been raised. Years ago, I argued my point alone that the packages were in fact, once wrapped, and then were partially unwrapped. It's pretty obvious to me that no one wraps part of a package, then throws probably valuable merchandise in the hell hole of a basement.
I'm sorry but I cannot count Patsy's response as viable concerning any evidence, even the packages. I don't think she told the truth abiout anything when she could come up with a plausible lie or path of deception. She lied like one of her old rugs.

Did they ever find the pieces of paper which came off the packages? I either don't remember or it's never been said.

Also, what's everyone's take on the apparently missing size 6 Wednesday panties which fit JonBenet and which she would have worn to the White's? Where did they go?
So much of this information has actually come from Ramsey supporters down through the years. I am glad to see people going back to the only valid legal sources we have for case info: The Search Warrants. And in some cases, the deposition testimony. Like I said, though, I think Patsy lied like an old rug.
And I think John's tactic was not to admit to remembering anything.

 

[Ames]

Well, I agree with that. I believe that those panties had a dual purpose...they had WEDNESDAY on them...and they were free of stains...or DNA. IMO JB probably did wear her size 6's of the Wednesday pair to the White's Christmas party. Someone suggested that just in case she had used the bathroom and had asked someone at the party to wipe her...as she was famous for doing...the Ramsey's wanted to cover their bases. IOW...IF JB had of been wiped by someone that had seen her WEDNESDAY panties...and IF she had of been found in a pair other than ones that say WEDNESDAY....(say, plain ones...or Barbie ones for example)...then that just wouldn't mesh with JB being asleep when she arrived home...and didn't get up for anything. I would love to know what is in that "warehouse full of evidence". I think that I will try to find the transcript for that show...that mentioned that.

Couldn't find the transcript...but I did find this..

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014k.htm


""But, by all accounts, there are literally roomsful of physical evidence - as of June 1998, Boulder police had logged 1,058 pieces of evidence, tested 500 pieces, interviewed 590 people and logged all their findings in a 30,000-pages case file. That's when police made its pitch to Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter to take the case to a grand jury. According to search warrant affidavits, investigators removed a veritable warehouse of items from the Ramsey homes in Boulder and Charlevoix, Mich.""

 

[UKGuy]

I have wondered why the SW says " Partially Wrapped" instead of " Partially Unwrapped".

It appears to be the same thing on first glance, but to me, it isn't. The term used assumes that the item was not disturbed and that wrapping paper was applied in an orderly fashion for gift giving, but was incomplete, as if the task was interrupted. We WRAP a gift much differently than we UNWRAP a gift.

If the paper was torn off or otherwise showed signs of having been complete but when found by BPD, was in disarray or torn, crumpled, etc, then why wasn't the wording " Partially UNwrapped" gifts?
This is not the first time the question of partially wrapped vs. wrapping paper torn off a completely wrapped package or packages has been raised. Years ago, I argued my point alone that the packages were in fact, once wrapped, and then were partially unwrapped. It's pretty obvious to me that no one wraps part of a package, then throws probably valuable merchandise in the hell hole of a basement.
I'm sorry but I cannot count Patsy's response as viable concerning any evidence, even the packages. I don't think she told the truth abiout anything when she could come up with a plausible lie or path of deception. She lied like one of her old rugs.

Did they ever find the pieces of paper which came off the packages? I either don't remember or it's never been said.

Also, what's everyone's take on the apparently missing size 6 Wednesday panties which fit JonBenet and which she would have worn to the White's? Where did they go?
So much of this information has actually come from Ramsey supporters down through the years. I am glad to see people going back to the only valid legal sources we have for case info: The Search Warrants. And in some cases, the deposition testimony. Like I said, though, I think Patsy lied like an old rug.
And I think John's tactic was not to admit to remembering anything.

SeekingJana,
You are correct the gifts are not described as Partially Unwrapped but as Partially Wrapped e.g.

Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (55KKY)
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (56KKY)
Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz (57KKY)


Which sounds to me like the gifts have had paper wrapped around them but not sealed or tied by ribbon/string etc? If they had already been wrapped then opened then the word unwrapped would have been applied.

PDI theorists are simply speculating that the size-12's were also in the wine-cellar, and to back this up they wish to interpret Partially Wrapped to mean Partially Unwrapped.

Did they ever find the pieces of paper which came off the packages? I either don't remember or it's never been said.

What missing paper, the packages still retained their paper e.g. FAO Schwartz paper?

The size-12's were probably never ever in the wine-cellar, thats something made up to make Patsy look guilty!

The size-6's went the same way the remaining size-12's went, they were removed by a Ramsey at some point.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Well, I agree with that. I believe that those panties had a dual purpose...they had WEDNESDAY on them...and they were free of stains...or DNA. IMO JB probably did wear her size 6's of the Wednesday pair to the White's Christmas party. Someone suggested that just in case she had used the bathroom and had asked someone at the party to wipe her...as she was famous for doing...the Ramsey's wanted to cover their bases. IOW...IF JB had of been wiped by someone that had seen her WEDNESDAY panties...and IF she had of been found in a pair other than ones that say WEDNESDAY....(say, plain ones...or Barbie ones for example)...then that just wouldn't mesh with JB being asleep when she arrived home...and didn't get up for anything. I would love to know what is in that "warehouse full of evidence". I think that I will try to find the transcript for that show...that mentioned that.

Ames,

the Ramsey's wanted to cover their bases.

So why did Patsy not place the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's or panty drawer?

Why should stains or dna matter?

 

[Ames]

Ames,

So why did Patsy not place the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's or panty drawer?

Why should stains or dna matter?

Because that would have been a little bit suspicious....clean, un-used size 12's mixed in with size 6 stained panties. I think that they had no other choice but to use the size 12's....and I believe that they had been wrapped and in the basement.
IMO...JB's death was caused by a rage attack....because of her bedwetting...so, they certainly didn't want to put anything on her that had any sort of bathroom stains on it, that suggested that JB had a toileting issue.

 

[UKGuy]

Because that would have been a little bit suspicious....clean, un-used size 12's mixed in with size 6 stained panties. I think that they had no other choice but to use the size 12's....and I believe that they had been wrapped and in the basement.
IMO...JB's death was caused by a rage attack....because of her bedwetting...so, they certainly didn't want to put anything on her that had any sort of bathroom stains on it, that suggested that JB had a toileting issue.

Ames,

Because that would have been a little bit suspicious....clean, un-used size 12's mixed in with size 6 stained panties.

suspicious so how do you reckon they thought they might explain away the missing size-12's? Why did they not remove the stained pants from Jonbenet's bathroom floor, if stained or soiled clothing was suspicious?

so, they certainly didn't want to put anything on her that had any sort of bathroom stains on it, that suggested that JB had a toileting issue.

like the urine-stained size-12's and the urine-stained longjohns?

.