Poll: was Patsy involved?

[UKGuy]

The Bloomies remain one of the insoluble mysteries of the case. The redressing is certainly a RDI touch, but which one of them did it? Were they the only non-soiled panties in her drawer? Did someone select the Wednesday bloomies in a ham-handed attempt to cover up that the size 6 Wednesday bloomies were gone? Where did they go? Why did it take years for the Ramseys to 'find' the packet with all the size-12's? If the size 12's were grabbed in haste, is it more likely a male made this error? Surely Patsy, the member of the family who bought JonBenet's underwear, would know how ludicrous the size-12's would appear on her. I remember Steve Thomas posited that perhaps they were being worn over diapers -- there was a pack sticking out of a closet door in the hall when they inspected the house. Was JonBenet back in diapers around this time? I know her toileting regressed in the last two months of her life, so it's not unreasonable to assume the diapers were in use.

AndHence,
Who knows? LHP has not commented on this aspect. Yet why would Patsy commandeer her niece's Christmas gift to hold JonBenet's diapers in place?

if the case is not BDI then some form of PDI looks like the best bet.

Assuming its PDI, PR has all night to stage the crime-scene, but forgets about the pineapple snack. Why remove her size-6 underwear, since her size-12 underwear ended up urine-stained?

Patsy redressing JonBenet in Burke's long johns and her niece's size-12's just does not fly for me, one of those items you could maybe explain away, but two, no way.

The more coherent explanation is that Burke redressed JonBenet in those items, simply because they were to hand?

From Burke's perspective they would look OK, he knew JonBenet had worn some of his clothing before, so its not something unknown.

.

 

[AndHence]

UK Guy, the fact that the size-12's were stained with urine tells us a few things. Since we know JonBenet's bladder emptied itself upon death (urine on the carpet outside the wine cellar), we can safely say this was the source of the urine on the size-12's. This means if JonBenet was indeed redressed into the size-12's, it was done before the strangulation that ended her life. Where does this lead us from here?

 

[UKGuy]

UK Guy, the fact that the size-12's were stained with urine tells us a few things. Since we know JonBenet's bladder emptied itself upon death (urine on the carpet outside the wine cellar), we can safely say this was the source of the urine on the size-12's. This means if JonBenet was indeed redressed into the size-12's, it was done before the strangulation that ended her life. Where does this lead us from here?

AndHence,
More than likely away from a bed wetting PDI, as JonBenet had urine in her bladder, and Patsy was not concerned about the size-12's being urine-stained.

Looks as if Patsy applied the ligature as staging that ended JonBenet's life. How else to explain all those embedded fibers?

If the case is BDI, I'll bet BR told his parents little beyond some story like: JonBenet fell down the basement stairs?

Could be the parents never knew JonBenet was still alive, JR seemed to hint at this in one of his interviews.

.

 

[sedndun]

Putting the underwear over the diaper seems odd, but perhaps that was something JonBenet insisted on. A diaper is not underwear, and one is always supposed to wear underwear.
If the underwear was worn over the diaper then could it be as simple as Patsy not wanting her daughter found in the diaper out of shame. The diaper was removed and the oversized underwear was put back on. Perhaps the long johns were in the dryer with the blanket and the Barbie nightgown.
She could have gone back for a proper size, but I think Patsy knew once she left that basement she was never (ever) going back. All the staging elements were down there, there is little to show that whoever did it was making trips up and down the stairs.

 

[Miz Adventure]

If the underwear was worn over the diaper then could it be as simple as Patsy not wanting her daughter found in the diaper out of shame. The diaper was removed and the oversized underwear was put back on.

I'm getting a bit confused with all this talk about diapers and Bloomies etc.

If JBR had been wearing a diaper (a Pull-Up) when she was murdered then there would not have been a large urine stain on the front of the longjohns (the garment she was found wearing), would there?

 

[chlban]

The strongest evidence against any Ramsey is the evidence implicating Patsy. While BDI is now the leading theory, the strongest forensic evidence links Patsy to the cover-up at the very least. Fibers from her coat were found in key rooms and items associated with the murder/cover-up. While John and Burke were more likely to know how to make a Boy Scout toggle rope having both been Boy Scouts, it is curious that we find Patsy's coat fibers in the paint tote where the brush was taken to fashion the rope. The fibers are, logically, found on the garrote itself and the tape applied to JonBenet's mouth.

Oh, yeah: Patsy was the only person out of hundreds who could not be ruled out as the author of the ransom note. You know, that document found in the house where Patsy lived and was present while her daughter died and written with items belonging to and used by Patsy.

What are the statistical odds that the author of the ransom note would share several handwriting characteristics with the mother of the decedent let alone one of the three other people present in the house that night? Laughably small

Great explanation. I realize BDI is now the prevailing theory, but I still believe PDI, and you have summed up most of the reasons quite well
.
I also have trouble with BDI because I don't think John was involved in the staging, I think the reason he was so honest about being the one to break the window was that he hadn't fully computed, at that point, that he needed to point to an intruder.

However the most compelling reason I don't believe he was in on it, was that the RN was ludicrous and I don't think John would have allowed it to be used had he been part of the staging.

Since I cannot come up with a rational reason why Patsy would not immediately wake John up and enlist his help if it was Burke, I still think she did it and my theory is very close to that of Steve Thomas, i.e., hit her in a fit of rage, horrified at the extent of the injury, but then self protection kicked in.

Just because it was the first widely accepted theory, doesn't mean it was wrong.

 

[chlban]

So, I'm not saying this is a legit theory, but following some of the thoughts presented on this thread:
If Patsy did it all and acted alone, one would wonder why John would support her. This is what gives the BDI theory validity.
A quote many put a lot of weight into was something along the line if "if I ever lost Burke, I'd have nothing to live for."
This could be taken two different ways. As seems most obvious, it would mean having a guilty Burke taken away from her. But I think it could also mean Patsy being taken away from Burke, as he would still be lost to her.
Now what if she had done it all, but when John was brought in on it he began to see through the ruse? Whether intentional or by accident she says something along the lines of how she can't lose Burke and JonBenet, and he takes this to mean the Burke was the culprit. So Burke didn't do it, but that is in fact the safer option as far as the John/Patsy alliance goes. (Keeping in mind that there had still been issues with him so that this wouldn't seem completely impossible and that due to prior incidents they may have even know about him being too young to be charged.)
Not sure I'm explaining this well, but it's basically a shift from Burke did it to Burke the hapless pawn.

I have recently begun to think this is viable. PDI, covers up and when finally confronted by John, she says it was Burke.

It is also not out of the question that she caught Burke doing something to JonBenet that upset her. She could have been swinging for Burke and missed, or she was somehow just angry at them both.

Another factor in my PDI theory is the behavior of John and Patsy toward one another that morning. I have seen divorced parents of missing children holding hands and supporting each other. Susan Smith's poor estranged husband offering support comes to mind (before he realized what a monster she really was). Yet John was cold and distant and Patsy instantly starting calling half of Boulder to, IMO, make a confrontation by John virtually impossible.

No doubt to also have an audience, but that may have just been a secondary perk for her.

 

[andreww]

I have recently begun to think this is viable. PDI, covers up and when finally confronted by John, she says it was Burke.

It is also not out of the question that she caught Burke doing something to JonBenet that upset her. She could have been swinging for Burke and missed, or she was somehow just angry at them both.

Another factor in my PDI theory is the behavior of John and Patsy toward one another that morning. I have seen divorced parents of missing children holding hands and supporting each other. Susan Smith's poor estranged husband offering support comes to mind (before he realized what a monster she really was). Yet John was cold and distant and Patsy instantly starting calling half of Boulder to, IMO, make a confrontation by John virtually impossible.

No doubt to also have an audience, but that may have just been a secondary perk for her.

A viable case can be made for any of the three Ramsey's having done it. BDI may be the current flavour of the month, mainly due to Kolar's book, but that does not diminish the value of people like Steve Thomas's work. A big problem is that much of these theories are based on speculation and reading between the lines, but very little is based on actual evidence.

 

[UKGuy]

A viable case can be made for any of the three Ramsey's having done it. BDI may be the current flavour of the month, mainly due to Kolar's book, but that does not diminish the value of people like Steve Thomas's work. A big problem is that much of these theories are based on speculation and reading between the lines, but very little is based on actual evidence.

andreww,
The three main RDI theories, i.e. JDI, PDI, and BDI, all have their proponents and an emphasis on particular evidence, yet none has a smoking gun.

This appeared the situation with BDI rising to the top since it was the least inconsistent theory.

With the publication of the GJ True Bills, this position has changed slightly. The GJ never elected to vote for an indictment charging the parents with first degree murder, this charge they aimed a third party, the person.


Unless there was a fifth person in the house that night that we know nothing about, then I'm forced to assume that the unnamed person in the GJ True Bills is none other than Burke Ramsey?

Its not a smoking gun, or a public Jury verdict, yet is likely to be as good as it gets, discounting a confession.

That's why I reckon the case is now BDI!

.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
The three main RDI theories, i.e. JDI, PDI, and BDI, all have their proponents and an emphasis on particular evidence, yet none has a smoking gun.

This appeared the situation with BDI rising to the top since it was the least inconsistent theory.

With the publication of the GJ True Bills, this position has changed slightly. The GJ never elected to vote for an indictment charging the parents with first degree murder, this charge they aimed a third party, the person.


Unless there was a fifth person in the house that night that we know nothing about, then I'm forced to assume that the unnamed person in the GJ True Bills is none other than Burke Ramsey?

Its not a smoking gun, or a public Jury verdict, yet is likely to be as good as it gets, discounting a confession.

That's why I reckon the case is now BDI!

.

I agree with you, but even that is very presumptive. We don't know what the GJ was thinking or if they were correct in what they were thinking. Like us they were probably scrambling to put together a theory that actually made sense. Am I 100% sure that BDI? Not even close. Just too many lies, inconsistent statements, and we don't know where the real evidence starts and the manufactured evidence ends.

 

[Miz Adventure]

The GJ deliberated for 13 months. That's a heck of a long time. There can't be much that was left out and they must have heard every scrap of evidence that was available at that time.

They decided (probably quite early on) that JBR had met her end in that (locked) house that night and they had only three possible suspects, one of whom was too young to be officially named, but they all knew who he was. Then it was just a case of looking at the evidence and listening to the witnesses. I think they came to the correct decision.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

It is well possible that P had put the diapers and the size 12 panties on JB while readying her for bed.Then putting B's larger size longjohns on them sounds reasonable cause JB's pjamas would be too tight. Not that she was wearing B's handmedowns actually but only for them fitting over diapers.

Maybe at some point in the basement while peeking the presents , a curios B pulled off the diapers and molested JB . Probably the head bash followed and he might have cleaned the blood with the diapers or a cloth . Then he pulled on her panties and the longjohns and left her there and sneaked to his bed , frightened to what he had done and faked asleep. Approximately within an hour either he went downstairs and did the strangulation or one of the parents did that as staging which caused her actual death emptying her bladder.

Methinks the R avoided changing any of her clothes during the staging. That was how they found her .

 

[Userid]

^ Or the "corporal punishment" that ST believes PR enacted on JBR caused the initial removal of the diaper?

 

[BBB167893]

Hovering like a shadow? That's a nice image. He was probably hitting the topless bars. (Yes, I'm a cynic)

Yeouch.

I'm surprised John didn't tell the world that PR's last words were something like "John, please find the person who killed our daughter" before sinking back on her pillows.

Probably too many witnesses for that. If there's one thing I can speak on from personal experience, a dying cancer patient isn't left alone very often.

 

[singularity]

She may not have been able to speak. My mother couldn't talk when she was dying. Also, maybe the Lifetime movie was right: John was hovering like a shadow over her.

Yeah she couldn't squeal like a pig because if she did, John's got some splainin' to do himself....especially regarding his spring cleaning of the basement that morning.



UK...

if the case is not BDI then some form of PDI looks like the best bet.

Best bet? It's a lock. :moo:

he knew JonBenet had worn some of his clothing before, so its not something unknown.

You just answered your earlier question...

So explain why one the parents thought putting BR's long johns on JonBenet might represent fine staging, and that nobody would blink twice at the size-12's?

She wore his clothing sometimes...people knew....just like some women here have admitted doing when they were kids.

Much ado about nothing.....especially since you believe even a nine year old child would understand that fact.

The more coherent explanation is that Burke redressed JonBenet in those items, simply because they were to hand?

The most coherent explanation is that she was wearing them, which you just admitted she had already done before.


chiban...

Just because it was the first widely accepted theory, doesn't mean it was wrong.

The fact that they set out to systematically destroy Thomas insinuates he was on the right track.

No one else investigating the case ever needed to be destroyed.

Yet John was cold and distant and Patsy instantly starting calling half of Boulder to, IMO, make a confrontation by John virtually impossible.

I also believe the cavalry was called in to place a buffer between her and John so a huge fight didn't break out.

A huge mistake not to strip search those two for any bruises/marks. They had possibly fought earlier. They certainly weren't having tea and crumpets that night/morning.


andreww...

A viable case can be made for any of the three Ramsey's having done it. BDI may be the current flavour of the month, mainly due to Kolar's book, but that does not diminish the value of people like Steve Thomas's work. A big problem is that much of these theories are based on speculation and reading between the lines, but very little is based on actual evidence.

Great post.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

^ Or the "corporal punishment" that ST believes PR enacted on JBR caused the initial removal of the diaper?

However removal of diapers would be inconvenient for P herself in the morning . .She would be the one to take off the sheets and clean JP.

 

[Userid]

^ I suppose, but in a matter like this, all bets are off. And also, there was a package of diapers hanging half-way out of the shelf in the laundry area right across from JBR's bedroom, which to me, indicates a frenzy of sorts -- as if PR was running around, and going to grab another diaper to put JBR in, but either she thought twice about it or someone (JR) yelled for her to return to the bedroom (i.e. forget about the diaper or whatever you're doing right now and get over here, now). That package was removed by someone that night; it wouldn't be left by the maids without being properly put back, and it wouldn't stay like that for days.

 

[UKGuy]

Yeah she couldn't squeal like a pig because if she did, John's got some splainin' to do himself....especially regarding his spring cleaning of the basement that morning.



UK...



Best bet? It's a lock. :moo:




You just answered your earlier question...



She wore his clothing sometimes...people knew....just like some women here have admitted doing when they were kids.

Much ado about nothing.....especially since you believe even a nine year old child would understand that fact.

The most coherent explanation is that she was wearing them, which you just admitted she had already done before.


chiban...

The fact that they set out to systematically destroy Thomas insinuates he was on the right track.

No one else investigating the case ever needed to be destroyed.

I also believe the cavalry was called in to place a buffer between her and John so a huge fight didn't break out.

A huge mistake not to strip search those two for any bruises/marks. They had possibly fought earlier. They certainly weren't having tea and crumpets that night/morning.


andreww...



Great post.

singularity,

The more coherent explanation is that Burke redressed JonBenet in those items, simply because they were to hand?

The most coherent explanation is that she was wearing them, which you just admitted she had already done before.

That is a conventional explanation, e.g. he was wearing branded trainers, so he must have been intended to go jogging.

Why: because he was wearing them.


JonBenet is wearing both oversized size-12's and her brothers long johns, so a one liner is insufficient here. Something more coherent in the strict sense is required, so as per occam, that's what was available to BR in that timeframe?

In reality it might be more complicated, explanations that invoke diapers, bedwettting, PR, etc, do not fly since they simply sidestep the BDI issue.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree with you, but even that is very presumptive. We don't know what the GJ was thinking or if they were correct in what they were thinking. Like us they were probably scrambling to put together a theory that actually made sense. Am I 100% sure that BDI? Not even close. Just too many lies, inconsistent statements, and we don't know where the real evidence starts and the manufactured evidence ends.

andreww,
ITA. Its presumptive, since we have to start somewhere. The True Bills look like a good place, after all they have seen and heard evidence we can only dream about.

I'm not 100% on BDI, more 90%, it could be PDI, or even JDI with JR fitting BR up, by telling him what his role was to be?

The GJ might have got it wrong, but not indicting the parents on murder 1 is pretty revealing.

I do have the impression that Kolar has left a lot out of his book as regards BR, he has dropped hints about BR's behavior by referencing those self-help medical books.

I reckon for fear of litigation he cannot say what he thinks was going on in the killers mind, no apparent motive, but a premeditated homicide with subsequent staging.

That's pretty good for a 9-year old.

.

 

[TeaTime]

First degree murder. The parents assisted the murderer, whom they KNEW to be the murderer, to escape the consequences of having committed first degree murder. So, the GJ thought it was intentional after the jurors saw all the evidence and heard all the witnesses.

I have a VERY difficult time believing that PR bludgeoned JBR with a flashlight over bed wetting. However, not because it is PR and she is too refined for such things, but because I can't imagine ANYONE killing a child over soiled sheets. But, they are killed for this and less, everyday, all over this country and around the world.