Questions I Have Not Found Answers To

[UKGuy]

So you don't think JonBenet had the pink Barbie gown on earlier that night? I always figured she had changed into it, ended up downstairs eating pineapple and was changed after the events that transpired.

If not, how/when did JonBenets blood get on the pink Barbie gown?

SunnieRN,
I do think think she had the Gown on. When the R's revised their crime-scene and decided to go for an abduction, they had to dress JonBenet in the White Top, but to explain away the longjohns they made up the story about not finding the pink pajama bottoms.

The redressing stages might be:

1. Pink Pajamas
2. Pink Barbie Nightgown
3. Longjohns

.

 

[M.James]

M.James,
Now if you can prove this for what JonBenet was wearing then it would mean we have theory to beat the rest!

*I, of course, can't prove anything. I'm an asker, not an answerer.
DeeDee says they were for girls; I have to go with that.

Yes, my experience says white with red and blue stripes on the elastic band suggest they are boys. I would love to see them.
1996 is also a different year than when my kids were that age (not too much, but). Fashions change - I'd guess notsomuch for long johns - except maybe more choices for girls, a few more for boys? I really don't know, but would love to see them, or know what size they were.
Given that long johns are supposed to fit snug, they could be worn loosely on a smaller child without appearing grossly large.

Sorry, I'm not much help.

 

[UKGuy]

*I, of course, can't prove anything. I'm an asker, not an answerer.
DeeDee says they were for girls; I have to go with that.

Yes, my experience says white with red and blue stripes on the elastic band suggest they are boys. I would love to see them.
1996 is also a different year than when my kids were that age (not too much, but). Fashions change - I'd guess notsomuch for long johns - except maybe more choices for girls, a few more for boys? I really don't know, but would love to see them, or know what size they were.
Given that long johns are supposed to fit snug, they could be worn loosely on a smaller child without appearing grossly large.

Sorry, I'm not much help.

M.James,
If they were definitely girls then there is no problem. If we do not know that for certain then you offering an opinion certainly helps, who knows maybe they were BR's?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

M.James,
If they were definitely girls then there is no problem. If we do not know that for certain then you offering an opinion certainly helps, who knows maybe they were BR's?


.

The coroner made no note of the longjohns being boys', (as evidenced by having a fly). I would think something like that would be important to mention in a murder investigation. It wouldn't be unusual for a girl to have hand-me-downs from an older brother (especially things like jeans), so that could have included longjohns. But there were several police who viewed her body wearing those longjohns, and a fly in the front is a very obvious detail- and one that I think at least ONE of the police would have noticed and mentioned.
I, of course, did NOT see them. But in the absence of any report to the contrary, I would believe they were girls'.

By the way, the FULL autopsy report can be seen on Acandyrose here: http://www.acandyrose.com in the JonBenet archives, along with a few autopsy photos which are also on the Web. They are the same ones we see over and over- the ones the Globe printed. They are not very graphic, although by their very nature, they are disturbing. I still think they are important to see if you are going to understand the injuries, especially the mysterious "abrasions".

 

[M.James]

After reading about the long johns, I’ve become more confused about something else.

I hope this makes sense:

I’m curious about the wiping down. I’ve always assumed the ‘wiping down’ was around the pubic/private areas of Jonbenet’s body. Maybe not.

In the autopsy report it states that:

The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.

I wonder how a person knows that Jonbenet has been wiped down if there is (dried) urine covering her front? If it was on her bottoms it would surely be on her body, wouldn't it?

Or, was she wiped down, then redressed with urine soaked clothes? Or, dirty dried urine clothes?

I thought that I had also read somewhere that there were tiny drops of blood (I’m really not sure about that), but wouldn’t the release of urine dilute any small bits of blood, and possibly wash it away?

Thanks for bearing with me.
And sorry if I'm asking things that have been beat into the ground.

Thank you.

 

[Magdalyn]

After reading about the long johns, I’ve become more confused about something else.

I hope this makes sense:

I’m curious about the wiping down. I’ve always assumed the ‘wiping down’ was around the pubic/private areas of Jonbenet’s body. Maybe not.

In the autopsy report it states that:

The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.

I wonder how a person knows that Jonbenet has been wiped down if there is (dried) urine covering her front? If it was on her bottoms it would surely be on her body, wouldn't it?

Or, was she wiped down, then redressed with urine soaked clothes? Or, dirty dried urine clothes?

I thought that I had also read somewhere that there were tiny drops of blood (I’m really not sure about that), but wouldn’t the release of urine dilute any small bits of blood, and possibly wash it away?

Thanks for bearing with me.
And sorry if I'm asking things that have been beat into the ground.

Thank you.

I presumed she was redressed in the dirty clothes that'd been taken off her wet, then dried before put back onto her wiped down body. The small amounts of blood would be the last bits passively exiting her vaginal area after she was redressed. But that's just a guess. :waitasec:

No on the urine covering 'anteriorly'.... that makes me think she was likely belly down when she wet the bed, or wet herself while pinned belly down during....something.

 

[UKGuy]

The coroner made no note of the longjohns being boys', (as evidenced by having a fly). I would think something like that would be important to mention in a murder investigation. It wouldn't be unusual for a girl to have hand-me-downs from an older brother (especially things like jeans), so that could have included longjohns. But there were several police who viewed her body wearing those longjohns, and a fly in the front is a very obvious detail- and one that I think at least ONE of the police would have noticed and mentioned.
I, of course, did NOT see them. But in the absence of any report to the contrary, I would believe they were girls'.

By the way, the FULL autopsy report can be seen on Acandyrose here: http://www.acandyrose.com in the JonBenet archives, along with a few autopsy photos which are also on the Web. They are the same ones we see over and over- the ones the Globe printed. They are not very graphic, although by their very nature, they are disturbing. I still think they are important to see if you are going to understand the injuries, especially the mysterious "abrasions".

DeeDee249,
What do I know, maybe the USofA color codes gender by color on the waistband, as per M.James remarks?

Did BR wear longjohns at all, he continued to wet the bed for a while?


.

 

[UKGuy]

After reading about the long johns, I’ve become more confused about something else.

I hope this makes sense:

I’m curious about the wiping down. I’ve always assumed the ‘wiping down’ was around the pubic/private areas of Jonbenet’s body. Maybe not.

In the autopsy report it states that:

The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.

I wonder how a person knows that Jonbenet has been wiped down if there is (dried) urine covering her front? If it was on her bottoms it would surely be on her body, wouldn't it?

Or, was she wiped down, then redressed with urine soaked clothes? Or, dirty dried urine clothes?

I thought that I had also read somewhere that there were tiny drops of blood (I’m really not sure about that), but wouldn’t the release of urine dilute any small bits of blood, and possibly wash it away?

Thanks for bearing with me.
And sorry if I'm asking things that have been beat into the ground.

Thank you.

M.James,

1996-12-29: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight755-baggagecheck12291996.htm

Det. Arndt stated to Your Affiant that she was present and observed a visual examination by Dr. Meyer of the shirt worn by the child. She observed and Dr. Meyer preserved dark fibers and dark hair on the outside of the shirt Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

...

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
What do I know, maybe the USofA color codes gender by color on the waistband, as per M.James remarks?

Did BR wear longjohns at all, he continued to wet the bed for a while?


.

We have no way of knowing whether BR wore that type of thermal underwear, but it is a pretty common item for kids in colder climates. The color threads in the waistband are not always gender-specific. The plain white or gray bottoms may very well have those waistband colors for both boys and girls. The only thing I am sure of is that longjohns for boys have a fly opening, just as regular boys' underwear does and longjohns for girls do not. No mention was made of JB's having a fly- which is something that would be noted or at least noticed by the other people in he room watching the autopsy.

 

[M.James]

Magdalyn,

It's all curious, isn't it? I'm not sure what to think as I'm assuming the urine was a fluid release after death.
Thank you for your reply.

UKGuy,

Since I seem to be having so much trouble distinguishing fact from suspicion, from guessing, from assuming, from presuming, there's no doubt I'll make things harder on myself than they already are.
I think I'll sit out for a while again, or until I think I can add something.

Thanks again for taking time to help me out.

 

[Matt21]

Would you guys mind answering another one of mine.

Does anyone know if Jonbenet had her eyelids tested for prints or DNA? I was wondering, just in the off chance she may have died with her eyes open, that if anyone closed them, then there is a good chance this would be the last person to see her alive, and hence, her killer. All the more so if it would turn out a family member, because why would an intruder care enough to close her eyes? Then again, an intruder did leave her wrapped in her favourite blanket.

 

[UKGuy]

We have no way of knowing whether BR wore that type of thermal underwear, but it is a pretty common item for kids in colder climates. The color threads in the waistband are not always gender-specific. The plain white or gray bottoms may very well have those waistband colors for both boys and girls. The only thing I am sure of is that longjohns for boys have a fly opening, just as regular boys' underwear does and longjohns for girls do not. No mention was made of JB's having a fly- which is something that would be noted or at least noticed by the other people in he room watching the autopsy.

DeeDee249,
I've always assumed they were female longjohns, and as you suggest, any fly opening might have been commented on at autopsy.

Another perspective might be, did BR ever wear the female longjohns due to bed wetting, on an ad-hoc basis?

That is was he aware where they were located and familiar with their use?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Would you guys mind answering another one of mine.

Does anyone know if Jonbenet had her eyelids tested for prints or DNA? I was wondering, just in the off chance she may have died with her eyes open, that if anyone closed them, then there is a good chance this would be the last person to see her alive, and hence, her killer. All the more so if it would turn out a family member, because why would an intruder care enough to close her eyes? Then again, an intruder did leave her wrapped in her favourite blanket.

Matt21,
Maybe, but I doubt it. There were other areas of her body tested along with her clothing and some objects in the wine-cellar.

All the dna evidence has not been released. Who knows, other Ramsey dna found on JonBenet, might have been excluded for public consumption?


.

 

[midwest mama]

Would you guys mind answering another one of mine.

Does anyone know if Jonbenet had her eyelids tested for prints or DNA? I was wondering, just in the off chance she may have died with her eyes open, that if anyone closed them, then there is a good chance this would be the last person to see her alive, and hence, her killer. All the more so if it would turn out a family member, because why would an intruder care enough to close her eyes? Then again, an intruder did leave her wrapped in her favourite blanket.

This from Kolar's book, pg 57:
"At some point during the process, investigators decided to stop their examination of JonBenet and considered the possibility of fingerprinting her skin. Several telephone calls were made to other agencies in an attempt to determine if there was a successful method for retrieving latent fingerprints from the skin of a deceased person.
They weren't able to determine if there was any tried and true technique that would be successful, but they did try a technique that involved the use of Magna powder, a specific type of finger-print powder that utilized a magnetic brush to move and collect the powder over the surface believed to hold latent fingerprints. Investigators were not successful in lifting any latent fingerprints from JonBenet in this fashion."

Also, remember that Eller was forced to return her body to the parents before he was ready to. He was in favor of holding the body a while longer, and trying to get interviews with the R's set up in the meanwhile, which led to him being accused of creating his own ransom request of sorts. :maddening:

 

[cf1140]

Can someone explain to me about the duct tape and paracord on JBR?

I know the paintbrush handle of the garrot came from the Ramsey house, but afaik nothing indcates the duct tape and paracord came from the house, right?

 

[DeeDee249]

Can someone explain to me about the duct tape and paracord on JBR?

I know the paintbrush handle of the garrot came from the Ramsey house, but afaik nothing indcates the duct tape and paracord came from the house, right?

Wrong. The tape and cord were not FOUND in the house, BUT a receipt from a local hardware store (McGuckin's) showed that Patsy had purchased two items matching the duct tape and cord not long before.
This doesn't mean JB's murder was premeditated- in fact, I do not think for one minute it was. But these are common household items, found in most homes. And the parents were allowed to leave the house that night without being searched. These items are small enough to have been discarded easily, hidden in something they left with (they were wearing winter coats, likely with pockets, and carried at least some luggage for their stay with friends). JR also made quite point of asking Patsy's sister to get his golf bag, which was right outside the wine cellar where her body had been. Golf should have been the last thing on his mind.

 

[DeeDee249]

After reading about the long johns, I’ve become more confused about something else.

I hope this makes sense:

I’m curious about the wiping down. I’ve always assumed the ‘wiping down’ was around the pubic/private areas of Jonbenet’s body. Maybe not.

In the autopsy report it states that:

The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension.

I wonder how a person knows that Jonbenet has been wiped down if there is (dried) urine covering her front? If it was on her bottoms it would surely be on her body, wouldn't it?

Or, was she wiped down, then redressed with urine soaked clothes? Or, dirty dried urine clothes?

I thought that I had also read somewhere that there were tiny drops of blood (I’m really not sure about that), but wouldn’t the release of urine dilute any small bits of blood, and possibly wash it away?

Thanks for bearing with me.
And sorry if I'm asking things that have been beat into the ground.

Thank you.

The coroner noted she had been wiped down on her pubic area and upper thighs because he found dark fibers there which he said were consistent with her "having been wiped by a cloth". (His words). Also- traces of her own blood were found under fluoroscope (black light testing). The area tested positive under black light examination for proteins found in body fluids like semen, blood and urine. When tested, it was found to be her blood.
Don't confuse this with the small droplets of blood found in the crotch of her panties. That could have oozed out postmortem. Note that a matching blood stain was NOT found on the longjohns, which is another reason to think that the panties were added after she died. Although they too were urine stained, that could have come from contact with the wet longjohns that were put on over the new panties from the pack.
If she had on a DIFFERENT pair of panties originally, that perfectly explains why there was so little blood on the size 12s she was found in.

 

[deca]

Okay, I probably have read only a fraction of the things here but maybe someone can help me out anyways.

1. Was Dr. B also Burke's doctor? Or Patsy's?
2. Did Dr. B move in the R's social circle, go to their church, etc. or were they just "friendly" through the constant doctor visits?
3. Is there a blueprint/floorplan of the house available? I have looked through acandyrose but am having a hard time finding it.

THANKS in advance!

 

[cf1140]

Wrong. The tape and cord were not FOUND in the house, BUT a receipt from a local hardware store (McGuckin's) showed that Patsy had purchased two items matching the duct tape and cord not long before.
This doesn't mean JB's murder was premeditated- in fact, I do not think for one minute it was. But these are common household items, found in most homes. And the parents were allowed to leave the house that night without being searched. These items are small enough to have been discarded easily, hidden in something they left with (they were wearing winter coats, likely with pockets, and carried at least some luggage for their stay with friends). JR also made quite point of asking Patsy's sister to get his golf bag, which was right outside the wine cellar where her body had been. Golf should have been the last thing on his mind.

Well what type of cord was it? And what other things were on that hardware receipt, because the first thing I thought after reading the beginning of your post was premeditation.

 

[DeeDee249]

Okay, I probably have read only a fraction of the things here but maybe someone can help me out anyways.

1. Was Dr. B also Burke's doctor? Or Patsy's?
2. Did Dr. B move in the R's social circle, go to their church, etc. or were they just "friendly" through the constant doctor visits?
3. Is there a blueprint/floorplan of the house available? I have looked through acandyrose but am having a hard time finding it.

THANKS in advance!

1. Dr B was pediatrician for both children.
2. Dr B was a member of the same Country Club and did move in the same social circles. He was said to be "in awe" of the Rs. Not sure about the church. Possible, though.
3. Blueprints/floorplans were posted not long ago right here. Search for them, and they are also available here: http://www.acandyrose.com in the JonBenet Archive section. You can Google them also.