Questions you'd like answers to...

[BoldBear]

Put the package in her drawer and JB opened it? I smell BS. Those packages of Bloomies are sealed by a plastic ring you have to cut with a knife or scissors.

Okay. So the package couldn't possibly have been opened before the murder. JB couldn't have been curious and wanted to try on a pair. And there was no way a 6 year old could have ever used a knife, scissors, or nail clippers to cut the tie.

 

[Ambitioned]

Sure because every six year old is absolutely excited and enthralled about cutting a tag, opening a package, and putting on undies way too big for her.

I've already thought about it and in this case no, I don't think it's the case here no matter how much it gets rationalized away. I still smell BS.

 

[UKGuy]

Aha! PR = the original fake news and alternative facts!

Ambitioned,
Sure is, it's slightly better than the JDI version, where Patsy communicates telepathically with JR, so he knows how to behave, etc.

Patsy is covering for BR. Why he decided those size-12's were OK for JonBenet is beyond me, but lucky for us since it's huge Red Flag.

No way would either parent dress JonBenet in Burke's long johns or those size-12's. That would be an own goal, so it must be that BR was engaged in staging. He patently wanted to hide what had taken place.

BDI could potentially explain the bit in PDI where JR does not know everything that has gone on, i.e. he is late to the crime-scene, and it's just possible that Patsy staged it all to edit out BR and present JR with a fake crime-scene?

.

 

[Userid]

I agree. My point was the Bloomies package should have been left in JonBenèt's drawer to make the story plausible. The fact that is wasn't puts a huge hole in Patsy's tale. For me, it was another part of the staging that became apparent when the parents were interviewed. Personally, I am not a fan of the PDI theory.

Again, that wouldn't have made sense, if the whole point was to stage an intruder. An intruder wouldn't have known where to find her underwear.

 

[Userid]

Jolamom,
This is why the case is not PDI. Above you have Patsy attempting to explain why JonBenet was wearing size-12's, even to the point of not saying why the intruder did not dress JonBenet in the size-12's.

If the case were PDI Patsy would offer a rationale for all the stuff we know zilch about.

.

Not necessarily. She would distance herself as far away as possible before offering up rationale that could be easily unwound by detectives. May as well feign ignorance before concocting "rationales" that could either be disproved or shown to be contradictory by detectives.

She didn't explain why the intruder dressed her in the size 12's because there was no intruder at all and she knew she couldn't explain that part rationally (i.e. how an intruder would know where the underwear was located), other than to say that JBR dressed herself in them. That's it.

 

[Userid]

Okay. So the package couldn't possibly have been opened before the murder. JB couldn't have been curious and wanted to try on a pair. And there was no way a 6 year old could have ever used a knife, scissors, or nail clippers to cut the tie.

Evidently, a six year old is incapable of using scissors to open a package; but a nine year old is capable of bashing his sister on the head, fashioning a strangulation device, strangling her, assaulting her, re-dressing her, return upstairs/to bed without leaving any fingerprints or any other evidence anywhere in the entire house (including his own bedroom, pajamas, and bed) and in essence, completely get away with murder with practically little to no help from his parents. Who knew?

 

[UKGuy]

Not necessarily. She would distance herself as far away as possible before offering up rationale that could be easily unwound by detectives. May as well feign ignorance before concocting "rationales" that could either be disproved or shown to be contradictory by detectives.

She didn't explain why the intruder dressed her in the size 12's because there was no intruder at all and she knew she couldn't explain that part rationally (i.e. how an intruder would know where the underwear was located), other than to say that JBR dressed herself in them. That's it.

Userid,
Patsy said she put the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer. i.e. it was not JR or BR.

This was her position, did she know about JonBenet being dressed in the size-12's prior to being interviewed?

I reckon not, I think she just made up the story regarding JonBenet wanting the size-12's. She was covering for Burke Ramsey.

It's also another detail that points to BR's staging being more creative than we ever thought, since historically most of the staging has been attributed to the parents.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Patsy said she put the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer. i.e. it was not JR or BR.

This was her position, did she know about JonBenet being dressed in the size-12's prior to being interviewed?

I reckon not, I think she just made up the story regarding JonBenet wanting the size-12's. She was covering for Burke Ramsey.

It's also another detail that points to BR's staging being more creative than we ever thought, since historically most of the staging has been attributed to the parents.

.

Quite possibly, because she was involved in the staging, as was JR. Even if you don't think JBR dressed herself in the Bloomies or that PR staged them, it's plausible to assume that she and JR would have discussed it before the interview -- and we all know that JR knew about the Bloomies, because his fibers were found within the Bloomies (unless you simply ignore this fact). How else would she know she needed to lie about it in the interview, as you are supposing?

Also, why would BR (a nine year old) feel the need to redress her at all? Why?

 

[UKGuy]

Evidently, a six year old is incapable of using scissors to open a package; but a nine year old is capable of bashing his sister on the head, fashioning a strangulation device, strangling her, assaulting her, re-dressing her, return upstairs/to bed without leaving any fingerprints or any other evidence anywhere in the entire house (including his own bedroom, pajamas, and bed) and in essence, completely get away with murder with practically little to no help from his parents. Who knew?

Userid,
Patsy knew, she covered for Burke Ramsey. Size-12's, long johns, etc. If the case were either JDI or PDI JonBenet would not be wearing those size-12's or Burke's long johns. They directly implicate Burke Ramsey and they are out of place, a Red Flag.

Burke Ramsey might have broken that window, he night have faked a crime-scene which the parents dismantled before fabricating the wine-cellar crime-scene?

JonBenet probably could open the size-12's with scissors. But no size-12's were found in her drawer, so that avenue of speculation ends there.

Without Burke's long johns and those size-12's I would likely favor some kind of PDI, but with what we now know about Burke creeping about the house that night, and his response on Dr Phil, BDI looks more probable than PDI.

Unless people think Patsy was deliberately framing Burke?

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Patsy knew, she covered for Burke Ramsey. Size-12's, long johns, etc. If the case were either JDI or PDI JonBenet would not be wearing those size-12's or Burke's long johns. They directly implicate Burke Ramsey and they are out of place, a Red Flag.

Burke Ramsey might have broken that window, he night have faked a crime-scene which the parents dismantled before fabricating the wine-cellar crime-scene?

JonBenet probably could open the size-12's with scissors. But no size-12's were found in her drawer, so that avenue of speculation ends there.

Without Burke's long johns and those size-12's I would likely favor some kind of PDI, but with what we now know about Burke creeping about the house that night, and his response on Dr Phil, BDI looks more probable than PDI.

Unless people think Patsy was deliberately framing Burke?

.

(To the bolded) Only in your opinion. The size 12's in no way, shape or form "directly implicate" BR. His long-johns you can say that (although I'd still disagree), but not the Bloomies.

Guess "fabricating a crime scene" is yet another skill a nine year old who had never committed murder before has. Are some still poo-pooing a six year old being able to open a package with scissors (just curious)?

Where did BR obtain the Bloomies from? If you say the cellar, why would the Bloomies be there, when the only gifts that were recovered from the cellar were strictly BR's? If you say the speculation should end that the Bloomies were in JBR's bathroom drawer, you can't turn around and speculate that they were in the cellar.

 

[UKGuy]

Quite possibly, because she was involved in the staging, as was JR. Even if you don't think JBR dressed herself in the Bloomies or that PR staged them, it's plausible to assume that she and JR would have discussed it before the interview -- and we all know that JR knew about the Bloomies, because his fibers were found within the Bloomies (unless you simply ignore this fact). How else would she know she needed to lie about it in the interview, as you are supposing?

Also, why would BR (a nine year old) feel the need to redress her at all? Why?

Userid,
Nope, if the case is JDI, JR is never going to tell Patsy about self incriminating forensic evidence. BBM: JR need not have mentioned it, it might just be a small detail to him. I do not think they were told what the questions were to be?

Also, why would BR (a nine year old) feel the need to redress her at all? Why?

For the same reason a Forty Nine year old would: hide any visible evidence of an assault. We still do not know if there were a pair of Wednesday size-6 Bloomingdales anywhere in JonBenet's bedroom?

There is nothing in the case that is so complex that its beyond a Nine Year olds abilities.

.

 

[UKGuy]

(To the bolded) Only in your opinion. The size 12's in no way, shape or form "directly implicate" BR. His long-johns you can say that (although I'd still disagree), but not the Bloomies.

Guess "fabricating a crime scene" is yet another skill a nine year old who had never committed murder before has. Are some still poo-pooing a six year old being able to open a package with scissors (just curious)?

Where did BR obtain the Bloomies from? If you say the cellar, why would the Bloomies be there, when the only gifts that were recovered from the cellar were strictly BR's? If you say the speculation should end that the Bloomies were in JBR's bathroom drawer, you can't turn around and speculate that they were in the cellar.

Userid,
BBM: not from Patsy, since she had to lie about the size-12's. Its speculation relating to JonBenet as an explanation for her wearing size-12's that is redundant, i.e. no size-12's found anywhere in the house.

If JonBenet had casually dressed herself in the size-12's and they were simply an incidental crime-scene detail, then the remaining six pairs should have been in her bedroom.

The long johns implicate Burke Ramsey, but obviously are no smoking gun. Add in the size-12's, then ask which parent would dress JonBenet in the size-12's and why?

Deduction by elimination suggests either JR of BR dressed JonBenet in the size-12's, given she has been dressed in the long johns, the answer is obvious.

I do not have clue where the size-12's were kept. Beyond PR ad JR saying Christmas gifts were stored in the basement.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Nope, if the case is JDI, JR is never going to tell Patsy about self incriminating forensic evidence. BBM: JR need not have mentioned it, it might just be a small detail to him. I do not think they were told what the questions were to be?




For the same reason a Forty Nine year old would: hide any visible evidence of an assault. We still do not know if there were a pair of Wednesday size-6 Bloomingdales anywhere in JonBenet's bedroom?

There is nothing in the case that is so complex that its beyond a Nine Year olds abilities.

.

(To the bolded) A nine year old wouldn't have thought that far ahead. He's nine.

No one is saying the case is JDI, but again, how would PR know to lie about the underwear then when she was interviewed? If JR "need not mention it" like you say, or if she didn't stage the bloomies and were put there by BR, how would she know to lie about it?

 

[Userid]

Userid,
BBM: not from Patsy, since she had to lie about the size-12's. Its speculation relating to JonBenet as an explanation for her wearing size-12's that is redundant, i.e. no size-12's found anywhere in the house.

If JonBenet had casually dressed herself in the size-12's and they were simply an incidental crime-scene detail, then the remaining six pairs should have been in her bedroom.

The long johns implicate Burke Ramsey, but obviously are no smoking gun. Add in the size-12's, then ask which parent would dress JonBenet in the size-12's and why?

Deduction by elimination suggests either JR of BR dressed JonBenet in the size-12's, given she has been dressed in the long johns, the answer is obvious.

I do not have clue where the size-12's were kept. Beyond PR ad JR saying Christmas gifts were stored in the basement.

.

Exactly, so you may as well stop chastising those who are assuming they were in her drawer, because your speculation is just as unproven.

You make a decent point that if JBR had casually dressed herself in the Bloomies, that the other pairs would be found in her drawer. I'll heed that.

However, the rest doesn't make sense because I can simply ask you this question: why would BR, out of all the other choices, choose the one pair of underwear that was too large, to re-dress her in? Was it pure coincidence? Better yet, why would anyone for that matter -- JR, PR, BR, an intruder -- choose that pair of underwear to re-dress her in? That's where the deduction by elimination should be exercised. By that deduction, there is only choice left: JBR herself.

And also, they said that Christmas gifts for the 2 children were stored in the cellar; not all Christmas gifts, correct? And again, the only gifts that were stored there were BR's Birthday gifts; Christmas had already passed.

 

[UKGuy]

Exactly, so you may as well stop chastising those who are assuming they were in her drawer, because your speculation is just as unproven.

You make a decent point that if JBR had casually dressed herself in the Bloomies, that the other pairs would be found in her drawer. I'll heed that.

However, the rest doesn't make sense because I can simply ask you this question: why would BR, out of all the other choices, choose the one pair of underwear that was too large, to re-dress her in? Was it pure coincidence? Better yet, why would anyone for that matter -- JR, PR, BR, an intruder -- choose that pair of underwear to re-dress her in? That's where the deduction by elimination should be exercised. By that deduction, there is only choice left: JBR herself.

And also, they said that Christmas gifts for the 2 children were stored in the cellar; not all Christmas gifts, correct? And again, the only gifts that were stored there were BR's Birthday gifts; Christmas had already passed.

Userid,

By that deduction, there is only choice left: JBR herself.

If it had been JonBenet, then the size-12's are incidental and the remaining six pairs should have been found in her bedroom.

No size-12's eliminates JonBenet. If it had been Patsy then she would have had a story prepared that stood up, she never, so she made it up on hoof. That's Patsy eliminated.

That leaves JR or BR. It really could be either, but I'll go for BR since I do not think JR would dress JonBenet in Burke's long johns.

Was it pure coincidence?

Maybe, could be. Might be they were selected because they are Bloomingdales or a Wednesday pair. As the pair they replaced could have been a Bloomingdales size-6 Wednesday pair?

The combination of size-12's and male long johns as part of staging in a homicide involving a six-year old girl is a Red Flag.

And also, they said that Christmas gifts for the 2 children were stored in the cellar; not all Christmas gifts, correct? And again, the only gifts that were stored there were BR's Birthday gifts; Christmas had already passed.

That's according to Patsy. We do not really know what was located where. Although Burke's birthday gifts being in the wine-cellar sounds reasonable.

Kolar thinks the Partially Opened gifts are important, why I am not certain, but he is suggesting Patsy is lying about the gifts, never mind covering for Burke?

 

[Userid]

Userid,

If it had been JonBenet, then the size-12's are incidental and the remaining six pairs should have been found in her bedroom.

No size-12's eliminates JonBenet. If it had been Patsy then she would have had a story prepared that stood up, she never, so she made it up on hoof. That's Patsy eliminated.

That leaves JR or BR. It really could be either, but I'll go for BR since I do not think JR would dress JonBenet in Burke's long johns.


Maybe, could be. Might be they were selected because they are Bloomingdales or a Wednesday pair. As the pair they replaced could have been a Bloomingdales size-6 Wednesday pair?

The combination of size-12's and male long johns as part of staging in a homicide involving a six-year old girl is a Red Flag.


That's according to Patsy. We do not really know what was located where. Although Burke's birthday gifts being in the wine-cellar sounds reasonable.

Kolar thinks the Partially Opened gifts are important, why I am not certain, but he is suggesting Patsy is lying about the gifts, never mind covering for Burke?

I disagree with your logic that, simply because they were not found in her drawer, that it automatically eliminates PR -- or anyone, for that matter (i.e. BR or JR). The only thing that the absence of the underwear from her drawer indicates is the following: that if they were in the drawer, they were (all) removed; and if they weren't in her drawer, they were somewhere else in the house. In both of these scenarios, someone from within the house had to know where the underwear was; and someone from the house felt the obligation to "dispose" of the remaining pairs. In addition, in either scenario, any of the three people who lived in that house could have grabbed the underwear -- it doesn't necessarily eliminate anyone. That's how I see it anyway.

We know that no other gifts were located in the wine cellar, so PR's account, for all intents and purposes and with regard to the gifts in the wine cellar, have been substantiated.

You bring up the idea that the underwear was used because it was the "Wednesday" pair and I agree with this idea, but I disagree that it would be BR who would use the pair for this purpose. If this is the reason why this specific pair was used, it was in order to convey the sense that the crime had occurred the night before (in other words, for staging purposes). The parents were the ones that were most involved in the staging element of the crime, even if you do believe BR committed this crime (which I don't, but I digress). The thought process of a nine year old wouldn't be to stage when the murder occurred, just as it wouldn't be the responsibility of a nine year old to specify a particular date on a loved one's tombstone, as the R's did for JBR.

 

[UKGuy]

I disagree with your logic that, simply because they were not found in her drawer, that it automatically eliminates PR -- or anyone, for that matter (i.e. BR or JR). The only thing that the absence of the underwear from her drawer indicates is the following: that if they were in the drawer, they were (all) removed; and if they weren't in her drawer, they were somewhere else in the house. In both of these scenarios, someone from within the house had to know where the underwear was; and someone from the house felt the obligation to "dispose" of the remaining pairs. In addition, in either scenario, any of the three people who lived in that house could have grabbed the underwear -- it doesn't necessarily eliminate anyone. That's how I see it anyway.

We know that no other gifts were located in the wine cellar, so PR's account, for all intents and purposes and with regard to the gifts in the wine cellar, have been substantiated.

You bring up the idea that the underwear was used because it was the "Wednesday" pair and I agree with this idea, but I disagree that it would be BR who would use the pair for this purpose. If this is the reason why this specific pair was used, it was in order to convey the sense that the crime had occurred the night before (in other words, for staging purposes). The parents were the ones that were most involved in the staging element of the crime, even if you do believe BR committed this crime (which I don't, but I digress). The thought process of a nine year old wouldn't be to stage when the murder occurred, just as it wouldn't be the responsibility of a nine year old to specify a particular date on a loved one's tombstone, as the R's did for JBR.

Userid,

I disagree with your logic that, simply because they were not found in her drawer, that it automatically eliminates PR -- or anyone, for that matter (i.e. BR or JR).

No, it automatically eliminates JonBenet, precisely because Patsy said she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

No size-12's were found in her bedroom or the house, so this eliminates JonBenet. If Patsy had redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, she would be clever enough to realize, she should put the remaining six pairs into JonBenet's underwear drawer, and have story prepared to that effect.

She did neither, she invented a story about JonBenet requesting the size-12's. This eliminates Patsy.

The only thing that the absence of the underwear from her drawer indicates is the following: that if they were in the drawer, they were (all) removed; and if they weren't in her drawer, they were somewhere else in the house.

No, that is incorrect. The absence of underwear can indicate there was never any size-12's in her drawer. That they were somewhere else in the house follows from this.

The likely reason the size-12's vanished is they were forensically contaminated, especially if they were with a bloodstained pair of size-6 Wednesday Bloomingdales?

 

[Userid]

Userid,

No, it automatically eliminates JonBenet, precisely because Patsy said she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

No size-12's were found in her bedroom or the house, so this eliminates JonBenet. If Patsy had redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, she would be clever enough to realize, she should put the remaining six pairs into JonBenet's underwear drawer, and have story prepared to that effect.

She did neither, she invented a story about JonBenet requesting the size-12's. This eliminates Patsy.


No, that is incorrect. The absence of underwear can indicate there was never any size-12's in her drawer. That they were somewhere else in the house follows from this.

The likely reason the size-12's vanished is they were forensically contaminated, especially if they were with a bloodstained pair of size-6 Wednesday Bloomingdales?

No, PR would have wanted to distance herself from them and dispose of them entirely. She admitted to them in the first place because she was afraid or knew they could be tied back to her and that she purchased them.

The fact they weren't found in her drawer doesn't "eliminate JBR" from putting them on herself. Sorry. Again, it doesn't eliminate anybody. You're putting the cart before the horse.

If they were somewhere else in the house, only one person would know where they were: the one person who purchased them in the first place.

(To the second bolded), you're simply wrong. You can't prove that the underwear was never in the drawer anytime before that night; it's impossible to prove such. If they were, they were simply removed and disposed. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

 

[Ambitioned]

Evidently, a six year old is incapable of using scissors to open a package; but a nine year old is capable of bashing his sister on the head, fashioning a strangulation device, strangling her, assaulting her, re-dressing her, return upstairs/to bed without leaving any fingerprints or any other evidence anywhere in the entire house (including his own bedroom, pajamas, and bed) and in essence, completely get away with murder with practically little to no help from his parents. Who knew?

More red herrings. It's not a matter of occupational or fine motor skills. As I said before, WHY would she want to put on a pair of undies too big for her when there's plenty of others her size? And as UK Guy asked, where were the other oversized undies?

"But he's nine or almost ten" is one of the biggest red herrings. James Bulger was struck by 30 blows with bricks, a 22 pound iron bar, had paint rubbed in his eyes and batteries shoved up his rectum before he was put on the tracks for a train to sever his body. The damage was done by adults right? Nope they were two children.

"BR didn't think ahead." Really? How do you know for a fact he wasn't stewing for days and weeks? I'm one of those who think it was an accident but I'm not ruling out premeditation. Perhaps one of the reasons for the call to 911 on 12/23? IMO the GJ found out PR and JR should have protected JR from BR but they didn't.

Without Burke's long johns and those size-12's I would likely favor some kind of PDI, but with what we now know about Burke creeping about the house that night, and his response on Dr Phil, BDI looks more probable than PDI.

The combination of size-12's and male long johns as part of staging in a homicide involving a six-year old girl is a Red Flag.

ITA. I reckon Kolar and UK Guy have figured out pert near what the GJ did. And this is without the benefit of actually being there in 1999.

 

[UKGuy]

No, PR would have wanted to distance herself from them and dispose of them entirely. She admitted to them in the first place because she was afraid or knew they could be tied back to her and that she purchased them.

The fact they weren't found in her drawer doesn't "eliminate JBR" from putting them on herself. Sorry. Again, it doesn't eliminate anybody. You're putting the cart before the horse.

If they were somewhere else in the house, only one person would know where they were: the one person who purchased them in the first place.

(To the second bolded), you're simply wrong. You can't prove that the underwear was never in the drawer anytime before that night; it's impossible to prove such. If they were, they were simply removed and disposed. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Userid,

You can't prove that the underwear was never in the drawer anytime before that night; it's impossible to prove such. If they were, they were simply removed and disposed. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Of course I cannot prove a negative. Yet the possibility exists. It is a counter-example to what you posted, e.g.

The only thing that the absence of the underwear from her drawer indicates is the following: that if they were in the drawer, they were (all) removed; and if they weren't in her drawer, they were somewhere else in the house.

We know they were in the house, Patsy purchased them, it is pretty much a no-brainer. For some reason it must conflict with your favorite theory.

.