Ramsey Clothing Journey

[Chrishope]

Rashomon, UKGuy, anyone

Something just isn't fitting here. (Or maybe I'm just dense - a distinct possiblity!)

It is a theory of mine, just as yours is a theory. Fact is that the police could not find the size 12s. The inference to be drawn is that they were hidden by the stager of the scene. Patsy was the main stager (evidence: ransom note and her jacket fibers in the locations connected to the 'garrote' scene), therefore it is logical to assume she knew exactly who put the size 12s on JonBenet and why. ...

If they were hidden by the Rs, then they had to be picked up by Pam Paugh during her "evidence gathering" mission. Otherwise, the police find them and they become, potentially, admissible evidence. (Of course, this assumes a thourough and competent search by BPD, which may be an erroneous assumption) OR, the Rs got them out of the house themselves, before Pam did her thing. Either way, this means the Rs were in control of the size 12s, and could have destroyed them. This also means PR is free to concoct a non-linking story for the police - e.g. "I don't know anything about size 12s or where they would have come from". Yet, this did not happen.

I suspect PR bought 12s (for Jenny ?) just as she said, and had to tell that much to the cops for fear they might be able to find out (credit card records?) Otherwise, it's better to destroy the remaining 12s, and deny any knowledge of the 12s.

We now have the question why the 12s were not sent to Jenny as intended? This is fairly easy to explain away - Christmass rush, forgot, didn't have time, blah, blah, blah. I mean a plausible story can be told for not sending them, but really, what did PR have to do ? She didn't work, she had domestic help for household chores, why would she not have gotten around to sending the undies to Jenny? I'm willing to accept the idea that PR just didn't get around to it or forgot. There is an old saying - If you need something done, give it to a busy person to do. Though I'm willing to accept the idea, I'm not compeletly comfortable with it. Perhaps they weren't bought for Jenny at all?

I suspect PR lied about one package of 12s being for JBR - they were absurdly too large for JBR, and the same style was available in JBR's size.
If PR had to tell about buying the 12s, she also had to tell a story that explained why they might have ended up on JBR. The story that PR bought one pack for JBR and placed them in her drawer lends at least a tiny amount of credence to the notion JBR put the 12s on herself. However, the story is less plausible given that no other 12s are found.

I'm not sure that the 12s had to be removed in order to inflict the vaginal injuries. They were loose enough on her that they could have been pushed aside and the dirty deed done w/o taking them off. So, it's possible that JBR was wearing them when taken to the basement.

However, if we assume that the 12s were placed on her as part of a redressing/staging, then if PR's story is true (she bought a pack for JBR and put them in JBR's drawer) then the culprit(s) had to go all the way back up to JBR's bedroom and retrieve the 12s, or had to have the forethought to take both packs into the basement. This means the 12s were put on her for a specific reason. (What reason?) At this point, if we follow an IDI theory, then the intruder takes the 12s away as a trophy - but we are left wondering why he bothered to redress her at all. (the LJs had to come off, or at least down, to inflict the injuries) If we follow and RDI theory, then the Rs certainly know the 12s are not in the drawer, and therefore are not suprised to learn this at the interview, and in fact the Rs know that no other 12s are found. They also know JBR is wearing the Wednesday pair.

It seems unlikely to me that PR is speaking at the interview from a position of ignorance. Even if JR puts the 12s on JBR (and I can see how a man would do that and not necessarily know they are way too big) one of the Rs still made sure the 12s were removed from the house. (either they did it themselves or had Pam get them) This means they probably talked about it with each other, and PR couldn't have been suprised at the interview.

If PR really was suprised by JBR being found in 12s, and no other 12s being found, then that means her co-conspirator put the 12s on JBR and got rid of the remaining 12s w/o telling PR about it. But why would this happen? They had already conspired to stage the scene, and JR had gone to the trouble to make sure the 12s were removed from the house, so why would JR not tell PR about this?

If either R put the 12s on JBR, why? Assuming the pack was not yet open (and it's just an assumption) why open it dress her in absurdly large undies, and get rid of the remainder ? Isn't it better if the remainder (of at least one pack) is found in her drawer? But why not just use the 6s readily available in the drawer?

A final thought is that the police lied about not finding any 12s. They found 12s but said they didn't to see what sort of story PR might concoct. PRs only option here would be to stick with the original story - she bought a pack for JBR and put them in her drawer. She doesn't know why the remainder aren't found. It's also possible that PRs story is true. Since she wouldn't have known how much the police knew, or where exactly this line of questioning was going, she'd have no option but to tell the truth - more or less, with convienient memory lapses thrown in.

I still feel something is wrong here, as no scenario really makes complete sense. An IDI wouldn't bother with redressing, much less switcing from 6s to 12s. If PR is genuinely ignorant of the 12s issue, then JR withheld info from her, but why? If PR knew all long JBR was wearing 12s, why not leave the remainder in JBR's drawer? This makes the story more plausible.

 

[KoldKase]

Very interesting ideas, all.

One thing I will add, just as one thought: maybe what Patsy didn't KNOW when she went into the Atlanta interview in Aug. 2000 was that LE had collected, sorted, and analysed all the underwear from JonBenet's drawer.

Maybe she thought they'd simply not realized the Bloomies were critical as to their huge size. After all, the medical examiner didn't even PHOTOGRAPH those on the body. What a shocker THAT was when Thomas said under oath in his deposition he knew of no such photos taken. I thought medical examiners took photos of EVERYTHING during an autopsy. But it seems it was some time until the BPD finally REALIZED the Bloomies were a HUGE problem in this murder...pun intended.

The "thing I can't put my finger on" that's bothersome about Patsy not knowing the Bloomies were not in the drawer when questioned in Atlanta: if the Bloomies were not in the drawer and Patsy had put them there, who took them all out? That HAD to happen that night, when you think about it, if it did happen. By the time LE was called, any staging or obsconding with evidence was over. If Patsy didn't remove them, who did? Not the BPD/crime scene investigators. That leaves John or Burke or the "intruder". I don't think it was Burke.

But then why would John do that? If he knew the Bloomies were too large, why put them on her? Why then "have to remove" the rest and "get rid" of them? Where did he put them? Somewhere that their "investigators" found them later, but not LE? But WHERE, if they were "found" by some Ramsey investigator?

For that matter, why would an INTRUDER take six pairs of new Bloomies out of the drawer, unwashed and unworn? And then leave them elsewhere in the home for the Ramsey investigator to "find"...IF the package was found by this "investigator". Why wouldn't an INTRUDER just grab a pair from the drawer that was not in a package? Because the RST certainly has stated that the "package" was found with the Ramsey belongings, not the individual pairs no longer in the package. What did this intruder do: look into the drawer and say, Oh! Bloomies! I MUST HAVE THEM! Only, he left them behind in the package?

And that brings us again to the RST disinformation: WHO FOUND THEM, WHERE WERE THEY SPECIFICALLY, WHEN WAS THAT, AND WAS IT THE OPENED PACKAGE WITH THE ONE PAIR MISSING OR NOT?

Okay, I went back and read the posts on this that I collected from jams at the swamp, and she said many things through the years about the Bloomies, but she claims she knows the "person" who had them and it was the whole package: they were NOT loose in the drawer:

jameson
Charter Member
13618 posts Nov-07-03, 10:50 PM (EST) 12. "RE: I didn't know,,,,,"
In response to

Evening - the answers to your questions are coming up, I think. Later in Patsy's interview.
As for the rest of the panties - they were still inthe package. the police did not take them in as evidence - the Ramsey investigators did, however.

This and many more statements collected from jams on this topic are on the threads at FFJ about the Bloomies. Jams consistently said the Bloomies were in the package when found. Obviously that's what she was told, and she's too thick to figure out just because the RST says it doesn't make it true, no matter how much she WANTS it to be. But let's say, for argument's sake, the Ramsey shill who told her this repeatedly was telling the truth about the six missing pairs of Bloomies being found in their original package: where was that package when LE missed it and the Ramsey investigators found it? Patsy said it was in JonBenet's drawer, but that's truly incredible since LE collected 15 pair from the drawer that did belong to JonBenet. Jams is obviously just trying to spin for Patsy.

But even if the package was in the drawer, missed by LE, and found by the Ramsey investigators...WHY WOULD AN INTRUDER TAKE A PAIR OUT TO PUT ON JONBENET ANYWAY? Who would, and why? Not Patsy, who says she undressed and redressed JonBenet in bed asleep. That leaves the killer or JonBenet. Nobody with any sense believes JonBenet took those Bloomies out and wore them, falling down to her knees. But Patsy WANTED us to believe that. Wanted us to believe nobody at the Whites noticed a child with bunched up undies being pulled and pinched and repeatedly adjusted by JonBenet--who hasn't had on an ill fitting pair of undies and done just that, and what child wouldn't be noticed doing that repeatedly? (I saw a 12 year old child doing just that yesterday in public.) Yet Patsy didn't even notice when she undressed and redressed JonBenet in bed.

None of this makes sense. The only thing that makes sense to me is that, the evidence is clear, JonBenet had the paintbrush shoved into her in the basement, next to the paint tray before it was broken and used on the garrote. The longjohns and whatever she had on for underwear were pulled down for that, if she had those on then, and pulled up to redress her. John said Patsy's wrapping material was in the basement. (Remember Smit's packing peanut?) Patsy said she hadn't gotten some presents sent to Atlanta. One of them said Patsy was still wrapping presents that Christmas Day. They both said there were still Christmas presents and Burke's birthday presents in the basement. We can see some kind of Christmas paper in a crime scene photo in the cellar room. Patsy said the Bloomies were a "Christmas present" for her niece. LE said they didn't find the size 12-14 Bloomies in the house. The Ramseys mysteriously did--later--and withheld that evidence from LE for 5 years. Patsy's story changes and stinks any way you look at it.

Sorry, I'm rambling. Best just to ignore me. I am in danger of becoming an old woman doddering around the nursing home mumbling about "Bloomies...Patsy...lies..." in my old age.... :crazy:

 

[UKGuy]

Rashomon, UKGuy, anyone

Something just isn't fitting here. (Or maybe I'm just dense - a distinct possiblity!)

It is a theory of mine, just as yours is a theory. Fact is that the police could not find the size 12s. The inference to be drawn is that they were hidden by the stager of the scene. Patsy was the main stager (evidence: ransom note and her jacket fibers in the locations connected to the 'garrote' scene), therefore it is logical to assume she knew exactly who put the size 12s on JonBenet and why. ...

If they were hidden by the Rs, then they had to be picked up by Pam Paugh during her "evidence gathering" mission. Otherwise, the police find them and they become, potentially, admissible evidence. (Of course, this assumes a thourough and competent search by BPD, which may be an erroneous assumption) OR, the Rs got them out of the house themselves, before Pam did her thing. Either way, this means the Rs were in control of the size 12s, and could have destroyed them. This also means PR is free to concoct a non-linking story for the police - e.g. "I don't know anything about size 12s or where they would have come from". Yet, this did not happen.

I suspect PR bought 12s (for Jenny ?) just as she said, and had to tell that much to the cops for fear they might be able to find out (credit card records?) Otherwise, it's better to destroy the remaining 12s, and deny any knowledge of the 12s.

We now have the question why the 12s were not sent to Jenny as intended? This is fairly easy to explain away - Christmass rush, forgot, didn't have time, blah, blah, blah. I mean a plausible story can be told for not sending them, but really, what did PR have to do ? She didn't work, she had domestic help for household chores, why would she not have gotten around to sending the undies to Jenny? I'm willing to accept the idea that PR just didn't get around to it or forgot. There is an old saying - If you need something done, give it to a busy person to do. Though I'm willing to accept the idea, I'm not compeletly comfortable with it. Perhaps they weren't bought for Jenny at all?

I suspect PR lied about one package of 12s being for JBR - they were absurdly too large for JBR, and the same style was available in JBR's size.
If PR had to tell about buying the 12s, she also had to tell a story that explained why they might have ended up on JBR. The story that PR bought one pack for JBR and placed them in her drawer lends at least a tiny amount of credence to the notion JBR put the 12s on herself. However, the story is less plausible given that no other 12s are found.

I'm not sure that the 12s had to be removed in order to inflict the vaginal injuries. They were loose enough on her that they could have been pushed aside and the dirty deed done w/o taking them off. So, it's possible that JBR was wearing them when taken to the basement.

However, if we assume that the 12s were placed on her as part of a redressing/staging, then if PR's story is true (she bought a pack for JBR and put them in JBR's drawer) then the culprit(s) had to go all the way back up to JBR's bedroom and retrieve the 12s, or had to have the forethought to take both packs into the basement. This means the 12s were put on her for a specific reason. (What reason?) At this point, if we follow an IDI theory, then the intruder takes the 12s away as a trophy - but we are left wondering why he bothered to redress her at all. (the LJs had to come off, or at least down, to inflict the injuries) If we follow and RDI theory, then the Rs certainly know the 12s are not in the drawer, and therefore are not suprised to learn this at the interview, and in fact the Rs know that no other 12s are found. They also know JBR is wearing the Wednesday pair.

It seems unlikely to me that PR is speaking at the interview from a position of ignorance. Even if JR puts the 12s on JBR (and I can see how a man would do that and not necessarily know they are way too big) one of the Rs still made sure the 12s were removed from the house. (either they did it themselves or had Pam get them) This means they probably talked about it with each other, and PR couldn't have been suprised at the interview.

If PR really was suprised by JBR being found in 12s, and no other 12s being found, then that means her co-conspirator put the 12s on JBR and got rid of the remaining 12s w/o telling PR about it. But why would this happen? They had already conspired to stage the scene, and JR had gone to the trouble to make sure the 12s were removed from the house, so why would JR not tell PR about this?

If either R put the 12s on JBR, why? Assuming the pack was not yet open (and it's just an assumption) why open it dress her in absurdly large undies, and get rid of the remainder ? Isn't it better if the remainder (of at least one pack) is found in her drawer? But why not just use the 6s readily available in the drawer?

A final thought is that the police lied about not finding any 12s. They found 12s but said they didn't to see what sort of story PR might concoct. PRs only option here would be to stick with the original story - she bought a pack for JBR and put them in her drawer. She doesn't know why the remainder aren't found. It's also possible that PRs story is true. Since she wouldn't have known how much the police knew, or where exactly this line of questioning was going, she'd have no option but to tell the truth - more or less, with convienient memory lapses thrown in.

I still feel something is wrong here, as no scenario really makes complete sense. An IDI wouldn't bother with redressing, much less switcing from 6s to 12s. If PR is genuinely ignorant of the 12s issue, then JR withheld info from her, but why? If PR knew all long JBR was wearing 12s, why not leave the remainder in JBR's drawer? This makes the story more plausible.

Chrishope,
I have to go so will respond more fully later.

I still feel something is wrong here, as no scenario really makes complete sense. An IDI wouldn't bother with redressing, much less switcing from 6s to 12s.

There is no intruder involved so thats dispensed with.

If PR is genuinely ignorant of the 12s issue, then JR withheld info from her, but why?

Because he was molesting JonBenet and the assault is done in an attempt to obscure prior chronic abuse?

If PR knew all long JBR was wearing 12s, why not leave the remainder in JBR's drawer? This makes the story more plausible.

Because it was not Patsy who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, and if she declined to leave the remaining size-12's in her panty drawer, then why would she answer the question about the size-12's stating she placed them into the drawer. Patsy is patently lying, but from a position of ignorance, she does not know the remaining size-12's are missing.

Its that simple!


.

 

[KoldKase]

Edited after I got distracted by the debate for a while; I tried to clarify some bad writing.

Rashomon, UKGuy, anyone

Something just isn't fitting here. (Or maybe I'm just dense - a distinct possiblity!)

It is a theory of mine, just as yours is a theory. Fact is that the police could not find the size 12s. The inference to be drawn is that they were hidden by the stager of the scene. Patsy was the main stager (evidence: ransom note and her jacket fibers in the locations connected to the 'garrote' scene), therefore it is logical to assume she knew exactly who put the size 12s on JonBenet and why. ...

If they were hidden by the Rs, then they had to be picked up by Pam Paugh during her "evidence gathering" mission. Otherwise, the police find them and they become, potentially, admissible evidence. (Of course, this assumes a thourough and competent search by BPD, which may be an erroneous assumption) OR, the Rs got them out of the house themselves, before Pam did her thing. Either way, this means the Rs were in control of the size 12s, and could have destroyed them. This also means PR is free to concoct a non-linking story for the police - e.g. "I don't know anything about size 12s or where they would have come from". Yet, this did not happen.

I suspect PR bought 12s (for Jenny ?) just as she said, and had to tell that much to the cops for fear they might be able to find out (credit card records?) Otherwise, it's better to destroy the remaining 12s, and deny any knowledge of the 12s.

There are a few possibilities here: one is that the remaining Bloomies were left in the basement--that is where the re-dressing occurred, more than likely. Maybe the package was tucked into a box or with other presents and LE DID miss them. LE did not take everything out of the basement: that would have taken a moving truck, and too bad they didn't go there, isn't it? The Ramseys figured if LE found it, the defense would be the "intruder" took them out of the package down there. But, like the incredible luck the Ramseys have had when it comes to bungling the evidence, LE didn't even find the package. The Bloomies weren't even spotted as too large by the medical examiner, not even photographed on the body!

So why didn't the Ramseys just destroy the package? Maybe they did, for all we know; whose word do we have they didn't? But then LE got a clue and got the financial records and receipts of the Ramseys, maybe cued from the friends who went to New York on the "girl's trip" to New York. There were the Bloomies. So when confronted with that, Patsy had to admit she bought them, didn't she? Now...only to fabricate the story about HOW they ended up on JB in the morgue. Since the the Ramsey lawyers no doubt knew LE had these records, Patsy had her answer ready: she gave them to JonBenet and JonBenet put them on herself. Her story fell apart, though: LE never found the remaining Bloomies. They hadn't thought about that, it seems.

NOW it was a problem that those Bloomies were NOT found by LE. Maybe Lacy's "new investigator" even asked that question. Hence, around the time Lacy took over the case, the story that the Bloomies were "found" by a Ramsey investigator all those years ago and "held" by the RST surfaces AT THE SWAMP.

So is the RST lying totally for the Ramseys? Or did one of their shills really find these Bloomies, and where and when and DETAILS, PLEASE. How do we know the Ramseys DIDN'T buy another package and substitute that package? Put it where it could be "found"? We don't. And neither does LE.

I'm not sure that the 12s had to be removed in order to inflict the vaginal injuries. They were loose enough on her that they could have been pushed aside and the dirty deed done w/o taking them off. So, it's possible that JBR was wearing them when taken to the basement.

However, if we assume that the 12s were placed on her as part of a redressing/staging, then if PR's story is true (she bought a pack for JBR and put them in JBR's drawer) then the culprit(s) had to go all the way back up to JBR's bedroom and retrieve the 12s, or had to have the forethought to take both packs into the basement. This means the 12s were put on her for a specific reason. (What reason?)

Maybe she had on her actual size of underwear and blood got on that pair at some point, or urine. So when "cleaning" the body, someone thought to put on clean underwear. (Which has me trying to remember if urine was found on the too large Bloomies, as there was urine on the longjohns found on the body. I know I once knew the answer to that...sigh.... Brain not in service....)

There were a couple of bloody spots on the large Bloomies as well, which the medical examiner said didn't correspond with blood spots on the body. Some question as to blood found on the gown or blanket...or both...DNA-X mystery evidence, remember. But there was blood, which probably led to the wiping of the body. So maybe the Bloomies were grabbed from the clean package in the basement to put on her, and the soiled ones taken out with the paintbrush tip, duct tape and remaining cord.

If either R put the 12s on JBR, why? Assuming the pack was not yet open (and it's just an assumption) why open it dress her in absurdly large undies, and get rid of the remainder ? Isn't it better if the remainder (of at least one pack) is found in her drawer? But why not just use the 6s readily available in the drawer?

To be clear on the ideas I'm tossing out: If the undies on JB were soiled, then her body was cleaned up, maybe Patsy thought fresh underwear were needed. If a package was in the basement which Patsy knew was there, they were handy. Like you say, easier than running upstairs to get a pair. It must have been hard to think of every aspect of evidence when in a panic; your child is molested, bludgeoned, strangled, and someone may go to prison for a very long time if you can't get this cover up right in a very short time. So if the remaining Bloomies in the package were left in the basement, maybe the package was left with the group of Christmas presents in boxes as they originally were going to be sent, or maybe they were even WRAPPED UP like a present to hide them. Maybe that's what happened to the cord and duct tape and paint brush tip. Or maybe Pam did take the Bloomies out during her raid...or maybe they were put in Patsy's drawer and Pam got them "for Patsy to wear", as instructed. Or maybe wherever they were, they got packed with the Ramseys' belongings eventually and ended up in Atlanta, which is ONE STORY told by the RST, found when the Ramseys were looking for the clothes they wore that night and morning to hand in to LE.... The problem in knowing the truth is that LE was outmatched and intimidated by the Ramseys' money, with Hunter and Hadden making sure the investigation never got off the ground. Because of this, we can NEVER know the truth about any of this evidence because there will never be a trial.

A final thought is that the police lied about not finding any 12s. They found 12s but said they didn't to see what sort of story PR might concoct. PRs only option here would be to stick with the original story - she bought a pack for JBR and put them in her drawer. She doesn't know why the remainder aren't found. It's also possible that PRs story is true. Since she wouldn't have known how much the police knew, or where exactly this line of questioning was going, she'd have no option but to tell the truth - more or less, with convienient memory lapses thrown in.

But then why would the Ramseys make up the story about "finding" the Bloomies package? Even if LE had found it, if Patsy was telling the truth and had no idea one way or the other, why later lie? Lying about finding the Bloomies package and turning it in to LE years later would seem to be really stupid if you are telling the truth about the rest, wouldn't it? And how would that help find the killer of your child?

 

[KoldKase]

Chrishope,

Because he was molesting JonBenet and the assault is done in an attempt to obscure prior chronic abuse?


Because it was not Patsy who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, and if she declined to leave the remaining size-12's in her panty drawer, then why would she answer the question about the size-12's stating she placed them into the drawer. Patsy is patently lying, but from a position of ignorance, she does not know the remaining size-12's are missing.

Its that simple!


.

I find the theory that John could have been the molester plausible. Yes, the too large Bloomies could have been put on by a man who wouldn't think it was any big deal.

But then it's hard to explain why John would remove all the Bloomies from the drawer himself. Why would he think that was important? If he wasn't thinking "These Bloomies are just too big," then why would he think "...so I have to get them out of the drawer," instead of "I'll put on another, smaller pair..."?

And if John alone got the Bloomies out of the presents in the basement, he had to know they were down there to begin with, which seems to have been more Patsy's area. Now that I think about it, it's been mentioned here some of the wrapped packages were opened...? John and/or Patsy talked about that in one of their LE interviews...?

But here is what I find is really hard to figure out: If John was the molester, why would he have to use a paintbrush to do that deed? The use of the paintbrush has always made me feel that the person who used it was not the prior molester. It was used, I think, because that person was very uncomfortable inserting anything into the child like that. A molester wouldn't have had that problem, I don't think. At least, not if he was alone with her. I guess he could have done it "that way" to hide the truth from Patsy if he was trying to dupe her into thinking it was another male in the family she cared about. Which takes me back to the Dec. 17 after hours phone calls to Dr. Beuf's office....

But the use of the paintbrush just seems like something improvised that night out of desperation to cover up the prior/ongoing abuse. Using the paintbrush is certainly not something a parent would do sexually who isn't a sadistic monster, even one who is an abuser. I don't think the Ramseys were sadistic monsters, just flawed humans who got caught in a nightmare of their own making that night. Of course, I could be wrong about that, as I never knew them and I certainly don't know what was happening in their private lives behind closed doors.

 

[KoldKase]

I just thought of another thing: What if Patsy had already sent a package of the Bloomies to her other niece for Christmas...didn't she have more than one niece? Or family friend's little girl? Maybe that was the other package she "can't remember" buying in her 2000 interview, and she got those sent on time.

Or what if she was taking a pair to MELINDA, a present for the Charlevoix Christmas? Could Melinda have worn them? She was small, wasn't she? The whole "Bloomies" panty fad began in 1973, according to the history of Bloomingdale's, when they made them to market to trendy young women. I googled that up a few days ago. Melinda was 22 in '96, right?

I mean, just some ideas, because I think the Bloomies underwear has become a major part of the case, obviously, and the size and Patsy's lies to LE about them never seem to make it onto Lacy's radar...for some reason....

 

[DeeDee249]

PR got herself caught up in another lie with the panties. She admits the panties found on JBR were bought by her, and says that she places the size 12s originally intended for Jenny in JBR's panty drawer. She says this to explain why her daughter was wearing undies far too big for her. After being told that NO other panties in that size were found in the home, she doesn't have a response as to why that is.
PR knows full well that the panties on her body did not come from the oanty drawer, but from a gift meant for Jenny in the basement. But she has to make it look like JBR was taken from her bed wearing what PR had put her to bed in.
Later, when the Rs send the size 12s to Boulder LE, by sending a package, whether opened or not, PR is proving that her original statement about the panties being in the drawer was a lie.

 

[KoldKase]

We don't. We do know they sent a set of size 12 panties to LE many months after the murder, long after they moved back to Atlanta. I have never seen it mentioned whether they were an unopened set or the remaining 6 pairs from the set that included the pair found on JBR.
If the set was new and unopened, it really doesn't prove that particular set was in the R home the evening of Dec. 26th, 1996. They could have been purchased specifically for the purpose of sending them back to Boulder LE.

The package of size 12-14 Bloomies which Wood gave to Mary Lacy in 2002 is alleged to have been the remaining six pairs, still in the package. Jams has said this at the swamp many times. There were news articles which stated Wood gave the Bloomies to Lacy when Lacy "took over" the investigation, if memory serves. I think we have this all copied and laid out at FFJ on the Bloomies threads.

But either way, the chain of custody issue means we cannot accept this as evidence of anything but that the Ramseys admit they handed in a package of Bloomies like those found on JonBenet. Patsy already admitted buying a package, but couldn't remember if it was two, and the evidence exists corroborating that she did buy them. She also claimed she gave them to JonBenet, also her word alone on that.

 

[DeeDee249]

The package of size 12-14 Bloomies which Wood gave to Mary Lacy in 2002 is alleged to have been the remaining six pairs, still in the package. Jams has said this at the swamp many times. There were news articles which stated Wood gave the Bloomies to Lacy when Lacy "took over" the investigation, if memory serves. I think we have this all copied and laid out at FFJ on the Bloomies threads.

To me, this confirms that just that one Wednesday pair was taken out of the pack and put on JBR that night. It also proves that PR was lying when she told LE that she had put them in JBR's panty drawer after she decided not to give them to Jenny. I'd also love to see the remaining 6 pairs tested for DNA. though if Lacy had them, I am sure they'll never be.

 

[JMO8778]

Rashomon, UKGuy, anyone

Something just isn't fitting here. (Or maybe I'm just dense - a distinct possiblity!)

It is a theory of mine, just as yours is a theory. Fact is that the police could not find the size 12s. The inference to be drawn is that they were hidden by the stager of the scene. Patsy was the main stager (evidence: ransom note and her jacket fibers in the locations connected to the 'garrote' scene), therefore it is logical to assume she knew exactly who put the size 12s on JonBenet and why. ...

If they were hidden by the Rs, then they had to be picked up by Pam Paugh during her "evidence gathering" mission. Otherwise, the police find them and they become, potentially, admissible evidence. (Of course, this assumes a thourough and competent search by BPD, which may be an erroneous assumption) OR, the Rs got them out of the house themselves, before Pam did her thing. Either way, this means the Rs were in control of the size 12s, and could have destroyed them. This also means PR is free to concoct a non-linking story for the police - e.g. "I don't know anything about size 12s or where they would have come from". Yet, this did not happen.

I suspect PR bought 12s (for Jenny ?) just as she said, and had to tell that much to the cops for fear they might be able to find out (credit card records?) Otherwise, it's better to destroy the remaining 12s, and deny any knowledge of the 12s.

We now have the question why the 12s were not sent to Jenny as intended? This is fairly easy to explain away - Christmass rush, forgot, didn't have time, blah, blah, blah. I mean a plausible story can be told for not sending them, but really, what did PR have to do ? She didn't work, she had domestic help for household chores, why would she not have gotten around to sending the undies to Jenny? I'm willing to accept the idea that PR just didn't get around to it or forgot. There is an old saying - If you need something done, give it to a busy person to do. Though I'm willing to accept the idea, I'm not compeletly comfortable with it. Perhaps they weren't bought for Jenny at all?

I suspect PR lied about one package of 12s being for JBR - they were absurdly too large for JBR, and the same style was available in JBR's size.
If PR had to tell about buying the 12s, she also had to tell a story that explained why they might have ended up on JBR. The story that PR bought one pack for JBR and placed them in her drawer lends at least a tiny amount of credence to the notion JBR put the 12s on herself. However, the story is less plausible given that no other 12s are found.

I'm not sure that the 12s had to be removed in order to inflict the vaginal injuries. They were loose enough on her that they could have been pushed aside and the dirty deed done w/o taking them off. So, it's possible that JBR was wearing them when taken to the basement.

However, if we assume that the 12s were placed on her as part of a redressing/staging, then if PR's story is true (she bought a pack for JBR and put them in JBR's drawer) then the culprit(s) had to go all the way back up to JBR's bedroom and retrieve the 12s, or had to have the forethought to take both packs into the basement. This means the 12s were put on her for a specific reason. (What reason?) At this point, if we follow an IDI theory, then the intruder takes the 12s away as a trophy - but we are left wondering why he bothered to redress her at all. (the LJs had to come off, or at least down, to inflict the injuries) If we follow and RDI theory, then the Rs certainly know the 12s are not in the drawer, and therefore are not suprised to learn this at the interview, and in fact the Rs know that no other 12s are found. They also know JBR is wearing the Wednesday pair.

It seems unlikely to me that PR is speaking at the interview from a position of ignorance. Even if JR puts the 12s on JBR (and I can see how a man would do that and not necessarily know they are way too big) one of the Rs still made sure the 12s were removed from the house. (either they did it themselves or had Pam get them) This means they probably talked about it with each other, and PR couldn't have been suprised at the interview.

If PR really was suprised by JBR being found in 12s, and no other 12s being found, then that means her co-conspirator put the 12s on JBR and got rid of the remaining 12s w/o telling PR about it. But why would this happen? They had already conspired to stage the scene, and JR had gone to the trouble to make sure the 12s were removed from the house, so why would JR not tell PR about this?

If either R put the 12s on JBR, why? Assuming the pack was not yet open (and it's just an assumption) why open it dress her in absurdly large undies, and get rid of the remainder ? Isn't it better if the remainder (of at least one pack) is found in her drawer? But why not just use the 6s readily available in the drawer?

A final thought is that the police lied about not finding any 12s. They found 12s but said they didn't to see what sort of story PR might concoct. PRs only option here would be to stick with the original story - she bought a pack for JBR and put them in her drawer. She doesn't know why the remainder aren't found. It's also possible that PRs story is true. Since she wouldn't have known how much the police knew, or where exactly this line of questioning was going, she'd have no option but to tell the truth - more or less, with convienient memory lapses thrown in.

I still feel something is wrong here, as no scenario really makes complete sense. An IDI wouldn't bother with redressing, much less switcing from 6s to 12s. If PR is genuinely ignorant of the 12s issue, then JR withheld info from her, but why? If PR knew all long JBR was wearing 12s, why not leave the remainder in JBR's drawer? This makes the story more plausible.

since the R's DID turn in a pack of size 12's,then I don't think LE lied at all...BUT,the R's had to have known it wasn't a lie,in order to feel ok about turning them in..and WHAM,there you have it...just the fact they turned them in means they knew more than they let on!
as far as the R's not talking to each other,with this interview coming up,I believe they were afraid their house and perhaps even their cars had been wire-tapped and they were probably advised to say as little as possible.or maybe they thought they'd covered the q's that might be asked of them,and for some reason,the issue of the underwear was either forgotten or overlooked.

 

[rashomon]

[UKGuy]:
That is if Patsy is clever enough to think up an explanation that links JonBenet with the purchased size-12's, how come she fails to realize that since the size-12's are no longer in the drawer, never mind the house, that that explanation will be immediately shot down?

Failing to realize she had dug a hole for herself was obviously part of Patsy's psychological make-up. One could also argue for example, that no one in their right mind would think of writing a cover-up ransom note with a pen and on paper from their own home, leaving three rambling pages in her own handwriting she disguised so lousily that every layperson can see she wrote it when comparing Pastsy's sample note to the original.
The investigators should never have let out Patsy of those many traps she had fallen into. They should have kept pushing instead, backing her it a corner to a degree where she would see no escape. But this never happened.
Locking the suspects into the contradictions of their own statements is SOP in an interrogation. Stagers of scenes always make mistakes, and putting on the too large Bloomies was one of those mistakes.

Not quite, but I know you reckon the fibers place Patsy at the crime-scene, making her the likely perpetrator?

Strictly speaking, the correct term here is "the main stager of the scene".
But it is logical to assume that the main stager of the scene was also the one who inflicted the head blow.

That you can connect Patsy to the paintbrush, does not exclude anyone else from being connected to it, and the splinter does not connect to Patsy in the same manner as say her fibers would, so your following inference about the staging is flawed.

The wooden splinter from the paintbrush was found exactly where the acute wound had been inflicted, which again allows the inference that the paintbrush was used to to stage both the garrote scene AND the genital wound (to suggest an assault by a sexaul predator, with the side effect that signs of prior chronic sexual abuse were to be hidden also ).
Occam's razor applied, this leaves Patsy as the most likely person who did both.
For from the jacket fibers in the paint tray, we know it was Patsy who took out the paintbrush from the tray in the first place, and a scenario in which she handed John the paintbrush to inflict a genital wound and then took it out of his hands to do the "rest" (the so called 'garrote' staging) is not very likely.

Simply because John may have assaulted JonBenet vaginally then redressed her in the size-12's and longjohns, leaving Patsy ignorant about the size-12's. Patsy may later have applied the garrote, duct-tape, wrist-restraints etc?

You really believe John "assaulted" JonBenet vaginally with a paintbrush?
If yes, why do you think he did that?
In your theory, was JonBenet alive and conscious when she was "assaulted" by John?

My theory or interpretation may be found to be 100% invalid but it is a cogent alternative to your linear PDI, and incorporates the available forensic evidence, including a reason as to why Patsy lies at the Atlanta interview.

I'm a huge advocate for incorporating forensic evidence. Imo the splinter from the paintbrush found in exactly the same location where the vaginal wound was inflicted allows the inference that the paintbrush was used by one person who staged both the garrote scene and inflicted the genital wound.

 

[Ames]

The package of size 12-14 Bloomies which Wood gave to Mary Lacy in 2002 is alleged to have been the remaining six pairs, still in the package. Jams has said this at the swamp many times. There were news articles which stated Wood gave the Bloomies to Lacy when Lacy "took over" the investigation, if memory serves. I think we have this all copied and laid out at FFJ on the Bloomies threads.

But either way, the chain of custody issue means we cannot accept this as evidence of anything but that the Ramseys admit they handed in a package of Bloomies like those found on JonBenet. Patsy already admitted buying a package, but couldn't remember if it was two, and the evidence exists corroborating that she did buy them. She also claimed she gave them to JonBenet, also her word alone on that.

So, the Ramsey's didn't turn over the package until 2002? 6 Years after the murder? Or were then just not handed over to Mary Lacy until then?

 

[KoldKase]

So, the Ramsey's didn't turn over the package until 2002? 6 Years after the murder? Or were then just not handed over to Mary Lacy until then?

The alleged package of size 12-14 Bloomies bought by Patsy Ramsey in New York, and from which they claim the pair found on JonBenet came, was given to Lacy by Lin Wood in 2002. That was when Lacy "took over" the murder investigation from the BPD after Lin Wood threatened in person to sue the BPD: Lacy's congenial takeover of the case was another benchmark in injustice, since this was a step essentially dictated BY THE PRIME SUSPECTS THEMSELVES. I'd bed Lacy was in on it all along. Her takeover included taking all the case files from the BPD and keeping them in her office for her soon-to-be-hired "new investigator" to use...and Lou Smit, with whom she "consulted", as well.

Imagine walking into this case in 2003, as Tom Bennett did, and trying to get up to speed on five plus years of evidence, previous investigative work, and over 30,000 pages and more in the file. And being charged with doing so in the infamous murder of JonBenet Ramsey, looking to "solve" the case.... But I digress....

When the Bloomies were found, and by whom, well that story has changed through the years. We really don't know. We really don't know if it is the actual package. We don't even know who had that package, for how long, and when it changed hands. That's called a broken chain of custody to the "nth degree". It would never be admitted in court, unless maybe there was DNA tested from Bloomies in the alleged package bought by Patsy and that DNA MATCHED the DNA now said to be from the INTRUDER. We do not know if it or any of the alleged remaining Bloomies were ever tested for DNA, though, as Lacy isn't telling that, is she? And we don't know that if tested, it matched, and I'd bet MONEY Lacy would NEVAH tell us if it did. We don't know if the plastic package was tested for fingerprints, either. Nothing.

All we know is that in 2000 during an interview in Atlanta with Boulder LE, Patsy Ramsey was asked extensive questions about the package of Bloomies and told how important this info was to the investigation. She admitted to LE during that intercourse that she had "heard" about the Bloomies being an issue.

We know that SOMEONE from the RST claims that he/she FOUND this package of Bloomies SOMEWHERE in ONE of the Ramsey's houses and KEPT IT all those years until they decided to turn it over to Lin Wood, who turned it over to Mary Lacy in 2002.

Think about that. Five years and they withheld such IMPORTANT EVIDENCE from the BPD? This IS the evidence directly related to the EVER HERALDED INTRUDER DNA by the RST, remember--IF IT IS IN FACT THE ACTUAL PACKAGE OF BLOOMIES AND WE MAY NEVER KNOW THAT. But KNOWING that this was CRITICAL CASE EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO THE INTRUDER, they waited FIVE YEARS, UNTIL the BPD would never get to test it...and THEN handed it in to RAMSEY FRIEND AND SUPPORTER MARY (KEENAN at the time) LACY?

(I'm sorry, I just cannot get over how obvious the Ramseys were in their guilt and how 12 years have gone by with the Boulder DA's Office running interference for the Ramseys FROM DAY ONE. Maybe I keep writing about it so much because subconsciously I'm hoping that if I point it out enough, the TRUTH FAIRY will finally wave her wand and justice will wake up and do the right thing.) :behindbar

 

[UKGuy]

Very interesting ideas, all.

One thing I will add, just as one thought: maybe what Patsy didn't KNOW when she went into the Atlanta interview in Aug. 2000 was that LE had collected, sorted, and analysed all the underwear from JonBenet's drawer.

Maybe she thought they'd simply not realized the Bloomies were critical as to their huge size. After all, the medical examiner didn't even PHOTOGRAPH those on the body. What a shocker THAT was when Thomas said under oath in his deposition he knew of no such photos taken. I thought medical examiners took photos of EVERYTHING during an autopsy. But it seems it was some time until the BPD finally REALIZED the Bloomies were a HUGE problem in this murder...pun intended.

The "thing I can't put my finger on" that's bothersome about Patsy not knowing the Bloomies were not in the drawer when questioned in Atlanta: if the Bloomies were not in the drawer and Patsy had put them there, who took them all out? That HAD to happen that night, when you think about it, if it did happen. By the time LE was called, any staging or obsconding with evidence was over. If Patsy didn't remove them, who did? Not the BPD/crime scene investigators. That leaves John or Burke or the "intruder". I don't think it was Burke.

But then why would John do that? If he knew the Bloomies were too large, why put them on her? Why then "have to remove" the rest and "get rid" of them? Where did he put them? Somewhere that their "investigators" found them later, but not LE? But WHERE, if they were "found" by some Ramsey investigator?

For that matter, why would an INTRUDER take six pairs of new Bloomies out of the drawer, unwashed and unworn? And then leave them elsewhere in the home for the Ramsey investigator to "find"...IF the package was found by this "investigator". Why wouldn't an INTRUDER just grab a pair from the drawer that was not in a package? Because the RST certainly has stated that the "package" was found with the Ramsey belongings, not the individual pairs no longer in the package. What did this intruder do: look into the drawer and say, Oh! Bloomies! I MUST HAVE THEM! Only, he left them behind in the package?

And that brings us again to the RST disinformation: WHO FOUND THEM, WHERE WERE THEY SPECIFICALLY, WHEN WAS THAT, AND WAS IT THE OPENED PACKAGE WITH THE ONE PAIR MISSING OR NOT?

Okay, I went back and read the posts on this that I collected from jams at the swamp, and she said many things through the years about the Bloomies, but she claims she knows the "person" who had them and it was the whole package: they were NOT loose in the drawer:



This and many more statements collected from jams on this topic are on the threads at FFJ about the Bloomies. Jams consistently said the Bloomies were in the package when found. Obviously that's what she was told, and she's too thick to figure out just because the RST says it doesn't make it true, no matter how much she WANTS it to be. But let's say, for argument's sake, the Ramsey shill who told her this repeatedly was telling the truth about the six missing pairs of Bloomies being found in their original package: where was that package when LE missed it and the Ramsey investigators found it? Patsy said it was in JonBenet's drawer, but that's truly incredible since LE collected 15 pair from the drawer that did belong to JonBenet. Jams is obviously just trying to spin for Patsy.

But even if the package was in the drawer, missed by LE, and found by the Ramsey investigators...WHY WOULD AN INTRUDER TAKE A PAIR OUT TO PUT ON JONBENET ANYWAY? Who would, and why? Not Patsy, who says she undressed and redressed JonBenet in bed asleep. That leaves the killer or JonBenet. Nobody with any sense believes JonBenet took those Bloomies out and wore them, falling down to her knees. But Patsy WANTED us to believe that. Wanted us to believe nobody at the Whites noticed a child with bunched up undies being pulled and pinched and repeatedly adjusted by JonBenet--who hasn't had on an ill fitting pair of undies and done just that, and what child wouldn't be noticed doing that repeatedly? (I saw a 12 year old child doing just that yesterday in public.) Yet Patsy didn't even notice when she undressed and redressed JonBenet in bed.

None of this makes sense. The only thing that makes sense to me is that, the evidence is clear, JonBenet had the paintbrush shoved into her in the basement, next to the paint tray before it was broken and used on the garrote. The longjohns and whatever she had on for underwear were pulled down for that, if she had those on then, and pulled up to redress her. John said Patsy's wrapping material was in the basement. (Remember Smit's packing peanut?) Patsy said she hadn't gotten some presents sent to Atlanta. One of them said Patsy was still wrapping presents that Christmas Day. They both said there were still Christmas presents and Burke's birthday presents in the basement. We can see some kind of Christmas paper in a crime scene photo in the cellar room. Patsy said the Bloomies were a "Christmas present" for her niece. LE said they didn't find the size 12-14 Bloomies in the house. The Ramseys mysteriously did--later--and withheld that evidence from LE for 5 years. Patsy's story changes and stinks any way you look at it.

Sorry, I'm rambling. Best just to ignore me. I am in danger of becoming an old woman doddering around the nursing home mumbling about "Bloomies...Patsy...lies..." in my old age.... :crazy:

KoldKase,

One thing I will add, just as one thought: maybe what Patsy didn't KNOW when she went into the Atlanta interview in Aug. 2000 was that LE had collected, sorted, and analysed all the underwear from JonBenet's drawer.

This much is self evident from her answers!

Maybe she thought they'd simply not realized the Bloomies were critical as to their huge size. After all, the medical examiner didn't even PHOTOGRAPH those on the body. What a shocker THAT was when Thomas said under oath in his deposition he knew of no such photos taken. I thought medical examiners took photos of EVERYTHING during an autopsy. But it seems it was some time until the BPD finally REALIZED the Bloomies were a HUGE problem in this murder...pun intended.

I reckon Patsy did not recognize how important the size-12's were, she was insufficiently briefed, which suggests a legal division between her and John, otherwise her version of events re the size-12's would have been much more consistent.

The "thing I can't put my finger on" that's bothersome about Patsy not knowing the Bloomies were not in the drawer when questioned in Atlanta: if the Bloomies were not in the drawer and Patsy had put them there, who took them all out? That HAD to happen that night, when you think about it, if it did happen. By the time LE was called, any staging or obsconding with evidence was over. If Patsy didn't remove them, who did? Not the BPD/crime scene investigators. That leaves John or Burke or the "intruder". I don't think it was Burke.

What you have put your finger on is the part of Patsy's story that she has been briefed to present to the Atlanta interviewers, they must have known this would be a topic given it was all over the press and media about oversized underwear etc. But if Patsy is in on the deal, then she will know there are no size-12's left in the panty drawer, so the inference must be the intruder took them when exiting the premises. I reckon she does not know the remainder are missing, otherwise a better cover story would be forthcoming?

But then why would John do that? If he knew the Bloomies were too large, why put them on her? Why then "have to remove" the rest and "get rid" of them? Where did he put them? Somewhere that their "investigators" found them later, but not LE? But WHERE, if they were "found" by some Ramsey investigator?

John is redressing JonBenet in size-12's because he has something to hide, also this is what he knows matches most closely what JonBenet was wearing. Myabe the size-12's were in Patsy's dresser drawer, maybe it was in his bedroom that JonBenet was wiped down with her size-6 Wednesday Bloomingdales? The size-12's may simply have been put back into Patsy's drawer, suitable wiped for prints etc?

For that matter, why would an INTRUDER take six pairs of new Bloomies out of the drawer, unwashed and unworn? And then leave them elsewhere in the home for the Ramsey investigator to "find"...IF the package was found by this "investigator". Why wouldn't an INTRUDER just grab a pair from the drawer that was not in a package? Because the RST certainly has stated that the "package" was found with the Ramsey belongings, not the individual pairs no longer in the package. What did this intruder do: look into the drawer and say, Oh! Bloomies! I MUST HAVE THEM! Only, he left them behind in the package?

No intruder needs to redress JonBenet at all, it is a redundant move, it serves no purpose. JonBenet is dead, redressing her in shiny new size-12's will not detract from that fact regardless of how she is presented. No intruder is concerned if everyone else is immediately aware that JonBenet has been molested!


.

 

[UKGuy]

I find the theory that John could have been the molester plausible. Yes, the too large Bloomies could have been put on by a man who wouldn't think it was any big deal.

But then it's hard to explain why John would remove all the Bloomies from the drawer himself. Why would he think that was important? If he wasn't thinking "These Bloomies are just too big," then why would he think "...so I have to get them out of the drawer," instead of "I'll put on another, smaller pair..."?

And if John alone got the Bloomies out of the presents in the basement, he had to know they were down there to begin with, which seems to have been more Patsy's area. Now that I think about it, it's been mentioned here some of the wrapped packages were opened...? John and/or Patsy talked about that in one of their LE interviews...?

But here is what I find is really hard to figure out: If John was the molester, why would he have to use a paintbrush to do that deed? The use of the paintbrush has always made me feel that the person who used it was not the prior molester. It was used, I think, because that person was very uncomfortable inserting anything into the child like that. A molester wouldn't have had that problem, I don't think. At least, not if he was alone with her. I guess he could have done it "that way" to hide the truth from Patsy if he was trying to dupe her into thinking it was another male in the family she cared about. Which takes me back to the Dec. 17 after hours phone calls to Dr. Beuf's office....

But the use of the paintbrush just seems like something improvised that night out of desperation to cover up the prior/ongoing abuse. Using the paintbrush is certainly not something a parent would do sexually who isn't a sadistic monster, even one who is an abuser. I don't think the Ramseys were sadistic monsters, just flawed humans who got caught in a nightmare of their own making that night. Of course, I could be wrong about that, as I never knew them and I certainly don't know what was happening in their private lives behind closed doors.

KoldKase,

I find the theory that John could have been the molester plausible. Yes, the too large Bloomies could have been put on by a man who wouldn't think it was any big deal.

Patsy would simply know not to use them, any pair of size-6's would do from her panty drawer, since if you are going to argue that JonBenet redressed herself in those size-12's then the same argument can be applied to a non-Wednesday pair of size-6's. I'm claiming that John assaulted JonBenet with some object, or his finger as per Coroner Meyer's verbatim remarks about digital penetration. For all we know it also John who broke the paintbrush then handed it to Patsy, breaking those brushes is not particularly easy. John's motive is an attempt to obscure the prior chronic molestation which he realizes the forthcoming autopsy will reveal.

But then it's hard to explain why John would remove all the Bloomies from the drawer himself. Why would he think that was important? If he wasn't thinking "These Bloomies are just too big," then why would he think "...so I have to get them out of the drawer," instead of "I'll put on another, smaller pair..."?

John is just thinking underwear Wednesday pair, ah these will do, he does not want to draw attention to his behaviour. His rationale for removing the size-12's may simply be evidential as per the flashlight, which may also be part of a staging?

And if John alone got the Bloomies out of the presents in the basement, he had to know they were down there to begin with, which seems to have been more Patsy's area. Now that I think about it, it's been mentioned here some of the wrapped packages were opened...? John and/or Patsy talked about that in one of their LE interviews...?

The Bloomies may have been in the basement or in Patsy's bedroom dresser drawer. It is public knowledge that John would have been aware of both locations. So a case for either party can be made.

But here is what I find is really hard to figure out: If John was the molester, why would he have to use a paintbrush to do that deed? The use of the paintbrush has always made me feel that the person who used it was not the prior molester. It was used, I think, because that person was very uncomfortable inserting anything into the child like that. A molester wouldn't have had that problem, I don't think. At least, not if he was alone with her. I guess he could have done it "that way" to hide the truth from Patsy if he was trying to dupe her into thinking it was another male in the family she cared about. Which takes me back to the Dec. 17 after hours phone calls to Dr. Beuf's office....

I don't share your sentiments regarding the use of the paintbrush. The person who, on a prior occassion, molested JonBenet will have no compunction, now that she is dead, in employing the paintbrush, after all it is staging, not a prior molesters signature. Anyway a finger may have been used as per Coroner Meyer's remarks at the autopsy.

But the use of the paintbrush just seems like something improvised that night out of desperation to cover up the prior/ongoing abuse. Using the paintbrush is certainly not something a parent would do sexually who isn't a sadistic monster, even one who is an abuser. I don't think the Ramseys were sadistic monsters, just flawed humans who got caught in a nightmare of their own making that night. Of course, I could be wrong about that, as I never knew them and I certainly don't know what was happening in their private lives behind closed doors.

If the paintbrush was used to assault JonBenet then I reckon you are reading to much into the personality issue. They want to fabricate a staging, one that presents an apparent reason for JonBenet's demise and her sexual assault.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Failing to realize she had dug a hole for herself was obviously part of Patsy's psychological make-up. One could also argue for example, that no one in their right mind would think of writing a cover-up ransom note with a pen and on paper from their own home, leaving three rambling pages in her own handwriting she disguised so lousily that every layperson can see she wrote it when comparing Pastsy's sample note to the original.
The investigators should never have let out Patsy of those many traps she had fallen into. They should have kept pushing instead, backing her it a corner to a degree where she would see no escape. But this never happened.
Locking the suspects into the contradictions of their own statements is SOP in an interrogation. Stagers of scenes always make mistakes, and putting on the too large Bloomies was one of those mistakes.

Strictly speaking, the correct term here is "the main stager of the scene".
But it is logical to assume that the main stager of the scene was also the one who inflicted the head blow.

The wooden splinter from the paintbrush was found exactly where the acute wound had been inflicted, which again allows the inference that the paintbrush was used to to stage both the garrote scene AND the genital wound (to suggest an assault by a sexaul predator, with the side effect that signs of prior chronic sexual abuse were to be hidden also ).
Occam's razor applied, this leaves Patsy as the most likely person who did both.
For from the jacket fibers in the paint tray, we know it was Patsy who took out the paintbrush from the tray in the first place, and a scenario in which she handed John the paintbrush to inflict a genital wound and then took it out of his hands to do the "rest" (the so called 'garrote' staging) is not very likely.

You really believe John "assaulted" JonBenet vaginally with a paintbrush?
If yes, why do you think he did that?
In your theory, was JonBenet alive and conscious when she was "assaulted" by John?

I'm a huge advocate for incorporating forensic evidence. Imo the splinter from the paintbrush found in exactly the same location where the vaginal wound was inflicted allows the inference that the paintbrush was used by one person who staged both the garrote scene and inflicted the genital wound.

rashomon,

You really believe John "assaulted" JonBenet vaginally with a paintbrush?
If yes, why do you think he did that?

Sure why not, why must it be Patsy? John may have used his finger to assault JonBenet, or he may have used the paintbrush, it was simply expedient, not something planned out in detail.

John may have assaulted JonBenet for one of two reasons, or both, to mask prior chronic molestation, and to create an acute sexual injury which could be imputed to an intruder. In a PDI this step can still be taken since it is seen simply as staging on Patsy's behalf?

In your theory, was JonBenet alive and conscious when she was "assaulted" by John?

Alive yes, concious maybe, maybe not, since another potential staging element is the use of the flashlight to bludgeon JonBenet.

Try thinking of your PDI as a staging commandeered by John?


.

 

[UKGuy]

The alleged package of size 12-14 Bloomies bought by Patsy Ramsey in New York, and from which they claim the pair found on JonBenet came, was given to Lacy by Lin Wood in 2002. That was when Lacy "took over" the murder investigation from the BPD after Lin Wood threatened in person to sue the BPD: Lacy's congenial takeover of the case was another benchmark in injustice, since this was a step essentially dictated BY THE PRIME SUSPECTS THEMSELVES. I'd bed Lacy was in on it all along. Her takeover included taking all the case files from the BPD and keeping them in her office for her soon-to-be-hired "new investigator" to use...and Lou Smit, with whom she "consulted", as well.

Imagine walking into this case in 2003, as Tom Bennett did, and trying to get up to speed on five plus years of evidence, previous investigative work, and over 30,000 pages and more in the file. And being charged with doing so in the infamous murder of JonBenet Ramsey, looking to "solve" the case.... But I digress....

When the Bloomies were found, and by whom, well that story has changed through the years. We really don't know. We really don't know if it is the actual package. We don't even know who had that package, for how long, and when it changed hands. That's called a broken chain of custody to the "nth degree". It would never be admitted in court, unless maybe there was DNA tested from Bloomies in the alleged package bought by Patsy and that DNA MATCHED the DNA now said to be from the INTRUDER. We do not know if it or any of the alleged remaining Bloomies were ever tested for DNA, though, as Lacy isn't telling that, is she? And we don't know that if tested, it matched, and I'd bet MONEY Lacy would NEVAH tell us if it did. We don't know if the plastic package was tested for fingerprints, either. Nothing.

All we know is that in 2000 during an interview in Atlanta with Boulder LE, Patsy Ramsey was asked extensive questions about the package of Bloomies and told how important this info was to the investigation. She admitted to LE during that intercourse that she had "heard" about the Bloomies being an issue.

We know that SOMEONE from the RST claims that he/she FOUND this package of Bloomies SOMEWHERE in ONE of the Ramsey's houses and KEPT IT all those years until they decided to turn it over to Lin Wood, who turned it over to Mary Lacy in 2002.

Think about that. Five years and they withheld such IMPORTANT EVIDENCE from the BPD? This IS the evidence directly related to the EVER HERALDED INTRUDER DNA by the RST, remember--IF IT IS IN FACT THE ACTUAL PACKAGE OF BLOOMIES AND WE MAY NEVER KNOW THAT. But KNOWING that this was CRITICAL CASE EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO THE INTRUDER, they waited FIVE YEARS, UNTIL the BPD would never get to test it...and THEN handed it in to RAMSEY FRIEND AND SUPPORTER MARY (KEENAN at the time) LACY?

(I'm sorry, I just cannot get over how obvious the Ramseys were in their guilt and how 12 years have gone by with the Boulder DA's Office running interference for the Ramseys FROM DAY ONE. Maybe I keep writing about it so much because subconsciously I'm hoping that if I point it out enough, the TRUTH FAIRY will finally wave her wand and justice will wake up and do the right thing.) :behindbar

KoldKase,
As you suggest the returned size-12's dont count, evidentially they have no value since their provenance cannot be vouched for, not unless Lin Wood wants say he found them on a panty hunt?

What is important is that the Ramsey's decided to return any at all. This tells us they knew there were no size-12's found in the Ramsey house, and with Patsy's Atlanta Bloomer, I like that pun, they have to corroborate Patsy's statement about JonBenet dressing herself in those size-12's, hence the returned pack. Otherwise it means that an intruder redressed JonBenet and left with six-pairs of size-12's which can be purchased anyday at Bloomingdales?

And we don't know that if tested, it matched, and I'd bet MONEY Lacy would NEVAH tell us if it did. We don't know if the plastic package was tested for fingerprints, either. Nothing.

No, No, No! Of course Lacy would tell us, it would be screaming at you in your morning paper and on the internet news. If they matched it means that the size-12's returned by the Ramsey's are indeed kosher, furthermore it strengthens the case that an intruder did it. Silence implies an absence of corroboration and a broken chain of custody!

 

[Ames]

The alleged package of size 12-14 Bloomies bought by Patsy Ramsey in New York, and from which they claim the pair found on JonBenet came, was given to Lacy by Lin Wood in 2002. That was when Lacy "took over" the murder investigation from the BPD after Lin Wood threatened in person to sue the BPD: Lacy's congenial takeover of the case was another benchmark in injustice, since this was a step essentially dictated BY THE PRIME SUSPECTS THEMSELVES. I'd bed Lacy was in on it all along. Her takeover included taking all the case files from the BPD and keeping them in her office for her soon-to-be-hired "new investigator" to use...and Lou Smit, with whom she "consulted", as well.

Imagine walking into this case in 2003, as Tom Bennett did, and trying to get up to speed on five plus years of evidence, previous investigative work, and over 30,000 pages and more in the file. And being charged with doing so in the infamous murder of JonBenet Ramsey, looking to "solve" the case.... But I digress....

When the Bloomies were found, and by whom, well that story has changed through the years. We really don't know. We really don't know if it is the actual package. We don't even know who had that package, for how long, and when it changed hands. That's called a broken chain of custody to the "nth degree". It would never be admitted in court, unless maybe there was DNA tested from Bloomies in the alleged package bought by Patsy and that DNA MATCHED the DNA now said to be from the INTRUDER. We do not know if it or any of the alleged remaining Bloomies were ever tested for DNA, though, as Lacy isn't telling that, is she? And we don't know that if tested, it matched, and I'd bet MONEY Lacy would NEVAH tell us if it did. We don't know if the plastic package was tested for fingerprints, either. Nothing.

All we know is that in 2000 during an interview in Atlanta with Boulder LE, Patsy Ramsey was asked extensive questions about the package of Bloomies and told how important this info was to the investigation. She admitted to LE during that intercourse that she had "heard" about the Bloomies being an issue.

We know that SOMEONE from the RST claims that he/she FOUND this package of Bloomies SOMEWHERE in ONE of the Ramsey's houses and KEPT IT all those years until they decided to turn it over to Lin Wood, who turned it over to Mary Lacy in 2002.

Think about that. Five years and they withheld such IMPORTANT EVIDENCE from the BPD? This IS the evidence directly related to the EVER HERALDED INTRUDER DNA by the RST, remember--IF IT IS IN FACT THE ACTUAL PACKAGE OF BLOOMIES AND WE MAY NEVER KNOW THAT. But KNOWING that this was CRITICAL CASE EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO THE INTRUDER, they waited FIVE YEARS, UNTIL the BPD would never get to test it...and THEN handed it in to RAMSEY FRIEND AND SUPPORTER MARY (KEENAN at the time) LACY?

(I'm sorry, I just cannot get over how obvious the Ramseys were in their guilt and how 12 years have gone by with the Boulder DA's Office running interference for the Ramseys FROM DAY ONE. Maybe I keep writing about it so much because subconsciously I'm hoping that if I point it out enough, the TRUTH FAIRY will finally wave her wand and justice will wake up and do the right thing.) :behindbar

Thanks for this post, and answering my question. You know, I have seen the package that these Bloomies come in, and IMO...in order to get the WEDS one out, which would have been in the middle, the rest of them would have to have been taken out first. A man's hand wouldn't have fit into that package to just grab out the WEDS pair, and I don't believe that a woman's hand would have fit either, the first ones would have had to have been taken out before the WEDS. SOOO...are we supposed to assume that this "intruder" placed the size 12 Bloomies back in the package, or even IN ORDER, (minus the WEDS. of course)? I would just LOVE to see the package that the Ramsey's turned over. What sort of intruder takes panties out of a package, to get just the perfect one, with the right day of the week on it, and then replaces the others back? And as you said...those panties would have touch DNA from an "unknown" person, too...just like the ones that JB was wearing had..if an intruder truly handled that package (not to mention his fingeprints..as you stated...on the outside of the package). I would love to know...the answer to these questions.
1. When the Rams turned over the package of Bloomies, were all...but, the WED pair inside?
2. Were they in order, minus the WED pair?

An intruder taking the time to pull out just the right panties, and placing the others back in the package is hard ENOUGH to imagine. BUT..placing them back in order? Now that is complete B.S.

EDITED TO ADD: I just went to FFJ and looked at the photograph of the package of Bloomies that Jayelles bought a couple of years ago, its like a pouch and it comes with a zipper. I recall seeing a pack that the panties came in back in 1996 that was a TUBE, completely long and round.

 

[JMO8778]

that's why I think the package they returned was unopened.
and if the gutter queens on that nameless site say it was the opened one,you can better believe they have an agenda to meet and an ax to grind,so....all the more reason to think they were unopened.

 

[KoldKase]

While looking up some stuff, I was rereading Patsy's 1998 interview with Haney (DA investigator) and look what I had forgotten: Patsy confirms that JonBenet had lots of day of the week undies, but nothing about them being "Bloomies". Also, Patsy is clear that JonBenet had a bath Christmas Eve Day and not on Christmas Day, plus that JonBenet changed her underwear on Christmas Day:

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

16 THOMAS HANEY: Did JonBenet have

17 panties with the names of each day of the week

18 on it?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

20 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. And did she

21 wear those according to the day of the week or

22 was it just kind of --

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Just whatever.

24 THOMAS HANEY: Did she know, pay

25 much attention to what day of the week it was?

0237

1 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

2 THOMAS HANEY: So whatever would

3 come out of the drawer?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nodding).

5 THOMAS HANEY: Would she or could

6 she have ever exchanged panties with some other

7 girl that she was playing with?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, yeah, probably.

9 You know, if they went swimming or something and

10 got something wet or, you know, it wasn't

11 unusual to have left clothes at our house or

12 somebody else's clothes at somebody else's

13 house.

14 THOMAS HANEY: So they just kind of

15 go in the laundry, maybe get sorted out?

16 PATSY RAMSEY: Right, then the next

17 thing you see, say oh, here, something of yours,

18 and --

19 THOMAS HANEY: Could anybody else

20 have worn hers, say the ones that she was

21 wearing Christmas night, the next morning?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: Um --

23 THOMAS HANEY: The ones that she

24 was wearing, you said when you put her to bed

25 Christmas night. She wasn't swimming or

0238

1 anything Christmas Eve --

2 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

3 THOMAS HANEY: -- at the Whites or

4 there wouldn't have involved -- or did it

5 involve dressing up or trying things on?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

7 (Answering while question being

8 asked).

9 PATSY RAMSEY: You mean would

10 somebody have had her underwear on?

11 THOMAS HANEY: Something along

12 those lines.

13 PATSY RAMSEY: It would have been

14 very unlikely. I can't imagine, no.

15 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you remember the

16 white panties with the printed rosebuds with the

17 words of the day on it, did that sound like

18 JonBenet's panties?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been.

20 She had a lot of 'em, so, I don't know.

21 TRIP DeMUTH: And how --

22 PATSY RAMSEY: If I saw them, I

23 might recall them.

24 TRIP DeMUTH: How often would she

25 change her underwear? Was she good about

0239

1 changing them daily?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, yes, yes.

3 Usually we bathed every day and --

4 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

5 PATSY RAMSEY: -- changed her

6 underwear.

7 TRIP DeMUTH: Let me ask you if you

8 remember the last time you remember her bathing?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: I believe -- I

10 believe the 24th, before we went to church. We

11 went to 4 o'clock service, so we got dressed up.

12 And I don't believe that we did on Christmas

13 Day, because that was too much for (INAUDIBLE).

14 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recall her

15 another time, her washing her hands after that

16 time that you remember her bath on the 24th?

17 And we talked yesterday about a lot of times

18 that she could have. But specifically do you

19 have any remember --

20 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I can't

21 specifically say when she would have washed her

22 hands.

23 TRIP DeMUTH: After she bathed

24 though on the 24th, she would have had clean

25 underwear on after that?

0240

1 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, yeah.

2 I am sure she would have had clean

3 underwear on the 25th, though, she'd just not

4 have taken a bath.

5 TRIP DeMUTH: She would have

6 changed them Christmas morning?

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Or Christmas

8 afternoon, getting dressed. Christmas morning,

9 you know (indicating a noise).