Ramsey Clothing Journey

[KoldKase]

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.

Sorry, I don't follow you. Can you clarify? :waitasec:

 

[KoldKase]

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.

Good points and questions.

As to the alleged package of the '96 Bloomies turned over to Lacy by Wood: jams has given a number of stories about this over the years, but few details. I suspect she doesn't know the details, or at least didn't when she first learned of the Ramsey claim they had the original package. What detail she did eventually give was that the package alleged to be the original was opened and had the remaining six pairs in it. I don't believe I remember her saying she saw the actual package herself, though, just that she knew the person who had it at some point.

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.

The Bloomies brand of undies was not exclusively the little girl Day of the Week package. I found some "history" pages on the Bloomies undies, so I'll post them for you to read. Seems Bloomies originally made them for trendy young women. If you look at the Bloomingdale's catalogue online, you can find sets of Bloomies for women decidedly NOT for little girls.... :blushing: Maybe that was the "tube" package...? If you go to the end of one of the threads, I posted some photos of the Bloomies in the zip package from the 2000 online catalogue someone saved years ago for us.

 

[KoldKase]

Here you go, Ames:

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Bloomingdales-Inc-Company-History.html

"On Saturdays, Bloomingdale's is the biggest party in town," Traub told the New York Times on the store's 100th anniversary, "It is a place where the young make dates for the night. We are proud that more and more people call us 'Bloomie's."' Bloomingdale's capitalized on this close relationship with the young and trendy by stamping the name "Bloomie's" on ladies' panties as part of its launch for intimate apparel in 1973. As word of the store's incredible atmosphere spread, Bloomingdale's became a major tourist destination, and anything stamped with the name "Bloomie's" was considered a hot souvenir. The store's cachet was secured when the Queen of England visited the store in 1976.

 

[KoldKase]

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.

Oh, now there's an interesting idea. They did get separate lawyers in the first week, even if they all belonged to the same law firm. Surely Patsy's lawyer--Burke, was his name, was it?--and John's lawyers in the Hadden firm wouldn't have compromised their individual clients with a conflict of interest? Okay, maybe they would, but you could be right, in lieu of Patsy's answers to similar questions in 2000, when she changes her story as she is confronted with the problems in it. I have to think about this, because they both used Lin Wood by 2000, but Wood was and is not a criminal attorney.

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?

I'm thinking...thinking.... So...maybe that was the idea: let LE think the intruder took them. Even better, right? Patsy couldn't deny she bought them. She couldn't deny they were on JonBenet. She would have known they weren't in the drawer, though, if they were in the basement to be wrapped and sent. but used on JonBenet in a panic. So why say she put them in the drawer? I think that's your question? Back to not realizing that LE took all the underwear in for testing and analysis...?

Maybe a factor that threw Patsy was that she really didn't KNOW how HUGE the Bloomies were on JonBenet. That's clear from her statement "they weren't falling down", because from the model, if it's even reasonably close to accurate, yeah, they WOULD HAVE BEEN falling down, or at least ridiculously uncomfortable on a child who would complain, as all parents know. If the underwear was put on JonBenet after she was wiped down and immobile, that would explain Patsy's surprise at LE's questions in 2000: she WOULDN'T have know how huge they were and that the story JonBenet put them on herself that day and wore them to the White's doesn't work, so LE would focus on the Bloomies so much...? Also, I don't believe Patsy thought in her wildest dreams that a minute, partial cell of degraded DNA found in the Bloomies would end up being so important that the Bloomies themselves would be critical. So I guess what I'm wondering is if Patsy just didn't "get" the problems she faced when the questions about the Bloomies started in Atlanta. She'd skated through them in 1998, after all.

Okay, I thought of another possibility: maybe John grabbed the whole pack instead of one pair and took them downstairs to the basement, and Patsy didn't realize that, just remembered they were in the drawer, not somewhere else when they got eventually got "found". But then your point arises, if I'm following you: if they had FOUND the original pack, or one of the investigators had, why didn't Patsy know they had found them?

You know, this jogs a memory about Patsy and John and their PIs. Remember in '98 when Haney asked Patsy if she knew about the prior molestation of JonBenet, and she said no and Armistead, who was in the interview with her and her lawyer, said they'd never "told" her? That never made ANY sense to me, because I thought, if you wanted to KNOW who murdered your child and were paying lots of money to investigators to find out, wouldn't it be IMPERATIVE for them to ASK YOU about something like that, since it could be KEY if the killer was someone whom you knew who had access to JonBenet before that night? I guess the legal context is this: defense lawyers NEVER ask their clients if they're guilty, and they proceed to represent them AS IF THEY ARE. So maybe the Ramsey investigators never told Patsy about "finding" the package of Bloomies...? Maybe Patsy did think LE had them after all....

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?

Okay, that's another theory.... It's really amazing, isn't it, how hard we have to work on something that would be simple if the RST wanted to tell us the facts of where this alleged package of Bloomies was found. Their motto: Obscure, Evade, Obstruct.

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!

I agree. And no intruder is going to run up and down the stairs for clean underwear while the family sleeps nearby, either, IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

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

An admirable summation!

 

[KoldKase]

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.

I agree. Well said.

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.

Maybe. Since I believe John also lied to LE in quite a few tall tales he told, like the "broken window" story, and that John also had NO PROBLEM with evading LE forever, and that John's TV performances are not so convincing without Patsy's sharp eye to keep him from mucking up...I can't shake the belief that John was at least in on the cover up and knows what happened.

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.[/quote]

You have jumped to some conclusions here that may be right, but may not be. "Most likely" doens't mean she absolutely did this or that. Occam's Razor is a theory, not an infallible law of physics. I'm not disagreeing, just saying....

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

I know this is to UKGuy, but I did address this issue in a post above with a couple of possibilities about this, if you're interested....

 

[UKGuy]

Oh, now there's an interesting idea. They did get separate lawyers in the first week, even if they all belonged to the same law firm. Surely Patsy's lawyer--Burke, was his name, was it?--and John's lawyers in the Hadden firm wouldn't have compromised their individual clients with a conflict of interest? Okay, maybe they would, but you could be right, in lieu of Patsy's answers to similar questions in 2000, when she changes her story as she is confronted with the problems in it. I have to think about this, because they both used Lin Wood by 2000, but Wood was and is not a criminal attorney.




I'm thinking...thinking.... So...maybe that was the idea: let LE think the intruder took them. Even better, right? Patsy couldn't deny she bought them. She couldn't deny they were on JonBenet. She would have known they weren't in the drawer, though, if they were in the basement to be wrapped and sent. but used on JonBenet in a panic. So why say she put them in the drawer? I think that's your question? Back to not realizing that LE took all the underwear in for testing and analysis...?

Maybe a factor that threw Patsy was that she really didn't KNOW how HUGE the Bloomies were on JonBenet. That's clear from her statement "they weren't falling down", because from the model, if it's even reasonably close to accurate, yeah, they WOULD HAVE BEEN falling down, or at least ridiculously uncomfortable on a child who would complain, as all parents know. If the underwear was put on JonBenet after she was wiped down and immobile, that would explain Patsy's surprise at LE's questions in 2000: she WOULDN'T have know how huge they were and that the story JonBenet put them on herself that day and wore them to the White's doesn't work, so LE would focus on the Bloomies so much...? Also, I don't believe Patsy thought in her wildest dreams that a minute, partial cell of degraded DNA found in the Bloomies would end up being so important that the Bloomies themselves would be critical. So I guess what I'm wondering is if Patsy just didn't "get" the problems she faced when the questions about the Bloomies started in Atlanta. She'd skated through them in 1998, after all.

Okay, I thought of another possibility: maybe John grabbed the whole pack instead of one pair and took them downstairs to the basement, and Patsy didn't realize that, just remembered they were in the drawer, not somewhere else when they got eventually got "found". But then your point arises, if I'm following you: if they had FOUND the original pack, or one of the investigators had, why didn't Patsy know they had found them?

You know, this jogs a memory about Patsy and John and their PIs. Remember in '98 when Haney asked Patsy if she knew about the prior molestation of JonBenet, and she said no and Armistead, who was in the interview with her and her lawyer, said they'd never "told" her? That never made ANY sense to me, because I thought, if you wanted to KNOW who murdered your child and were paying lots of money to investigators to find out, wouldn't it be IMPERATIVE for them to ASK YOU about something like that, since it could be KEY if the killer was someone whom you knew who had access to JonBenet before that night? I guess the legal context is this: defense lawyers NEVER ask their clients if they're guilty, and they proceed to represent them AS IF THEY ARE. So maybe the Ramsey investigators never told Patsy about "finding" the package of Bloomies...? Maybe Patsy did think LE had them after all....




Okay, that's another theory.... It's really amazing, isn't it, how hard we have to work on something that would be simple if the RST wanted to tell us the facts of where this alleged package of Bloomies was found. Their motto: Obscure, Evade, Obstruct.



I agree. And no intruder is going to run up and down the stairs for clean underwear while the family sleeps nearby, either, IMO.

KoldKase,

I'm thinking...thinking.... So...maybe that was the idea: let LE think the intruder took them. Even better, right? Patsy couldn't deny she bought them. She couldn't deny they were on JonBenet. She would have known they weren't in the drawer, though, if they were in the basement to be wrapped and sent. but used on JonBenet in a panic. So why say she put them in the drawer? I think that's your question? Back to not realizing that LE took all the underwear in for testing and analysis...?

Thats it, always the same question, seems like Patsy simply did not know?

So I guess what I'm wondering is if Patsy just didn't "get" the problems she faced when the questions about the Bloomies started in Atlanta. She'd skated through them in 1998, after all.

More so if she was ignorant about the fact that someone had removed the size-12's. Since she is blithely lying away to the Atlanta interviewers like a double your money contestant!

But then your point arises, if I'm following you: if they had FOUND the original pack, or one of the investigators had, why didn't Patsy know they had found them?

Yes back to square one. Especially since we now know that they sent a pack back, this must mean they knew post Atlanta interview that no size-12's were found in the house.

wouldn't it be IMPERATIVE for them to ASK YOU about something like that, since it could be KEY if the killer was someone whom you knew who had access to JonBenet before that night?

Depends on the PI's and their motivation, I'll bet the Ramsey case represents loadsa $$'s, so no nasty questions were ever put to Patsy. But at some TV interview she publicly defends John against allegations of incest citing that when she was away overnight recieving cancer therapy, JonBenet was being looked after by Nedra Paugh. e.g. thats Patsy stating in public she did not trust John, so roped Nedra in to keep JonBenet safe duh!

Okay, that's another theory.... It's really amazing, isn't it, how hard we have to work on something that would be simple if the RST wanted to tell us the facts of where this alleged package of Bloomies was found. Their motto: Obscure, Evade, Obstruct.

Sure but the facts tell us Patsy lied at the Atlanta interview, telling us she was ignorant that there was no size-12's in the house.

1. Patsy purchased 2 packs of size-12's.
2. 1 pack of size-12's was deposited into JonBenet's panty drawer.
3. No size-12's to be found anywhere in the house.
4. Ramsey's return a pack of size-12 Bloomingdale underwear.

They can only fabricate step 4. if they know step 3. is true.


.

 

[UKGuy]

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

KoldKase,
Patsy is just speculating about the underwear she always forgets if she did or did not change on the 25th. From memory she is explicit that John took no part in assisting JonBenet wash or dress on the 25th!

Its possible the soiled pants left on the bathroom floor were what JonBenet removed prior to dressing fro the White's, with the soiling being normal, par for the course?


.

 

[KoldKase]

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?

Okay, gotcha' here. But regarding my statement about Lacy not telling us if she had the remaining pairs tested from the alleged original package returned by Wood, if they found DNA in those matching the DNA from the pair on JonBenet, you say:

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!

I don't follow. If panties from the package of DNA the Ramseys turned in matched DNA found on JonBenet's undies, that would prove the DNA was already in the Bloomies before they were put ONTO JonBenet, wouldn't it?

 

[UKGuy]

Okay, gotcha' here. But regarding my statement about Lacy not telling us if she had the remaining pairs tested from the alleged original package returned by Wood, if they found DNA in those matching the DNA from the pair on JonBenet, you say:



I don't follow. If panties from the package of DNA the Ramseys turned in matched DNA found on JonBenet's undies, that would prove the DNA was already in the Bloomies before they were put ONTO JonBenet, wouldn't it?

KoldKase,

I don't follow. If panties from the package of DNA the Ramseys turned in matched DNA found on JonBenet's undies, that would prove the DNA was already in the Bloomies before they were put ONTO JonBenet, wouldn't it?

Yes you are correct, sorry about that, I just thought about the dna matching which makes them the original pack!

.

 

[KoldKase]

Jmpo, but I don't think Patsy lied about the Bloomies from a position of ignorance (ignorance meaning she had no idea that someone else (John) put them on JonBenet). I believe she knew exactly who redressed the victim and why. It was either her or John directed by her.
But since Patsy made the mistake of hiding the rest of the size 12 set, all she could do when questioned about them, was to talk her way out by being very evasive in her replies.

Okay, I just found several posts on page 5 that I missed because I got behind and worked backward.

So I read your post about the Bloomies and John and Holly Smith, etc. UKGuy, and you make a lot of points.

But then this is also plausible, rashomon.

So I have to give it to rashomon: she picked the EXACT hat that fits this case!

 

[UKGuy]

Okay, I just found several posts on page 5 that I missed because I got behind and worked backward.

So I read your post about the Bloomies and John and Holly Smith, etc. UKGuy, and you make a lot of points.

But then this is also plausible, rashomon.

So I have to give it to rashomon: she picked the EXACT hat that fits this case!

KoldKase,
Ok thats fine but how come if Patsy made the mistake of hiding the rest of the size 12 set, does she decide to tell the interviewer I placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer. Only to be told we found no size-12's in that drawer. From then on Patsy's amnesia is apparent. e.g Patsy is evasive once she knows she has been caught out lying!

That behaviour may make sense to you and rashomon, but it does not to me.



.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase,

Its possible the soiled pants left on the bathroom floor were what JonBenet removed prior to dressing fro the White's, with the soiling being normal, par for the course?


.

Holly Smith said that the underwear in JonBenet's drawer was soiled. I take that to mean it wasn't properly bleached, if she had "skid mark" issues. So it would seem that was normal for JonBenet. The soiled underwear on the floor would seem to be from that day, I'd guess, but Patsy "doesn't know", I believe she said, when asked directly about these by Haney in '98.

What I find strange, and I know people are different, is that Patsy wouldn't at least have a good guess as to when those soiled clothes were left in the floor of her child's room. I know it was Christmas and lots of stuff going on, but Patsy spent that day in the home, all day, packing, dying her hair, playing with the kids...so I find it odd that she wouldn't have ventured into JonBenet's room and picked up the floor, or noticed dirty clothes lying in the floor.

If JonBenet took those soiled clothes off and left them there when she dressed to go to the Whites, if Patsy had noticed clothes on the floor before that and not picked up anything, shouldn't there be two sets of clothes on the floor at least? But if Patsy saw NO clothes in the floor, why wouldn't she know that JonBenet then later left the ones in the picture there that afternoon?

You see, when Patsy "didn't remember" things that are just not that hard to think about, something so important it could be the link to finding her child's killer, a red flag goes up.

OH, thanks for the info on Holly Smith's book. I didn't know she'd written one. I must check it out! Have you read it?

 

[rashomon]

KoldKase,
Ok thats fine but how come if Patsy made the mistake of hiding the rest of the size 12 set, does she decide to tell the interviewer I placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer. Only to be told we found no size-12's in that drawer. From then on Patsy's amnesia is apparent. e.g Patsy is evasive once she knows she has been caught out lying!

That behaviour may make sense to you and rashomon, but it does not to me.

I suppose Patsy didn't think LE would actually go through the underwear in the drawer and compare sizes.

 

[UKGuy]

Holly Smith said that the underwear in JonBenet's drawer was soiled. I take that to mean it wasn't properly bleached, if she had "skid mark" issues. The soiled underwear on the floor would seem to be from that day, I'd guess, but Patsy "doesn't know", I believe when asked directly about these by Haney in '98.

What I find strange, and I know people are different, is that Patsy wouldn't at least have a good guess as to when those soiled clothes were left in the floor of her child's room. I know it was Christmas and lots of stuff going on, but Patsy spent that day in the home all day, packing, dying her hair, playing with the kids...so I find it odd that she wouldn't have ventured into JonBenet's room and picked up the floor, or noticed that dirty clothes lying in the floor.

If JonBenet took those soiled clothes off and left them there when she dressed to go to the Whites, if Patsy had noticed clothes on the floor before that and not picked up anything, shouldn't there be two sets of clothes on the floor at least? But if Patsy saw NO clothes in the floor, why wouldn't she know that JonBenet then later left the ones in the picture there that afternoon?

You see, when Patsy "didn't remember" things that are just not that hard to think about, something so important it could be the link to finding her child's killer, a red flag goes up.

OH, thanks for the info on Holly Smith's book. I didn't know she'd written one. I must check it out! Have you read it?

KoldKase,

Holly Smith said that the underwear in JonBenet's drawer was soiled. I take that to mean it wasn't properly bleached, if she had "skid mark" issues. The soiled underwear on the floor would seem to be from that day, I'd guess, but Patsy "doesn't know", I believe when asked directly about these by Haney in '98.

Yes this is what I assume also. Although I am not 100% certain since, soiled may mean soiled as in not washed, yet stored away. Holly Smith leaves out the Ramsey case in her book, which is an excellent read, worth purchasing. Similarly Steve Thomas left out the information about the soiled underwear that Holly Smith made public, so who knows what is yet to be revealed?

If JonBenet took those soiled clothes off and left them there when she dressed to go to the Whites, if Patsy had noticed clothes on the floor before that and not picked up anything, shouldn't there be two sets of clothes on the floor at least? But if Patsy saw NO clothes in the floor, why wouldn't she know that JonBenet then later left the ones in the picture there that afternoon?

Patsy is evasive on this issue too, she cites amnesia as a reason for not noticing if the soiled pants were on the bathroom floor when she went to fetch the longjohns for JonBenet.

What makes the soiled pants interesting is that as per Holly Smith those pants are normal, for JonBenet at least e.g. unlikely to be a source of parental anger.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I suppose Patsy didn't think LE would actually go through the underwear in the drawer and compare sizes.

rashomon,
Yet it is their size that makes them significant for us? I cannot accept that Patsy would elect to redress JonBenet in size-12's, then remove all size-12's from the house. Then at a later point say I placed the size-12's into JonBenet's drawer, knowing full well, there are none there!

This means the intruder stole JonBenet's remaining six pairs of pants, duh!



.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Yet it is their size that makes them significant for us? I cannot accept that Patsy would elect to redress JonBenet in size-12's, then remove all size-12's from the house. Then at a later point say I placed the size-12's into JonBenet's drawer, knowing full well, there are none there!

This means the intruder stole JonBenet's remaining six pairs of pants, duh!

I believe Patsy took a size 12 pair from the gift package in the basement without thinking much about how thoroughly LE would later rummage through the drawers comparing the sizes.

 

[UKGuy]

I believe Patsy took a size 12 pair from the gift package in the basement without thinking much about how thoroughly LE would later rummage through the drawers comparing the sizes.

rashomon,
Thats fine, but it does not explain her subsequent behaviour. Why should Patsy elect for size-12's when a pair of size-6's will be available upstairs or even in the spin-drier? Remember her position is that JonBenet dressed herself in those size-12's, so that means she could have dressed herself in any other pair of size-6's?

I must leave now but will be back later.
.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase,
Ok thats fine but how come if Patsy made the mistake of hiding the rest of the size 12 set, does she decide to tell the interviewer I placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer. Only to be told we found no size-12's in that drawer. From then on Patsy's amnesia is apparent. e.g Patsy is evasive once she knows she has been caught out lying!

That behaviour may make sense to you and rashomon, but it does not to me.



.

Oh, I was just kidding about rashomon's hat. You do know the story from which it came? It's a classic piece of Asian lit in which the story of a murder is told from three points of view and they all saw something "different" and come to different conclusions.

I can't say what was in Patsy's mind. What you theorize makes sense, of course, but that could be totally accidental, like the phantom DNA making it into the case.

Maybe Patsy jumped the shark when she said up front, "I gave JonBenet the package and she put them on herself." But think about it: where was she going to go after that opening gambit? She gave them to JonBenet in the basement and she put them on? If Patsy knew LE had that receipt, and of course she did, she HAD to admit she bought them. She also KNEW one pair was on JonBenet and FROM THE BIGGER PACKAGE. What excuse did she have about the Bloomies NOT being in the drawer? Other than "the intruder got them"? Patsy never actually seemed surprised LE didn't have them, not even inquisitive.

The fly in Patsy's ointment was the size issue, I believe. That's what LE kept drilling her about, because that was the part that exposed the lies.

So was Patsy really lying about putting the Bloomies in JonBenet's room/drawer, thinking once again she'd get away with it?

Or was there some other reason Patsy was lying about JonBenet wearing the Bloomies and she didn't know that the Bloomies weren't in the drawer?

That's the issue, right?

Six of one, half dozen of another. Either way, Patsy lied, IMO. So there are many possibilities. I guess I'm just having trouble finding one THE answer. But maybe I will have a breakthrough.... :woohoo:

 

[KoldKase]

Okay, now I'm back in Patsy's FIRST LE interview with Thomas. And that's her first story about dressing JonBenet that day, and it's different than the second and third interviews. Years apart, of course, but in the first one, Patsy says she got the kids dressed to go to the Whites.

In the first interview, Patsy also said:

TT: So John carries JonBenet upstairs, puts her to bed. You pull up the bed sheets. You find this top for her to wear or you just. . .

PR: We just left her top on her.

WE decided not to change the top, Patsy? It's odd she used "WE", isn't it? She and John maintained most of the time John carried JB to bed, Patsy followed, John left and Patsy pulled off the black velvet jeans and then put on the longjohns.

Well, I'm done for the night. Thanks for the interesting debate. Later.