Size 12 Panties

[BloodshotEye]

JonBenet was not 're-dressed', she had her panties pulled down and later the intruder simply pulled them back up, but she was not re-dressed or changed into new panties.
And there is no indication that the intruder was in any way familiar with the layout of the basement rooms.

I used the term "re-dressed", as PR's answers to questioning, did not seem to suggest that she dressed JB in the Size 12s. Additionally, I used the term, as my post reflects my thoughts on the speculation that someone "changed" JB's underwear.

If PR cannot seem to account for why JB was wearing the Size 12s, I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty, that JB did not "change" or was not assisted in "changing" her underwear.

I personally, do not believe in the intruder theory. However, in deference to those who do, I speculated that an intruder (handyman, etc.) would have been able to move about quietly, and know where they wanted to go - if they were familiar with the layout of the house.

Whether or not you subscribe to the intruder theory, or the "family member theory", someone appeared to be familiar with the layout of the house, including the basement. So much so, that the basement door latch, was fastened.

 

[blueclouds]

Only if you're foolish enough to believe the Ramseys, and find "nothing mysterious" about their lies, excuses, and selective memory recall.

I'm a former researcher and I'm foolish enough to believe in the "intruder" theory. That doesn't mean I "buy" everything regarding the Ramsey's but I think they were railroaded. How is it that so many here believe in their guilt, but did not sit on the grand jury's hearing to hear all the evidence? Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that an intruder could have done this?

I'm not "PRO RAMSEY"..... I'm pro intruder. There's a difference and I do believe that Toth has a lot of valid points.


Another quote of Shylock: "How about because the molestation is best described as childlike."

If this perp was "new" to his experimenting, it would be more childlike than experienced. Many molesters start out with playful little things. I've heard of fathers using crayons on their daughters, chalk, etc.. first.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

bluecloud, I'm both pro-Ramsey and pro-intruder. Not everyone here is convinced one or more of the Ramseys is guilty of JonBenét's murder.

Not every person who molests children is interested in "rape" as in physically, sexually forcing themselves on children. Some aren't capable of sexual intercourse, some are interested in sexual contact that is much less than intercourse.

The sexual assault on JonBenét could have been much worse, but it did cause her to bleed from injury to her vaginal canal and her hymen.

 

[blueclouds]

Ok, my mistake Pigeon. I know better than to "generalize" too much. I do realize there are several pro-intruder people here.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Didn't mean it to indicate you were making a mistake, just that others here feel as you do, and that's not "foolish" at all.

 

[BloodshotEye]

BlueClouds: Your thoughts on a possible intruder, being very inexperienced, is interesting. Perhaps early on in this aberrant behavior (transitioning from one type of behavior, to that which involved committing acts upon a person), there might be a sense of remorse, which would be consistant with the careful (?) way the body was wrapped in the blanket.

I will try to keep an open mind, and consider this as a possibility. However, I have a tough time overcoming my bias. I too, sided with the "intruder theory", until the amusing "kidnapping" letter, and a few other weird aspects of this case, were released to the public. True, I am not privy to the Grand Jury testimony, or the enhanced 911 phone call. I have tried to make the intruder theory, hang together - in spite of the strange testimony. And I simply cannot string together a liklihood scenario for that theory. Perhaps it is because we are lacking a *advertiser censored* load of information. Don't know.

 

[blueclouds]

Thank you Bloodshot. I have to say that I have tried to keep an open mind that they (family members) could be responsible. What makes it hard is the DNA found on the underwear and under her finger nails as well as other things. DNA points away from anyone who's been tested. Also, there's no evidence of prior abuse or anything wrong with the Ramsey's. That makes it a little less chance that they are the perps but not impossible.

Unfortunately, anything is possible with this story. I do hope JB can rest in peace one day.

 

[BlueCrab]

Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that an intruder could have done this?

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT drag their feet and refuse to cooperate with the police and not spontaneously answer all police questions.

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT lie to the cops about Burke being in bed at 5:52 A.M. when he wasn't, thus destroying the credibility of everything else they said happened that morning.

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT say they didn't search the basement looking for JonBenet before they called 911 when common sense said of course they searched the basement, and if they searched the basement then of course they found JonBenet long before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 A.M.

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT try to fly out of state that afternoon and leave their child lying dead on the floor without family members in town to care for her and take care of the proceedings that had to be done.

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT immediately hire lawyers for every family member and then use the legal system to intimidate those who want to openly discuss the case and the three people who were known to be in the house with JonBenet that night -- John, Patsy, and Burke.

JMO

 

[BloodshotEye]

Yes, agreed BlueCloud. The DNA is another bag of worms.

The curious thing about the DNA testing, is how those second hand reports discuss the test results "for those individuals who were tested. I would like to see a reliable document (laboratory documentation), that lists those immediate and extended family members or others, who were tested, and those who were not tested. If some obvious people were not tested, I am only left to wonder why not?

Are we left only to speculate, that the DNA phoresis for the DNA under JB's nails, is so unique, that it can be stated with 100% certainty, that there is absolutely no simularity (similar bands, etc.) with an immediate or extended family member who has not been tested?

The manner in which the DNA test results are reported, is kind of weisel wording to me, and leads to more speculation.

Additionally, is there any liklihood, that the DNA tested, was not present as a result of the event or circumstances that claimed JB's life? I know that's kind of a weird statement, but it has been on my mind.

In any case, you are right - anything is surely possible.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Parents looking for a child who was just plain "missing" would probably look high and low for the child before calling police.

But parents who find a ransom note and a missing child would call police immediately.

 

[blueclouds]

Parents were utterly devastated. They DID ANSWER questions on the first, second & third day. THEY DID provide all blood, hair and anything else requested immediately. It is a MYTH that they did not cooperate the first day or two.

AFTER they were being treated like suspects, they lawyered up... and I would too. (although I would take a lie detector test as soon as I felt able) but that even might not be for weeks.

Friends of ours had their child murdered by a serial killer in Canada (clifford olson) and no one saw the mom for almost 6 months. She literally stayed in bed... literally.

 

[Toth]

Additionally, is there any liklihood, that the DNA tested, was not present as a result of the event or circumstances that claimed JB's life? I know that's kind of a weird statement, but it has been on my mind.

Whenever a defendant is linked to dna found at the crime scene his defense lawyer always comes up with weird explanations. I don't quite know what explanation you might accept for a man's dna being in a six year old girl's panties and under her fingernails after she is attacked and presumably scratched him.

on-edit: You can talk about JonBenet touching a playmate or a toilet or something,,, but I think adult rape and murder victims have friends and also use the toilet too. Yet dna tests stand up in court in thier cases.

Oh, and No male Ramsey means just that. Not John Ramsey, Not Burke Ramsey. They DID take samples from Burke too, even though having both Johns and Patsy's dna made it less necessary.

 

[BlueCrab]

Parents looking for a child who was just plain "missing" would probably look high and low for the child before calling police.

But parents who find a ransom note and a missing child would call police immediately.

No they wouldn't. They would search the whole house, including the basement and the yard outside, before calling 911. The Ramseys did neither. JonBenet could be suffocating in the basement; or freezing to death outside. Every second counted -- unless they already knew where JonBenet was.

JMO

 

[Toth]

Upon finding a ransom note, I would never search anywhere. Would only call 911. Ransom note implies she is being held prisoner someplace far away. No thought to search nearby. Would never occur to me.

 

[Britt]

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT drag their feet and refuse to cooperate with the police and not spontaneously answer all police questions.

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT lie to the cops about Burke being in bed at 5:52 A.M. when he wasn't, thus destroying the credibility of everything else they said happened that morning.

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT say they didn't search the basement looking for JonBenet before they called 911 when common sense said of course they searched the basement, and if they searched the basement then of course they found JonBenet long before the 911 call was placed at 5:52 A.M.

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT try to fly out of state that afternoon and leave their child lying dead on the floor without family members in town to care for her and take care of the proceedings that had to be done.

Because the parents of a child murdered by an intruder would NOT immediately hire lawyers for every family member and then use the legal system to intimidate those who want to openly discuss the case and the three people who were known to be in the house with JonBenet that night -- John, Patsy, and Burke.

:clap::clap::clap:​

And then there were three. One of them is a killer.​

 

[Shylock]

If this perp was "new" to his experimenting, it would be more childlike than experienced. Many molesters start out with playful little things. I've heard of fathers using crayons on their daughters, chalk, etc.. first.

Blueclouds, that has to be one of the silliest ideas I have ever read. "Playful little things"??? How "playful" is a garrotte? If we are to believe in some crazy intruder theory, we must believe that an adult was evil enough to choke the life out of a little girl, but mamby-pamby when it comes to sexual pleasure. That's just nuts.

The sexual molestation of JonBenet was either done by a kid playing "doctor", or it was staging by a parent to make it look like a sexual crime along with being a kidnapping. The dictionary being open and dog-eared to the word "incest" tells us it was the kid.

 

[Shylock]

Parents were utterly devastated. They DID ANSWER questions on the first, second & third day. THEY DID provide all blood, hair and anything else requested immediately. It is a MYTH that they did not cooperate the first day or two.

You have your facts wrong, Blueclouds. Yes, the Ramseys did FULLY cooperate with the police the first day. How could they not--they were trying to pull off a kidnapping scam. What did you expect them to say to the police, "our daughter has been kidnapped and we're not talking to you".

After the body was found, the Ramseys lawyered up and stopped talking to the police. They were supposedly too doped-up to be interviewed. The lawyers told the BPD that if they had questions they should fax them to their law office. That's HARDLY cooperation.

As far as the blood and hair samples, that is called non-testimonial evidence which their lawyers told them they either had to freely give up or a court order would forced them to.

 

[blueclouds]

It was 3 days before they LAWYERED UP. When JB was found, they STILL went and gave samples, answered questions and such. If you're quoting media, a lot of their facts came from tabloids - THAT MUCH IS TRUE! Remember Chris Wolf?

 

[Islander]

According to Schiller (page 27 paper back) John asked Mike Bynum to represent him sometime around 7:30 p.m. on December 26, the same day that the body was found. On December 27, when Detective Mason reiterated to John that his and Patsy’s contribution to the investigation would be vital to finding JB’s killer, John responded that he could not set a time and date for the interview. We all have read when Patsy was drugged up on Valium, but John could have walked in to that police station at any time, along with his lawyers if he wished, but he did not do so. That doesn’t sound like full cooperation to me.

 

[Shylock]

It was 3 days before they LAWYERED UP. When JB was found, they STILL went and gave samples

No, it was about 6 hours. And they didn't go anywhere and give samples, they were taken at the house.

BlueClouds, you really need to do some reading and come up to speed on this case. Everything you've posted so far was either wrong or swamp spin.