Steve Thomas's Theory/Murder Timeline

[Chrishope]

Ok. So lets say she was wearing her normal size panties when she arrived home dressed for bed... put on the pink gown. I think when she was redressed(whoever did this) put her in the size 12's thinking they could throw everyone off (like someone saying why would patsy or whoever put those panties on JB. So I think it was meant so people wouldnt think she put those panties on her but an intruder did it. And an intruder wouldnt care either way. Why would an intruder care about what size panties she wore or which ones to put her in. And would he have put the panties somewhere knowing he was going to redress her. How did he know where they were. I think the only way he could have done this is if he was in the house while they were gone and he went searching around. Sorry probably some flaws in there. I get on a roll and cant stop

The possibilities are endless.

Most RDI scenarios have to work well as IDI scenarios too. IOWs it must be believable that an intruder would do x, y, and z. So, assuming RDI for the moment, whoever you like as the redresser, JR/PR/BR, why would they select size 12s? Why would an intruder do that? If we assume the staging was complete (and I don't believe it was) then what is found when police arrive is what the stagger(s) intend police to see. What do the 12s tell the police? Nothing, as they are covered by LJs. The police are completely unaware that she's wearing panties under the LJs, much less what size panties. What does it tell investigators? Nothing really. Investigators have to speculate on why she's in size 12s, but they are as helpless as we are - it just goes 'round and 'round. It doesn't tell a consistent story.

The story the Rs are telling the police is that we put her to bed, and woke up the next morning to find a RN, and an evil intruder must have come in during the night and did this....blah blah blah. The size 12s don't add to that stroy, in fact they detract from it, as it's hard to imagine a real intruder changing the panty size. If an intruder wanted the original panties (either as a souvenir or because of forensics) then he'd just take them and not bother replacing them. He'd just pull up the LJs and be gone. (Or he may not even bother pulling up the LJs) So, imo, it wasn't done to throw anyone off, in the sense of making them ponder why an intruder would do that, because throwing them off in that way is the last thing the stagger(s) want to do. They want to create a nice consistent believable IDI story. They want things to make sense as an IDI scenario.

Yet, she's in size 12s. If we assume IDI for a moment (and I'm not IDI) then the answer must be that the intruder simply pulled down the LJs/panties, did his thing, wiped, then pulled up the LJs/panties, which means JBR was wearing them prior to the SA. If we turn to RDI, the answer might well be the same, the culprit pulled down the LJs/panties, did his business then pulled everything back up. Since she was already wearing size 12s there didn't seem to be any problem, and in fact if the LJs and panties were pulled down (and back up) together, the size of the panties wouldn't really have been noticed.

If she'd been wearing correct size panties prior to SA, then the perp had to remove them completely and replace them with size 12s. The perp could hardly fail to notice the size difference. Since the size difference raises red flags and detracts from the plausibility of an intruder scenario, it probably wouldn't have been done, by a Ramsey. Yet she's in 12s. So the size 12s are probably on her because that's what she wore prior to the SA. There doesn't seem to be a good rationale for a Ramsey to have placed the size 12s on her, especially if they are trying to create a consistent intruder scenario.

We can make everything more complex by trying to factor in the barbie nightgown. Then we have undressing, redressing, undressing, redressing differently, and we still have the size 12 problem.

So 'round and 'round we go. The one thing we can be pretty sure of is that PR wasn't involved in the redressing, because if she had been, it would have been a simple matter of going upstairs and grabbing a pair of size 6s from JBRs underwear drawer. Either JBR put the 12s on herself, or the perp could not access the correct size (perhaps too risky to go upstairs leaving a half naked but still alive child in the basement) even then it's hard to see why he didn't just pull up the LJs and be done with it. A Ramsey perp is going to blame the missing panties on the intruder anyway, so why bother replacing with any size?

One more observation, there is no real reason to suppose the "correct size" panties needed replacing. The nature of the SA requires the panties to be down/off, so it seems unlikely they were forensically contaminated.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think Patsy would have run upstairs to get a pair of JB's own panties. First of all, police said that every single pair of JB's panties had fecal stains on them, and I honestly think Patsy would not want her to be found wearing them. Patsy knew where there were brand-new panties- right there in the basement-wrapped as a gift to be mailed to her niece after they returned from their trip. They weren't even thinking about the size. The panties went on under the long johns, and the size was not apparent. I honestly believe they never thought the size of JB's panties would be an issue.

 

[Anti-K]

Chris hope really said it all. But, I’ll add to that, anyway.

I don’t think we can know the exact sequence. Too many variables, too many possibilities...
.

She was asphyxiated from behind, IMO face down.

She was probably struck from overhead, from behind, IMO face down?

If she was stunned – I’m not convinced, but just sayin’ – on the back then this was also from behind – IMO face down.
If the garrote was fashioned on her – evidence suggests that it was – then she was almost certainly - IMO - face down.
She urinated, face down.

There is urine through the panties and through the leggings and onto the carpet. If the urine was post mortem, and after being wiped and redressed, than why is the urine face down? I mean, she was wiped face-up. Right? Probably (IF, if, if, if....) redressed face up, laid on the blanket face up, etc. If after all this, how does she end up face down on the carpet for the urine?
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

The possibilities are endless.

Most RDI scenarios have to work well as IDI scenarios too. IOWs it must be believable that an intruder would do x, y, and z. So, assuming RDI for the moment, whoever you like as the redresser, JR/PR/BR, why would they select size 12s? Why would an intruder do that? If we assume the staging was complete (and I don't believe it was) then what is found when police arrive is what the stagger(s) intend police to see. What do the 12s tell the police? Nothing, as they are covered by LJs. The police are completely unaware that she's wearing panties under the LJs, much less what size panties. What does it tell investigators? Nothing really. Investigators have to speculate on why she's in size 12s, but they are as helpless as we are - it just goes 'round and 'round. It doesn't tell a consistent story.

The story the Rs are telling the police is that we put her to bed, and woke up the next morning to find a RN, and an evil intruder must have come in during the night and did this....blah blah blah. The size 12s don't add to that stroy, in fact they detract from it, as it's hard to imagine a real intruder changing the panty size. If an intruder wanted the original panties (either as a souvenir or because of forensics) then he'd just take them and not bother replacing them. He'd just pull up the LJs and be gone. (Or he may not even bother pulling up the LJs) So, imo, it wasn't done to throw anyone off, in the sense of making them ponder why an intruder would do that, because throwing them off in that way is the last thing the stagger(s) want to do. They want to create a nice consistent believable IDI story. They want things to make sense as an IDI scenario.

Yet, she's in size 12s. If we assume IDI for a moment (and I'm not IDI) then the answer must be that the intruder simply pulled down the LJs/panties, did his thing, wiped, then pulled up the LJs/panties, which means JBR was wearing them prior to the SA. If we turn to RDI, the answer might well be the same, the culprit pulled down the LJs/panties, did his business then pulled everything back up. Since she was already wearing size 12s there didn't seem to be any problem, and in fact if the LJs and panties were pulled down (and back up) together, the size of the panties wouldn't really have been noticed.

If she'd been wearing correct size panties prior to SA, then the perp had to remove them completely and replace them with size 12s. The perp could hardly fail to notice the size difference. Since the size difference raises red flags and detracts from the plausibility of an intruder scenario, it probably wouldn't have been done, by a Ramsey. Yet she's in 12s. So the size 12s are probably on her because that's what she wore prior to the SA. There doesn't seem to be a good rationale for a Ramsey to have placed the size 12s on her, especially if they are trying to create a consistent intruder scenario.

We can make everything more complex by trying to factor in the barbie nightgown. Then we have undressing, redressing, undressing, redressing differently, and we still have the size 12 problem.

So 'round and 'round we go. The one thing we can be pretty sure of is that PR wasn't involved in the redressing, because if she had been, it would have been a simple matter of going upstairs and grabbing a pair of size 6s from JBRs underwear drawer. Either JBR put the 12s on herself, or the perp could not access the correct size (perhaps too risky to go upstairs leaving a half naked but still alive child in the basement) even then it's hard to see why he didn't just pull up the LJs and be done with it. A Ramsey perp is going to blame the missing panties on the intruder anyway, so why bother replacing with any size?

One more observation, there is no real reason to suppose the "correct size" panties needed replacing. The nature of the SA requires the panties to be down/off, so it seems unlikely they were forensically contaminated.

Chrishope,

Most RDI scenarios have to work well as IDI scenarios too. IOWs it must be believable that an intruder would do x, y, and z. So, assuming RDI for the moment, whoever you like as the redresser, JR/PR/BR, why would they select size 12s? Why would an intruder do that? If we assume the staging was complete (and I don't believe it was) then what is found when police arrive is what the stagger(s) intend police to see. What do the 12s tell the police? Nothing, as they are covered by LJs. The police are completely unaware that she's wearing panties under the LJs, much less what size panties. What does it tell investigators? Nothing really. Investigators have to speculate on why she's in size 12s, but they are as helpless as we are - it just goes 'round and 'round. It doesn't tell a consistent story.

This is why she was redressed in the size-12's precisely so that, hopefully, no questions would be asked, and they do tell a consistent story, just one that that does not match your preferred theory.

We can make everything more complex by trying to factor in the barbie nightgown. Then we have undressing, redressing, undressing, redressing differently, and we still have the size 12 problem.

Any RDI theory must factor in the barbie nightgown and the size-12's, since they form part of the forensic evidence. How does DocG's theory explain these items?

There doesn't seem to be a good rationale for a Ramsey to have placed the size 12s on her, especially if they are trying to create a consistent intruder scenario.

Really? How about the size-12's being selected precisely because they create a consistent intruder scenario, i.e. the size-12's were a Wednesday Day of the Week pair, selected to corroborate the R's version of events where JonBenet goes straight to bed after the White's party, wearing her Wednesday Day of the Week underwear?

Either JBR put the 12s on herself, or the perp could not access the correct size (perhaps too risky to go upstairs leaving a half naked but still alive child in the basement) even then it's hard to see why he didn't just pull up the LJs and be done with it.

BBM: No, false dichotomy. They may have been selected for the Day of the Week feature and size is incidental.

A Ramsey perp is going to blame the missing panties on the intruder anyway, so why bother replacing with any size?

In the Ramsey staging there are no missing panties that is the point, and any size that matches a Wednesday Day of the Week is a very good pair, in the R's estimation.

.

 

[UKGuy]

It’d just be my speculation how blood arrived on the nightgown. But we know she had bled from the sa, and it’s possible some arrived on the nightgown when she was redressed. Making an assumption she was redressed.

I’ve some additional thoughts in reply to your recent questioning regarding BR involved in staging, or at least cover up of the sa. (BTW, very thought provoking post.)

The coroner spoke to both Arndt and Trujillo and commented that JB had suffered an injury consistent with vaginal penetration—digital or otherwise. (PMPT) What seems to be vague is whether there was an assault before the paintbrush.

If there was an assault before the paintbrush, then it might change some theories of the event. I’ve considered if the autopsy might support two assaults. E.g., the autopsy lists an abrasion on her hymen and just inside the vaginal vault: A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1x1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen.

According to Kolar, this from WRKI: As further insult, the perpetrator is believed to have inserted the broken end of the paintbrush, used as a handle in the garrote, into her vagina at or near the time of her death.

However, as also noted in the autopsy Meyer wrote: along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. It’s possible that the hyperemia on the right side and posteriorly within the vaginal vault was not caused by the jagged end of a paintbrush; that injury is not noted as an abraded area (abrasion vs. reddish hyperemia.) Anyway, two sa injuries might influence the way we view the combination of a perp and one or more stagers.

To the question about staging and BR, here’s only a few things I’ve looked at, but don’t have a fixed conclusion on.

--The timing between the head blow and the strangulation was thought to be 45 minutes give or take. It might have been longer or shorter. If it was a short time, then I can see the paintbrush jab by BR as having occurred. This assault was thought to have occurred perimortem, or shortly before her death. BR then could have “conceivably” cleaned her up and redressed her. It’s possible, but it’d be a theory which needs to incorporate how her strangulation occurred . . .

--The short timing between the paintbrush jab and her death by strangulation could be an issue in terms of looking at BR as participating at this juncture. The experts say the jab was close to the time of her death. This happening close to the strangulation is obviously complicated as ws sleuthers have discussed this for years: Was she accidentally strangled first (partially or fully) or was the ligature totally a parental construct to mislead LE that an evil intruder strangled JB? Except for existence of fibers in the neck ligature which raises questions, doesn’t seem like proof of which scenario happened.

--One other thing on the paintbrush injury. I’ve read others’ commentary that if one is attempting to portray a pedophile intruder, why clean her up and hide the paintbrush injury. Why even injure her with a paintbrush, if she had already been molested. That’s just a truly perplexing component to the ‘staging.’ It would fit best if BR were responsible for the paintbrush injury. Back to the quandary about the timing between head injury and strangulation. Just not sure.

--So then, in an RDI scenario, one arrives at the concept of whether someone was “overthinking” the situation, or possibly that 2 adults were involved in staging and had different ideas. One adult decides to mask the first sa with another injury. (PR protecting BR?) The other adult decides JB should be cleaned up and redressed. (JR not wanting to advertise a sa which many might blame him for?)

These are just some thoughts, and I’ve so many more questions than answers. No fixed theory on any scene, except my interpretation that it’s RDI. All JMHO

questfortrue,
Thanks for your well thought out constructive reply.

However, as also noted in the autopsy Meyer wrote: along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. It’s possible that the hyperemia on the right side and posteriorly within the vaginal vault was not caused by the jagged end of a paintbrush; that injury is not noted as an abraded area (abrasion vs. reddish hyperemia.) Anyway, two sa injuries might influence the way we view the combination of a perp and one or more stagers.

Yes this more or less matches what I'm proposing, i.e. there was more than one sexual assault. Also:

Excerpt, Autopsy Report

The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red bloods cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringement material. ...

BBM: Seen so far from the surface suggests to me that its appearance is not accidental?

--One other thing on the paintbrush injury. I’ve read others’ commentary that if one is attempting to portray a pedophile intruder, why clean her up and hide the paintbrush injury. Why even injure her with a paintbrush, if she had already been molested. That’s just a truly perplexing component to the ‘staging.’ It would fit best if BR were responsible for the paintbrush injury. Back to the quandary about the timing between head injury and strangulation. Just not sure.

Two options here either the painbrush was used to assault JonBenet in an attempt to mask a prior sexual assault, or it was part of the behaviour of the perpetrator, i.e. a pathologically ritual aspect seen in many homicides and sometimes referred to as a signature. If you factor in Kolar's remarks here regarding BR's allegedly dysfunctional behaviour, then this feature might have legs?

--So then, in an RDI scenario, one arrives at the concept of whether someone was “overthinking” the situation, or possibly that 2 adults were involved in staging and had different ideas. One adult decides to mask the first sa with another injury. (PR protecting BR?) The other adult decides JB should be cleaned up and redressed. (JR not wanting to advertise a sa which many might blame him for?)

BBM: This is my preferred interpretation, since we now know all three R's were involved in staging JonBenet's homicide.

To date many have assumed that BR played no part in the staging. Although I accept BR did not plan and co-ordinate what became the wine-cellar crime-scene, it now seems naive to think, assuming BDI, that he would make no attempt to cleanup the primary crime-scene, even if only in a childish manner so to deflect blame?


.

 

[Mama2JML]

:websleuther:

Chris hope really said it all. But, I’ll add to that, anyway.

I don’t think we can know the exact sequence. Too many variables, too many possibilities...
.

She was asphyxiated from behind, IMO face down.

She was probably struck from overhead, from behind, IMO face down?

If she was stunned – I’m not convinced, but just sayin’ – on the back then this was also from behind – IMO face down.
If the garrote was fashioned on her – evidence suggests that it was – then she was almost certainly - IMO - face down.
She urinated, face down.

There is urine through the panties and through the leggings and onto the carpet.

I'm following you...

If the urine was post mortem, and after being wiped and redressed, than why is the urine face down? I mean, she was wiped face-up. Right? Probably (IF, if, if, if....) redressed face up, laid on the blanket face up, etc. If after all this, how does she end up face down on the carpet for the urine?
...

AK

:what:
Hmmm...
:waitasec:
Perplexing inquiry.
:dunno:
SOOO, whaddayathink, AK?

 

[elannia]

All in all im beginning to think it was a male in the house(still not letting go of JAR not being a suspect) 1... I dont see patsy as the one who bashed her head in(maybe an accident pushed her too hard or something but I dont think that would have caused the big gap in her skull ) And myself being a mother I dont see her jabbing that paintbrush inside her(people do this I know just hard to think about that they would , especially a mom but it was around TOD so she prob thought it wouldnt hurt her) and I honestly dont see john doing it either. He was in so much grief after beth died that I dont see him doing it.but do you think burke was smart enough to stage the crime scene itself? i think not . Patsy wrote that RN.MOO

 

[UKGuy]

Chris hope really said it all. But, I’ll add to that, anyway.

I don’t think we can know the exact sequence. Too many variables, too many possibilities...
.

She was asphyxiated from behind, IMO face down.

She was probably struck from overhead, from behind, IMO face down?

If she was stunned – I’m not convinced, but just sayin’ – on the back then this was also from behind – IMO face down.
If the garrote was fashioned on her – evidence suggests that it was – then she was almost certainly - IMO - face down.
She urinated, face down.

There is urine through the panties and through the leggings and onto the carpet. If the urine was post mortem, and after being wiped and redressed, than why is the urine face down? I mean, she was wiped face-up. Right? Probably (IF, if, if, if....) redressed face up, laid on the blanket face up, etc. If after all this, how does she end up face down on the carpet for the urine?
...

AK

Anti-K,
BBM: Whats the problem here?

Assumed Sequence of Events:

1. JonBenet is sexually assaulted upstairs.

2. JonBenet is whacked on the head upstairs.

3. JonBenet is still alive and relocated down to the basement.

4. JonBenet is cleaned up and redressed.

5. JonBenet is placed face down and ligature asphyxiated.

6. JonBenet voids her bladder while face down.

7. JonBenet is placed onto the white blanket, face up.

At this point the urine might not have seeped through to the longjohns, so may not have been visible?

.

 

[questfortrue]

~RSBM~
Two options here either the painbrush was used to assault JonBenet in an attempt to mask a prior sexual assault, or it was part of the behaviour of the perpetrator, i.e. a pathologically ritual aspect seen in many homicides and sometimes referred to as a signature. If you factor in Kolar's remarks here regarding BR's allegedly dysfunctional behaviour, then this feature might have legs?

<2 adults were involved in staging and had different ideas.>
BBM: This is my preferred interpretation, since we now know all three R's were involved in staging JonBenet's homicide.

To date many have assumed that BR played no part in the staging. Although I accept BR did not plan and co-ordinate what became the wine-cellar crime-scene, it now seems naive to think, assuming BDI, that he would make no attempt to cleanup the primary crime-scene, even if only in a childish manner so to deflect blame?

OK, I see what you mean. Yes, it’s possible to view a child doing some primitive staging. (And, like you, and the FBI, I see two adult hands in staging.) But your thoughts as far as a “ritual” with a paintbrush, also strike more of a note now. That could fit certain psychological profiles associated with OCD behavior.

In an article on OCD in children from PyschCentral there’s this:
Contamination — excessive concern over germs, disease, illness, contagion.
Harm to self or others — irrational fears such as causing a car crash, stabbing him- or herself or another person with a knife or other sharp object, etc. and
Sexual themes — obsessive thinking about sex; disturbing writing or doodling of a sexual nature.

Since I’m no professional, this is simply speculation on my part, but I’ve always wondered about a combination of SBP and OCD manifest in BR. Remember the scene with the psychologist where she inadvertently drinks from BR’s soda and his reaction to this? And there does seem to be something compulsive within SBP. Just brainstorming here. MHO

 

[elannia]

Just came across something. While interviewing with ST he asked if anyone had slept in her daughters bed. She named off family members but then added erin, brian, and brad. JAR had a friend named brad who went to the movies with him(supposedly) on the night of the murder. Wonder if thats the same brad and why would he be sleeping in her room. Earlier I had posted about JAR and was reading ST book(again lol) and came across that like WHOA!!! Any thoughts on this?

 

[midwest mama]

Just came across something. While interviewing with ST he asked if anyone had slept in her daughters bed. She named off family members but then added erin, brian, and brad. JAR had a friend named brad who went to the movies with him(supposedly) on the night of the murder. Wonder if thats the same brad and why would he be sleeping in her room. Earlier I had posted about JAR and was reading ST book(again lol) and came across that like WHOA!!! Any thoughts on this?

Just posted a response on another thread to you that includes my thoughts on this.

 

[Anti-K]

:websleuther:I'm following you...

:what:
Hmmm...
:waitasec:
Perplexing inquiry.
:dunno:
SOOO, whaddayathink, AK?

I think that the evidence and reason do not support the claim that Jonbenet was redressed, or that her panties were changed.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
BBM: Whats the problem here?

Assumed Sequence of Events:

1. JonBenet is sexually assaulted upstairs.

2. JonBenet is whacked on the head upstairs.

3. JonBenet is still alive and relocated down to the basement.

4. JonBenet is cleaned up and redressed.

5. JonBenet is placed face down and ligature asphyxiated.

6. JonBenet voids her bladder while face down.

7. JonBenet is placed onto the white blanket, face up.

At this point the urine might not have seeped through to the longjohns, so may not have been visible?

.

The sexual assault occurred at or near point of death. I don’t think that this allows time for things to transpire as you suggest. If the asphyxiation occurred in the basement, than death occurred in the basement, and if the sexual assault occurred at or near point of death than it, too, probably occurred in the basement.

While there is evidence to show that the victim was wiped, the evidence does not show that her panties, or any other clothing, was changed between the time she was put to bed and the time that her lifeless body was discovered.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I suppose this might be one of those posts that should come with a WARNING &#8211; some might be offended, or graphic descriptions ahead...

The asphyxiation took a few minutes.

Watch my garrote demo: http://tinyurl.com/mg4vvhr

The garrote &#8211; ligature, if you prefer, or slip knot &#8211; would have worked something very much like the one used in the video. Watch it again. It tightens in a second; very fast. It stays tight. It&#8217;ll stay tight forever. You don&#8217;t have to keep pulling it, or hanging onto it. You can just let go and walk away.

If the sexual assault occurred at or near point of death and if the asphyxiation took a few minutes, then we have reason to say that the two events likely occurred together. This becomes even more plausible when one takes into account that after a second or two to pull the ligature tight, the killer would have been left hands free.

The asphyxiation took a few minutes.

During these minutes the killer could have done anything that he wanted to do, including: roll her over, pull down her panties, sexually assault, wipe and pull the panties back up. She urinates before she is rolled over; the blood transfers during the wiping phase or at some point after the panties are pulled up.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

Chris hope really said it all. But, I’ll add to that, anyway.

I don’t think we can know the exact sequence. Too many variables, too many possibilities...
.

She was asphyxiated from behind, IMO face down.

She was probably struck from overhead, from behind, IMO face down?

If she was stunned – I’m not convinced, but just sayin’ – on the back then this was also from behind – IMO face down.
If the garrote was fashioned on her – evidence suggests that it was – then she was almost certainly - IMO - face down.
She urinated, face down.

There is urine through the panties and through the leggings and onto the carpet. If the urine was post mortem, and after being wiped and redressed, than why is the urine face down? I mean, she was wiped face-up. Right? Probably (IF, if, if, if....) redressed face up, laid on the blanket face up, etc. If after all this, how does she end up face down on the carpet for the urine?
...

AK

We don't know for sure if she was wiped face up or down. We DO know the cord was tied at the nape of her neck while she was face down. It is thought that the strangulation is what ultimately ended her life. To me, it is logical that she was placed unconscious face DOWN on the carpeted area just outside the wine cellar door. In this same area was also found the paint tote and shards of wood matched to the broken paintbrush. There was also said to be creatine (dried urine) on that carpet. From there, she was placed face UP on the white blanket in the winecellar. It is not difficult to see how she was face DOWN at her death and urine release and then simply carried to the wine cellar and left face UP, the blanket pulled around her torso- legs straight out and left that way till she was found 12 hours later. Livor mortis and rigor mortis suggest this same thing. We don't know HOW she was redressed- face up or down- but she was face DOWN when she died and face UP when found, with being placed face UP on the blanket the LAST thing that happened.

 

[midwest mama]

The sexual assault occurred at or near point of death. I don’t think that this allows time for things to transpire as you suggest. If the asphyxiation occurred in the basement, than death occurred in the basement, and if the sexual assault occurred at or near point of death than it, too, probably occurred in the basement.

While there is evidence to show that the victim was wiped, the evidence does not show that her panties, or any other clothing, was changed between the time she was put to bed and the time that her lifeless body was discovered.
...

AK

Because of the forensic discovery of pineapple in JB's system, and the fact that her hair had two ponytails, I can agree that JB could have been wearing the Wednesday panties under the longjohns, as well as her white Gap shirt, when she was assaulted and killed, not being redressed after the crime. Also, lint on the bottom of her feet seem to indicate to me that there would have been no fabric taken off/on over her feet after she was in a prone position, since it might have also taken the lint with it. She most likely would have been alive either sitting or standing somewhere where her feet could gather lint, already in the longjohns, and no further disturbance made to the bottoms of her feet once she was no longer on them.


Most of the outfit she wore to the White's was carefully laid out on the other bed in her room. If JB was given the concession of wearing the new Bloomi's because other properly fitting, unstained underwear was packed for Michigan and then the Disney trip, it would make sense Patsy and JB would choose the Wednesday pair, since it was Christmas that year on Wednesday. The large Wednesday Bloomi's would not have been much of an issue being worn under tight LongJohn's just during night sleep.

Perhaps the plan was to have JB arise early, already in the Gap shirt, remove the bottoms, and redress her in the carefully laid out clothing she had worn to the White's for the plane trip to Michigan? PR in same Christmas outfit on the 26th, and JB in her same outfit? OK for plane travel, with a fresh change planned for their immediate arrival in Michigan prior to their other family celebration?

 

[elannia]

Because of the forensic discovery of pineapple in JB's system, and the fact that her hair had two ponytails, I can agree that JB could have been wearing the Wednesday panties under the longjohns, as well as her white Gap shirt, when she was assaulted and killed, not being redressed after the crime. Also, lint on the bottom of her feet seem to indicate to me that there would have been no fabric taken off/on over her feet after she was in a prone position, since it might have also taken the lint with it. She most likely would have been alive either sitting or standing somewhere where her feet could gather lint, already in the longjohns, and no further disturbance made to the bottoms of her feet once she was no longer on them.


Most of the outfit she wore to the White's was carefully laid out on the other bed in her room. If JB was given the concession of wearing the new Bloomi's because other properly fitting, unstained underwear was packed for Michigan and then the Disney trip, it would make sense Patsy and JB would choose the Wednesday pair, since it was Christmas that year on Wednesday. The large Wednesday Bloomi's would not have been much of an issue being worn under tight LongJohn's just during night sleep.

Perhaps the plan was to have JB arise early, already in the Gap shirt, remove the bottoms, and redress her in the carefully laid out clothing she had worn to the White's for the plane trip to Michigan? PR in same Christmas outfit on the 26th, and JB in her same outfit? OK for plane travel, with a fresh change planned for their immediate arrival in Michigan prior to their other family celebration?

So the black jeans on the other bed are the ones from the whites? There was another soiled black pair in the bathroom right?

 

[UKGuy]

The sexual assault occurred at or near point of death. I don’t think that this allows time for things to transpire as you suggest. If the asphyxiation occurred in the basement, than death occurred in the basement, and if the sexual assault occurred at or near point of death than it, too, probably occurred in the basement.

While there is evidence to show that the victim was wiped, the evidence does not show that her panties, or any other clothing, was changed between the time she was put to bed and the time that her lifeless body was discovered.
...

AK

Anti-K,

The sexual assault occurred at or near point of death.

There is a substantial time gap between JonBenet being sexually assaulted and her being asphyxiated, one expert has suggested an interval of 45 minutes?

JonBenet was not simply sexually assaulted then asphyxiated, inbetween she was also whacked on the head and her body sustained numerous contusions and abrasions.

if the sexual assault occurred at or near point of death than it, too, probably occurred in the basement.

But the sexual assault did not occur near the point of death. JonBenet was whacked on the head after being sexually assaulted, she was still alive at this point, since dead people do not bleed. There is nothing probable about her being sexually assaulted in the basement. It is more probable she was relocated there away from the primary crime-scene, likely located somewhere upstairs, e.g. her bedroom, or the breakfast bar.

1996-12-27: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado

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

Someone definitely wiped JonBenet clean with a cloth. Presumably JonBenet's assailant removed the size-12's prior to assaulting her, then wiped her down, finally redressing her in the unstained size-12's?

August 28, 2000 Atlanta BPD Patsy Ramsey Interview, Excerpt

1 A. I am sure that I put the package

2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened

3 them and put them on.

4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought

5 these sometime in mid to early December, is

6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,

7 you bought them in November?

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing

10 these? And I don't mean this specific day

11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you

12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in

13 this package of underpants and had been

14 wearing them since the trip to New York in

15 November?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the

18 laundry for the family, that is part of her

19 duties; is that correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash

22 clothes on occasion?

23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.

24 Q. Do you have any recollection of

25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

0085

1 A. Not specifically.

Patsy's claims regarding the size-12's are vague and nebulous, subject to episodes of amnesia.


[August 28, 2000 Atlanta BPD Patsy Ramsey Interview, Excerpt

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you

2 aware that these were the size of panties

3 that she was wearing, and this has been

4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they

5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of

6 that?

7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.

8 Q. And how did you become aware of

9 that?

10 A. Something I read, I am sure.

11 Q. And I will just state a fact

12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties

13 taken out of, by the police, out of

14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is

15 that where she kept -

16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

17 Q. -- where you were describing that

18 they were just put in that drawer?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was

21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

22 Would that have been about the size pair of

23 panties that she wore when she was six years

24 old?

So if you reckon, for whatever reason, that JonBenet wore the size-12's prior to going to bed on 12/25/1996, and that this was normal practice, then why were there no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer as Patsy claimed, in fact none could be found in the house?

While there is evidence to show that the victim was wiped, the evidence does not show that her panties, or any other clothing, was changed between the time she was put to bed and the time that her lifeless body was discovered.

You are parroting the R's version of events here. This version of events has been shown to be inconsistent, i.e. pineapple residue in JonBenet's stomach, and BR awake during the 911 call, as admitted by the R's. As I've mentioned before RDI theories that fail to explain away either size-12's or pink barbie nightgown are inconsistent and untestable.

.

 

[2 percent]

Hmmm...does anyone know how common it is for pedophiles who target JBs age range to dress their victim in different clothes? Would a pink nightie v. a longjohn pj set be considered more desirable to a pedophile who prefers 6 year olds? I've never been interested in pedophilia so I don't know how much fantasies of young children wearing things like nighties and bathing suits enter into the tendency.

 

[DeeDee249]

So the black jeans on the other bed are the ones from the whites? There was another soiled black pair in the bathroom right?

There was another black pair on the bathroom floor that had fecal staining (or feces)or had panties still inside with fecal staining. Police showed Patsy a crime photo of these black pants on the floor. Patsy described them as "black play pants". I would assume there were typical kids' play pants, possibly corduroy or cotton as opposed to her "dress" pants which were velvet. So yes, there were 2 pairs of black girl's pants.