The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Chrishope]

I would think, that if Patsy had given the undies to JonBenet, like she said she did, that they would have been in the bathroom drawer, that held JonBenets undies. Very bad mistake to not cover your tracks and put the rest of the undies in JonBenets drawer, prior to telling that lie.

Since BPD emptied her underwear drawer, and found NO size 12's, that means someone forgot that last crucial step, which is why we are discussing Bloomies in the first place.

I'm not sure we actually know that they didn't find size 12s somewhere in the house -basement, JBs undie drawer etc. It's not clear from the evidence inventory what sizes were taken by the police. We know they took panties as evidence, but size isn't listed on the inventory, as far as I could see.

So why did police ask about it? Because the 12s fit badly and they are trying to find out something about why JB would be wearing them.

Whether the 12s were in JBs drawer, in the basement wrapped, or unwrapped, we still have the problem of where did they go? But do we really know the police don't have them?

Also, if they were still in the basement that night, they would have been with the rest of Jenny's presents. Wrapped, so not so easy to find, if you don't know ahead of time where to look or what to look for.

Do we know for sure they were wrapped?

Sorry, but Patsy got caught in a lie. John later backed her up. Someone either dressed or redressed JonBenet in those undies. Someone who knew WHERE they could be found. Or was told by someone who knew.

Maybe.

Another piece of testimony that bugs me is a statement made by John:

Q. (By Chief Beckner) Did you, the night of the 25th, did you help undress JonBenet?
A. I did. I think I was asked that before, but I don't -- I mean, I at least took her shoes off, I believe, later on. I carried her upstairs, laid her in bed, took her shoes off. I don't know if I took her coat off. Usually what I would do is try to get her semi-ready for bed because it wasn't infrequent she would fall to sleep when we came home like that, before we got home. Patsy would come in, get her in bed totally.
Q. I guess what I mean is, did you notice at that time whether she was or was not wearing underwear?
A. I mean, I think I would have noticed if she wasn't. But I don't remember. I really don't.
Q. Do you recall if you took her underwear off?
A. No, I'm sure I did not.

How would he know if she had undies on, if all he did was take off her shoes. He didn't even know if he took off her coat. This stinks as far as I am concerned. Also, to try and dis-spell the bed wetting=rage killing myth, Burke was also a bed wetter. If Patsy had been that worried about JonBenet wetting the bed that night, she would have woken her up to go potty, prior to letting her go back to sleep. Oh, yea, that's right, she wasn't asleep then, was she?! So why did John carry her upstairs and take off her shoes?

I'm not as bothered by this. If he doesn't exactly remember what articles of clothing he removed, he may not remember if he took off her pants. Or he may not remember if PR took them off while he was still in the room.

I don't want to sound like a member of the Rs spin team, but we have to be careful about thinking that we've caught them in a lie. Might be the case, might not be. The problem is we assume a lie, then we assume XYZ was done to cover for the lie.

I tend to agree with you about the bed-wetting = rage theory - I don't think it's very likely.

 

[Chrishope]

i'm very new to this case, sorry. wasn't there DNA found on the panties? what are the theories as to how that got there?

also, can anyone recommend a link to me while i can find a detailed outline of this case? i dunno where to start, so much info

There is a small spot of JBs blood on the panties, and mixed with the blood some DNA which does not belong to JB.

You should see Cynic's posts on the DNA evidence.

 

[SunnieRN]

I'm not sure we actually know that they didn't find size 12s somewhere in the house -basement, JBs undie drawer etc. It's not clear from the evidence inventory what sizes were taken by the police. We know they took panties as evidence, but size isn't listed on the inventory, as far as I could see.

So why did police ask about it? Because the 12s fit badly and they are trying to find out something about why JB would be wearing them.

Whether the 12s were in JBs drawer, in the basement wrapped, or unwrapped, we still have the problem of where did they go? But do we really know the police don't have them?




Do we know for sure they were wrapped?



Maybe.



I'm not as bothered by this. If he doesn't exactly remember what articles of clothing he removed, he may not remember if he took off her pants. Or he may not remember if PR took them off while he was still in the room.

I don't want to sound like a member of the Rs spin team, but we have to be careful about thinking that we've caught them in a lie. Might be the case, might not be. The problem is we assume a lie, then we assume XYZ was done to cover for the lie.

I tend to agree with you about the bed-wetting = rage theory - I don't think it's very likely.

In interviews it was stated that no size 12 undies were found in the house. The R's turned in the remainder of size 12's, 5 years later, through their law team.

Those facts tell me pretty darn clearly that the R's lied. Either that or BPD lied and the R's manufactured evidence. Neither of those scenarios make sense to me, whereas probability of Patsy and John lying, does.

As usual moo.

 

[Chrishope]

In interviews it was stated that no size 12 undies were found in the house. The R's turned in the remainder of size 12's, 5 years later, through their law team.

Those facts tell me pretty darn clearly that the R's lied. Either that or BPD lied and the R's manufactured evidence. Neither of those scenarios make sense to me, whereas probability of Patsy and John lying, does.

As usual moo.

Let's assume that no 12s were found. It still doesn't follow that PR had to be lying about not knowing JB was wearing 12s. It also isn't necessary she was lying about one package having been opened and therefore given to JB.

Someone took all the remaining 12s out of the house. It probably wasn't Pam Paugh, as she entered the house on the 28th.

So who took the 12s? What proof is there that PR knows about the 12s being removed from the house?

What PR had told police was that she didn't notice anything unusual about JBs underwear when she put JB to bed. She also said she didn't know JB had been found to be wearing 12s. These statements are not inconsistent.

We know she bought size 12s for her niece, and we know they were in the house that night (or at least we're pretty sure). It's possible the 12s were removed from the house w/o PR knowing of it (for what reason?)

So, PR could have been both surprised and confused about why JB was wearing 12s, but could have been telling the truth about putting them in JBs drawer.

This is why I mentioned in an earlier post that we need to be careful about that satisfied feeling we get when we think we've caught the Rs in a lie. If we assume it's a lie, we start to theorize what must have happened consistent with the lie we've assumed. We may end up theorizing a series of events that didn't necessarily happen.

Note, that we need not abandon our RDI position just because some long held theory is called into question. It just means events may have gone down differently than we've long assumed.

 

[UKGuy]

What eliminates the possibility that JBR redressed herself or BR helped her, using a pair of underware from the duplicate package located in the basement? The basement toilet remained unflushed? Is it solely the staging construct that eliminates this possibility?

Tadpole12,
We know someone redressed JonBenet in those white longjohns and size-12's after she was assaulted and after she was wiped down. So its unlikely that JonBenet redressed herself, or that Burke helped her.

If it was the case that JonBenet redressed herself or BR helped her, where did the remaining size-12's go, and why was Patsy's version of events at variance with the evidence?


.

 

[UKGuy]

The Rs could have claimed to sleep soundly through the night whether or not JB had panties on. To put it another way, staging that is improbable doesn't make it more likely they slept soundly. Perhaps in their minds, it did, but in reality no. I had supposed that it was important for the same reasons you state - to "prove" they slept through the events. Now I'm not so sure. Even in a panic it should not have taken much thought to realize the "intruder" wouldn't bother redressing her.


But the redressing, and a lot of other things, alert us to the likelihood of staging anyway. And we don't really know if Tuesday size 6s wouldn't have required explanation - possibly the Rs knew something that made them think Wed. was important? On the whole I'd say you're probably right, the wed. feature may be a red herring. But it's good to maintain an open mind about other possibilities.



They are making no statements that JB wore Wed. panties when put to bed. In fact they are stating they don't know what panties she wore. But by redressing her, they may be trying for consistency with what they knew to be true ?

I think there is a fair possibility that JB went to bed wearing 12s. If a package had been opened and given to JB she might well have put them on herself. They were ridiculously large, but her pants (trousers) would have kept them in place. Perhaps wearing them made JB feel older? Kids like feeling more grown up than they are. If this is true, she wore 12s to bed, then she was simply redressed as per bed time.

This scenario eliminates the question of why the 12s were put back on, and where the 6s went. It still leaves us wondering where the 12s came from and where the other 12s, -packaged or loose- went to.








You make a good point about the panties being there to hide the vaginal injuries inflicted that night. That might be necessary if PR didn't know about the injuries. Couldn't leave her naked in case PR came back down to take one last look. And psychologically the layers of clothes and blanket separate the person who did the deed from the deed itself.

I don't know how child molesters work, but thinking of the mechanics of it, I'd guess the size 6 panties (if indeed she was wearing size 6 panties) were removed before sexual activity (if that took place that night) and vaginal injuries were inflicted. But I could be wrong, they may only have been pulled down, not very far down, and become forensically stained, as you suggest.

Panties are fairly small, so I doubt they were used to wipe her down. But it's certainly possible.

Chrishope

They are making no statements that JB wore Wed. panties when put to bed. In fact they are stating they don't know what panties she wore. But by redressing her, they may be trying for consistency with what they knew to be true ?

I think there is a fair possibility that JB went to bed wearing 12s. If a package had been opened and given to JB she might well have put them on herself. They were ridiculously large, but her pants (trousers) would have kept them in place. Perhaps wearing them made JB feel older? Kids like feeling more grown up than they are. If this is true, she wore 12s to bed, then she was simply redressed as per bed time.

This scenario eliminates the question of why the 12s were put back on, and where the 6s went. It still leaves us wondering where the 12s came from and where the other 12s, -packaged or loose- went to.

How do we know if JonBenet ever went to bed? Suggesting JonBenet wore those size-12's as a personal choice raises more questions than if you assume she was redressed in them, as per Occam, I'll sidestep this as an option.

It could be that JonBenet's size-6 underwear was removed in another room where they were left, lets say on the floor, then a later point during a cleanup they were either removed from the house along with the remaining size-12's or dumped in a dirty linen basket and essentially given a low priority if they were ever found?

It looks , to me at least, as if someone had a change of plan e.g. the abduction, so decided to redress JonBenet. This makes her outward appearance consistent with a bedtime abduction. Also the layers of clothing mask any hint of a sexual assault.

The size-12's give the game away, even if the size-12 selection is calculated, e.g. any underwear, any size, any day of the week, but hey lets choose Wednesday, since it looks good. The fact no other size-12's were found in the house when Patsy states they should be in JonBenet's underwear drawer, should scream smoking gun at you?

The only way out for the R's is to blame the intruder or magically discover the remaining size-12's, they chose the latter route.

All this still does not explain how JonBenet came to be wearing them after she had been assaulted, since they were clean on her.



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope

How do we know if JonBenet ever went to bed?

We don't. But she may have worn the 12s to the party, under her pants. We don't know either way. We don't want that to be true, because we want to catch the Rs in a lie. But in reality, we just don't know what JB wore.

Suggesting JonBenet wore those size-12's as a personal choice raises more questions than if you assume she was redressed in them, as per Occam, I'll sidestep this as an option.

It seems to me to reduce complexity and questions. It's not unusual for little girls to play dress-up and wear clothing too big for them. If she put them on herself -perhaps unknown to her parents- then we don't need to explain the disappearance of the size 6s, nor why the 12s are used for the re-dressing or additional re-dressings. If that's what she had on at the party then redressing her in them is consistent with the abduction staging.

Perhaps someone at the party did help JB in the bathroom and noticed the too big panties? In that case they had to be reused. We don't know what the Rs knew about how JB was dressed. That particular pair of panties might be more important than we realize?

Didn't LHP state that the size 12s were kept in JB's drawer?

It could be that JonBenet's size-6 underwear was removed in another room where they were left, lets say on the floor, then a later point during a cleanup they were either removed from the house along with the remaining size-12's or dumped in a dirty linen basket and essentially given a low priority if they were ever found?

I like the idea they were dumped in a dirty clothes hamper. Did the police find something that goes along with this?

It looks , to me at least, as if someone had a change of plan e.g. the abduction, so decided to redress JonBenet. This makes her outward appearance consistent with a bedtime abduction. Also the layers of clothing mask any hint of a sexual assault.

If I follow you, you're saying it was initially to be staged as a murder, then the abduction plan was hatched, thus the redressing. (If this is true the the RN was written at the last minute, in haste ? )

The problem, for me, is that it's hard to believe that the Rs would think the body would go undiscovered. If the police and or FW had been halfway competent in searching, or if the police had brought in dogs early on, as they should have, the body would be found pretty quickly. IOWs there was no rationale expectation that this could still be a kidnapping case as late as 1pm. It should have ceased to be a kidnapping by 7am? So, given that the body was likely to be discovered, why redress for an abduction scenario? Even if it was a plan initially put into action, why not undress again when the plan was abandoned? Having her dressed makes IDI a lot less believable.

Perhaps an explanation is that JR couldn't afford to let PR see the body naked?

The size-12's give the game away, even if the size-12 selection is calculated, e.g. any underwear, any size, any day of the week, but hey lets choose Wednesday, since it looks good. The fact no other size-12's were found in the house when Patsy states they should be in JonBenet's underwear drawer, should scream smoking gun at you?

Yes, but who does the gun point at? We don't really know PR was lying. She may have been ignorant of the removal of the size 12s from the house.

Why would either R remove the 12s under any scenario?

The only way out for the R's is to blame the intruder or magically discover the remaining size-12's, they chose the latter route.

You're certainly right that it seemed important enough to them to provide another package.

All this still does not explain how JonBenet came to be wearing them after she had been assaulted, since they were clean on her.

If you mean forensically clean, the answer could be simply that they were removed then replaced after everything else that took place.



.[/quote]

 

[UKGuy]

We don't. But she may have worn the 12s to the party, under her pants. We don't know either way. We don't want that to be true, because we want to catch the Rs in a lie. But in reality, we just don't know what JB wore.

It seems to me to reduce complexity and questions. It's not unusual for little girls to play dress-up and wear clothing too big for them. If she put them on herself -perhaps unknown to her parents- then we don't need to explain the disappearance of the size 6s, nor why the 12s are used for the re-dressing or additional re-dressings. If that's what she had on at the party then redressing her in them is consistent with the abduction staging.

Perhaps someone at the party did help JB in the bathroom and noticed the too big panties? In that case they had to be reused. We don't know what the Rs knew about how JB was dressed. That particular pair of panties might be more important than we realize?

Didn't LHP state that the size 12s were kept in JB's drawer?

I like the idea they were dumped in a dirty clothes hamper. Did the police find something that goes along with this?

If I follow you, you're saying it was initially to be staged as a murder, then the abduction plan was hatched, thus the redressing. (If this is true the the RN was written at the last minute, in haste ? )

The problem, for me, is that it's hard to believe that the Rs would think the body would go undiscovered. If the police and or FW had been halfway competent in searching, or if the police had brought in dogs early on, as they should have, the body would be found pretty quickly. IOWs there was no rationale expectation that this could still be a kidnapping case as late as 1pm. It should have ceased to be a kidnapping by 7am? So, given that the body was likely to be discovered, why redress for an abduction scenario? Even if it was a plan initially put into action, why not undress again when the plan was abandoned? Having her dressed makes IDI a lot less believable.

Perhaps an explanation is that JR couldn't afford to let PR see the body naked?

Yes, but who does the gun point at? We don't really know PR was lying. She may have been ignorant of the removal of the size 12s from the house.

Why would either R remove the 12s under any scenario?

You're certainly right that it seemed important enough to them to provide another package.

If you mean forensically clean, the answer could be simply that they were removed then replaced after everything else that took place.



.

[/QUOTE]

Chrishope,

It seems to me to reduce complexity and questions. It's not unusual for little girls to play dress-up and wear clothing too big for them. If she put them on herself -perhaps unknown to her parents- then we don't need to explain the disappearance of the size 6s, nor why the 12s are used for the re-dressing or additional re-dressings. If that's what she had on at the party then redressing her in them is consistent with the abduction staging.

Perhaps someone at the party did help JB in the bathroom and noticed the too big panties? In that case they had to be reused. We don't know what the Rs knew about how JB was dressed. That particular pair of panties might be more important than we realize?

Didn't LHP state that the size 12s were kept in JB's drawer?

This would be the R's position. Maybe photographs taken by guests at the White's party will back them up, JonBenet's black velvet pants may display a size-12 VPL?

I like the idea they were dumped in a dirty clothes hamper. Did the police find something that goes along with this?

Not that I know about, but its an alternative explanation for the alleged missing size-6 pair.

If I follow you, you're saying it was initially to be staged as a murder, then the abduction plan was hatched, thus the redressing. (If this is true the the RN was written at the last minute, in haste ? )

Well it would have to be, certainly no accident, and yes the RN and redressing would be last minute amendments.

The problem, for me, is that it's hard to believe that the Rs would think the body would go undiscovered. If the police and or FW had been halfway competent in searching, or if the police had brought in dogs early on, as they should have, the body would be found pretty quickly. IOWs there was no rationale expectation that this could still be a kidnapping case as late as 1pm. It should have ceased to be a kidnapping by 7am? So, given that the body was likely to be discovered, why redress for an abduction scenario? Even if it was a plan initially put into action, why not undress again when the plan was abandoned? Having her dressed makes IDI a lot less believable.

Of course the body will be discovered but just not initially as a sexual assault victim, but that of an abduction victim, hence all the redressing with layers of fabric! The abduction scenario is undertaken to mask the sexual assault element, someone in the Ramsey household thinks that is a bad bad idea. Unless you wish to accept the Ramsey line about the size-12's and putting JonBenet to bed in the longjohns etc. The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene with JonBenet redressed to simulate an abduction victim complete with restraints, duct-tape and a fake ligature.

Yes, but who does the gun point at? We don't really know PR was lying. She may have been ignorant of the removal of the size 12s from the house.

Yes we do know Patsy was lying. BPD stated at her interview that no size-12 underwear was found in JonBenet's underwear drawer or anywhere else in the house! What you are suggesting is that independently of JonBenet choosing to wear the size-12's, someone in her house also independently decided to go up to her bathroom and only remove the remaining size-12's from her underwear drawer, why so?

Why would either R remove the 12s under any scenario?

Some R's forensic evidence on the plastic container or on any of the other pairs? Myabe it was an accident that they were removed, someone said get the underwear from my x drawer, meaning only the size-6 pair and the size-12's were taken too?


We still have not factored in the Pink Barbie Nightgown or the Barbie Doll, both of which look out of place in the wine-cellar. To me they look like residue from a prior staging, or what JonBenet should have been wearing if things had gone to plan.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think I read that the panties were a floral print. Most flowers are not black or navy, so likely the panties were fairly light in color.

I've always thought that the semen stains on the comforter could be explained by masturbation/wet dream on some prior occasion when JAR had stayed at the house.

The panties are noted in the autopsy report as white cotton with pink rosebud print, elastic waistband with the word "Wednesday".
This is fairly typical for little girls' cotton panties. The cotton florals have been around for many years. In a "day-of-the-week" set, each panty would have a different color flower (yellow, blue, lavender, mint green, pink, etc). or a different print. These kinds of novelty panty sets for girls are still available today, tough not as popular as they were in years past.

As far as the semen stains, yes- it would be a fairly common finding on bedding belonging to a college boy. It would be hard to link it to the crime, considering the absence of semen on the body.
But it is the other item in the suitcase that I find odd- the children's book
(Dr. Seuss). While it may have been a favorite childhood book of JAR's, it is not something I'd expect to see him take back and forth to college, nor would it be an expected place to keep such a book (with the semen-stained bedding).

 

[Chrishope]

This would be the R's position. Maybe photographs taken by guests at the White's party will back them up, JonBenet's black velvet pants may display a size-12 VPL?

That or someone mentioned helping her.

Of course the body will be discovered but just not initially as a sexual assault victim, but that of an abduction victim, hence all the redressing with layers of fabric! The abduction scenario is undertaken to mask the sexual assault element, someone in the Ramsey household thinks that is a bad bad idea. Unless you wish to accept the Ramsey line about the size-12's and putting JonBenet to bed in the longjohns etc. The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene with JonBenet redressed to simulate an abduction victim complete with restraints, duct-tape and a fake ligature.

I understand what you are saying about staging it to make it appear to have started as an abduction.

The redressing would have hid sexual abuse from PR and the police. Abuse would be for the corner to find later. But the delay wouldn't be long.

Yes we do know Patsy was lying. BPD stated at her interview that no size-12 underwear was found in JonBenet's underwear drawer or anywhere else in the house! What you are suggesting is that independently of JonBenet choosing to wear the size-12's, someone in her house also independently decided to go up to her bathroom and only remove the remaining size-12's from her underwear drawer, why so?

No, we don't know PR is lying. We know the size 12s were in the house -PR admits buying them for her niece, and JB is wearing a pair. We know the size 12s were removed from the house, (or at least we strongly believe so, based on police statements) But we don't know that PR had knowledge that they had been removed from the house.

Someone took away the size 12s, and that is true whether they were taken from the drawer, from the basement, or anywhere else. I don't see that taking them from one location is more or less believable than from another location. They were taken. But did PR know that?

We may strongly believe PR is lying, and it's a good bet, but it isn't proven. It's not the "gotchya" that it's often imagined to be.

If JB were wearing 6s at bedtime (assuming there was a bedtime - and there may not have been) then PR could truthfully have said she noticed nothing unusual about the underwear JB had on. The 12s may have been in the drawer -after all, they were somewhere- so we don't know this to be a lie. Just because the police didn't find any 12s in the drawer doesn't mean PR was lying.

If JB had been wearing 12s at bedtime, PR might have been lying about not noticing anything unusual. Then again, if she was tired and in a hurry, possibly not.

someone in her house also independently decided to go up to her bathroom and only remove the remaining size-12's from her underwear drawer, why so?

That is the million dollar question. But it applies to all scenarios. Someone took the size 12s away, from wherever they were located. Why?

Some R's forensic evidence on the plastic container or on any of the other pairs? Myabe it was an accident that they were removed, someone said get the underwear from my x drawer, meaning only the size-6 pair and the size-12's were taken too?

All possibilities.

We still have not factored in the Pink Barbie Nightgown or the Barbie Doll, both of which look out of place in the wine-cellar. To me they look like residue from a prior staging, or what JonBenet should have been wearing if things had gone to plan.

.

I'll leave that for another thread and focus on the panties.

 

[Chrishope]

The panties are noted in the autopsy report as white cotton with pink rosebud print, elastic waistband with the word "Wednesday".
This is fairly typical for little girls' cotton panties. The cotton florals have been around for many years. In a "day-of-the-week" set, each panty would have a different color flower (yellow, blue, lavender, mint green, pink, etc). or a different print. These kinds of novelty panty sets for girls are still available today, tough not as popular as they were in years past.

As far as the semen stains, yes- it would be a fairly common finding on bedding belonging to a college boy. It would be hard to link it to the crime, considering the absence of semen on the body.
But it is the other item in the suitcase that I find odd- the children's book
(Dr. Seuss). While it may have been a favorite childhood book of JAR's, it is not something I'd expect to see him take back and forth to college, nor would it be an expected place to keep such a book (with the semen-stained bedding).

Possibly another element of staging.

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya UKGuy,

Tadpole12,
We know someone redressed JonBenet in those white longjohns and size-12's after she was assaulted and after she was wiped down. So its unlikely that JonBenet redressed herself, or that Burke helped her.

I had considered it a possibility, within a BRDI scenario. Wondered if Christophe had considered the possibility of JBR's redressing herself in the basement.

If it was the case that JonBenet redressed herself or BR helped her, where did the remaining size-12's go, and why was Patsy's version of events at variance with the evidence?

BRDI would necessitate the variance.

 

[T4Tide]

As an aside, does anyone have experience with underwear labeled for each day of the week? Would it be very likely, after the first couple weeks, that anyone would really care which "day" was being worn on any particular day? If you'll excuse the bad joke, it seems like a PITA.

I would need to know exactly what kind of packaging the underwear was in. For instance, if it was a plastic type that you had to tear to get into, most people would tear it at one corner or another. If it was a package that was the firmer plastic that snapped in the middle, the pair selected out of the package might be different. IMO, the fact that the pair was the Wednesday pair means nothing or is just a coincidence. If the packaging was snapped, the panties would have been in order of the days of the week, starting with Sunday. This would lead Tuesday and Wednesday to be in the direct middle of the package, which is most likely what you would grab first. If the package was torn at the corners, the Sun/Sat or one of the other end days would have been the day grabbed out. MOO

 

[cynic]

 

[Whaleshark]

1) The police did say that only size 4 and size 6 underwear were found in her underwear drawer. Unless they were lying. I pasted and underlined the exact testimony of it in this thread....

2) The size 12s were purposely removed from the crime scene by someone....because all the other underwear was left behind in her underwear drawer.

3) The size 12s weren't in the drawer as PR claimed, because they produced the 'package' years later for the police.

 

[SunnieRN]

That or someone mentioned helping her.

I understand what you are saying about staging it to make it appear to have started as an abduction.

The redressing would have hid sexual abuse from PR and the police. Abuse would be for the corner to find later. But the delay wouldn't be long.
No, we don't know PR is lying. We know the size 12s were in the house -PR admits buying them for her niece, and JB is wearing a pair. We know the size 12s were removed from the house, (or at least we strongly believe so, based on police statements) But we don't know that PR had knowledge that they had been removed from the house.

Someone took away the size 12s, and that is true whether they were taken from the drawer, from the basement, or anywhere else. I don't see that taking them from one location is more or less believable than from another location. They were taken. But did PR know that?

We may strongly believe PR is lying, and it's a good bet, but it isn't proven. It's not the "gotchya" that it's often imagined to be.

If JB were wearing 6s at bedtime (assuming there was a bedtime - and there may not have been) then PR could truthfully have said she noticed nothing unusual about the underwear JB had on. The 12s may have been in the drawer -after all, they were somewhere- so we don't know this to be a lie. Just because the police didn't find any 12s in the drawer doesn't mean PR was lying.

If JB had been wearing 12s at bedtime, PR might have been lying about not noticing anything unusual. Then again, if she was tired and in a hurry, possibly not.

That is the million dollar question. But it applies to all scenarios. Someone took the size 12s away, from wherever they were located. Why?

All possibilities.

I'll leave that for another thread and focus on the panties.

Well, not to be contrary, but to keep all the information about the bloomies accurate, not 'someone' took the bloomies away. A Ramsey took the bloomies away.

The Ramsey's admitted to have found them, turning them into BPD 5 years later. They didn't show up in the home, found by a new owner. They didn't suddenly magically appear in the evidence locker that BPD had.

The R's turned them in. So logically, the R's removed them. The simplest explanation is often the best and most accurate.

Why is it that you feel Patsy would not have lied about giving the bloomies to JonBenet? It would have been much easier and more suspicious to say that no size 12 undies were in the house. It would have led credence to the story of an intruder.

Also, why did the R's ever turn in the remaining pairs? We have discussed these issues previously, but I would like your opinion.

 

[Whaleshark]

interesting/similar viewpoint from Koldkase posted from here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TQGTT35B28Q2IU1M7/p11

Koldkase is writing back in response to the person below's question:

"BrotherMoon wrote: "Why don't YOU explain how the oversized panties are supposed to be "staging"?"

Koldkase response:
"If CSIEngland will forgive me, I'll jump in and be happy to clear this up for the confused.

Children don't put underwear on themselves which fall to their ankles and then wear them to a party. Unless JonBenet got that headblow before she put them on, she would not have done that. Any parent knows this is true.

But if you need something more to consider this, look at Jayelles' experiment, with the same brand and a "dummy" she made from a same-sized child.(I'm sure you've seen it, Brother.) Yes, it's just an amateur experiment, but it simply illustrates the problem with Patsy's changing stories about that very Bloomie underwear, when questioned by LE in Atlanta in 2000.

Patsy changed her story. Right there, as she was being questioned, as Wood was fending off the questions as vehemently as he could, trying to cue Patsy because Patsy's story wasn't holding up to the facts, Patsy told one story, then changed it, then changed it again. Patsy was lying about JonBenet putting those on herself.

Patsy also lied about the size JonBenet actually wore, trying to fudge that size to 8-10. But the fact is the sizes found in the drawer by LE were only 4-6, not ONE pair sized 8-10. PATSY LIED AGAIN.

Then we find out years later that in fact, the Ramseys claimed to have actually located the entire missing package of those size 12-14 Bloomies some time BEFORE that 2000 LE interview in Atlanta, maybe as far back as 1998, but withheld that evidence until 2002! Pasty admitted in the 2000 interview she knew about the significance of the Bloomies found on JonBenet before that interview. She also was told CLEARLY why this was important EVIDENCE. Yet she said NOTHING to LE about that package the Ramseys had in their possession! The entire PREMISE of that Atlanta interview process was so Team Ramsey and LE could share info TO HELP FIND THE KILLER. But Patsy deliberately kept silent about about the fact that Team Ramsey had the remainder of the package! Why would she do that?

Yes, the Bloomies are important on many levels, and these are just additional proof that the Ramsey have lied to LE, have lied to the public, and have never intended to ever help LE solve this case.

But there is more. If the Bloomies were too large for the child to wear, then she didn't wear them when she was a walking, talking child. So why would someone put that overly large underwear on JonBenet when she was no longer standing or moving on her own? That's an important question.

And where was the package of Bloomies that night? And who thought to take them out and put them on JonBenet, rather than just grab a pair of hers which were the right size? Was it the day of the week that mattered? Was it that they were nearby and handy in a hurry? Was it because they weren't stained (and believe it or not, that's important to most women when they're going to be examined by medical personnel)?. Did the ones she was actually wearing before someone put the too large Bloomies on her, which fit her, have blood in them, or urine, and that was significant in the chain of events? Have those ever even been found?

Yes, the Bloomies are important for many reasons. They're part of the evidence and tell a part of the story. A big part."
-end of quote from Koldkase

 

[Chrishope]

Well, not to be contrary, but to keep all the information about the bloomies accurate, not 'someone' took the bloomies away. A Ramsey took the bloomies away.

The Ramsey's admitted to have found them, turning them into BPD 5 years later. They didn't show up in the home, found by a new owner. They didn't suddenly magically appear in the evidence locker that BPD had.

The R's turned them in. So logically, the R's removed them. The simplest explanation is often the best and most accurate.

We don't know that a Ramsey took them away. They may have simply bought a new package at the store and turned it in with the story that it had been found. (Misplaced during the move I think they said? ) The ones they gave to the police, long long after, doesn't have to be the pack that was taken the night of the murder.

I'd say it's about a 97% chance a Ramsey took them away, but we don't know it as an absolute fact. Let's allow for a 2% chance that IDI is ture, and lets keep the remaining 1% for a 3rd party who was there at the Rs invitation.

Even if a Ramsey took them away (which is highly highly probable) which Ramsey? And why? UKGuy has provided a few ideas above. The package and/or the other pairs may have been forensically dirty.

Why is it that you feel Patsy would not have lied about giving the bloomies to JonBenet? It would have been much easier and more suspicious to say that no size 12 undies were in the house. It would have led credence to the story of an intruder.

You've misunderstood me. Perhaps I contributed to the misunderstanding by not being clear enough. I think it's very possible PR lied about giving the panties to JB.
But I also think it's very possible she was telling the truth.

PR knew there were size 12s in the house. She bought them, and brought them into the house. She didn't necessarily know the size 12s had been removed from the house. Possibly JR removed them w/o PR's knowledge? In that case, she can't say there are no 12s because the police know she bought them and JB is wearing a pair. If PR doesn't know the size 12s have been removed from the house she has no reason to lie. There is a straightforward simple and true explanation - they were in JBs drawer.

I'm asking RDIs (and I'm one myself) to reconsider something that most have made up their minds about years ago. If PR was not lying about the underwear it does not destroy RDI theory. It doesn't really even bruise RDI theory. We just have to accept that things may not have occurred quite the way we had thought.
As RDIs we want badly to believe we've caught PR in a lie, but logically, we just can't prove that. And if we are honest with ourselves, there's a pretty good chance she was telling the truth.

Let me try it from one more angle. Since we assign a very very low probability to IDI, we must assume a Ramsey put those size 12s on her (or she put them on herself). That means they came from somewhere in the house. They had to be someplace, and it had to be a place the re-dresser knew about. JBs drawer is one such place - one possibility. They may also have been in the basement, either wrapped or waiting to be wrapped. Since the murder occurs on X-mas, and the panties intended as a gift have not been sent, I don't think it stretches the imagination too far to suppose one pack was given to JB. Perhaps they had been accidentally opened before being wrapped and became dirty, and therefore unfit for giving as a gift? Perhaps JB saw them, opened the package and tried a pair on just to see how big girl panties would fit?

This case has gone nowhere for a long time. It's unlikely we'll solve it here on these boards, but one thing we know is that we won't solve it if our beliefs become ossified. That PR is telling the truth really isn't so difficult to believe, and actually makes sense in a scenario where JR re-dresses JB in the size 12s w/o PR's knowledge, and removes the remaining size 12s, also w/o PR's knowledge.

Also, why did the R's ever turn in the remaining pairs? We have discussed these issues previously, but I would like your opinion.

The surface answer is of course that they want them to be in the evidence inventory in case they ever go to trial. It fits with the overall story that JB is "found" wearing what she had on at bedtime.

People like me (and I bet you as well) think it's important that things should be consistent, and that a criminal should try to avoid suspicion. The Rs know that suspicion doesn't matter one little bit - only proof. I'd have been petrified at the thought of turning in that package all that time later, but the Rs know it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. The size 12s are now entered in the evidence log. The prosecutor can (if it ever goes to trial) try to claim the Rs bought another package to cover a lie, or claim the Rs laundered the remaining 12s to destroy forensic evidence, and on and on and on. But the Rs know that only proof matters, and the prosecution can't prove any of that.

That's the best I can do for know on that question.

 

[Whaleshark]

Even if JBR supposedly put these on herself before going to the party, I can't imagine leaving them on my child if I was changing her pants to her longjohns...


Size 12 versus Size 6

 

[cynic]

Even if JBR supposedly put these on herself before going to the party, I can't imagine leaving them on my child if I was changing her pants to her longjohns...


Size 12 versus Size 6

And I as I indicated in the first post of this thread, it's quite interseting to see PR try to downplay the massive difference in size
Q. Was it something that, the fact that she is wearing these underpants designed for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and I will give you a minute to think about it because I know it is tough to try to pin down a couple of months of casual conversation -- do you recall ever having any conversations with her concerning the fact that she is wearing underwear that is just too large for her?
A. No.
Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it was, if it had caught your attention or came to your attention, do you think you might have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't fit, put something on that fits, that is inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,
had come to your attention –
A. Well, obviously we, you know, the package had been opened, we made the decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and use them because, you know, we weren't going to give them to Jenny after all, I guess, so. I mean, if you have ever seen these little panties, there is not too much difference in the size. So, you know, I'm sure even if they were a little bit big, they were special because we got them up there, she wanted to wear them, and they didn't fall down around her ankles, that was fine with me.
MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see if they fell down around her ankles or not?
THE WITNESS: No.