The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Dynamic88]

RE: BR tDNA on the nightgown. It is possible that small amounts of DNA were left there when the nightgown was washed and dried. Just because its called "touch" DNA does not mean that is how it got there.

Not saying that is 100% how i believe it got there, just something to remember.

Fides: what about the garrote seems carefully constructed? I see a sloppy collection of simple knots. Perhaps the paintbrush was tied on after the fact, but again it does not appear "professional" (in LS's words and repeated by JR) or "careful" in the least.

What would have had to have been careful and meticulous, was the cover up.


This child was assaulted, cleaned up, re-dressed and hidden. Even allowing the fact that perhaps BR put the size 12's on her, he would have still had to have gotten supplies to clean her, and wiped her down well. Let us not forget, there is a bruise on her inner thigh that was suggested to have been someone's thumbprint. Someone grasping her leg hard to assault or clean. If it were a child-sized thumbprint bruise, I don't think it would have even been identified as such. It would have simply been thought of as a small bruise.

BR may have been bright, but evidence suggests he was not a neat child. Particularly if Kolar is to be believed in regard to the feces.

In my previous statement I was really just trying to expand any idea beyond thinking of everything as staging, which I think might be slightly shortsighted. We don't know much about BR's personality at all. We have no way of knowing if he was violent. One incident of violence as a child, unfortunately one with horrible consequences, does not necessarily mean that he was a psychopath. I know my sister and I got into some serious tussles as children. She pulled a knife on me at one point. Children don't always know cause and effect well.

I think this crime looks pretty deliberate. The actions may not have been intended to kill her (though the strangulation certainly looks that way) but at minimum someone tried to hurt her by hitting her on the head. I recall hearing that BR's DNA was found on the "garotte". If I'm wrong I retract that.

UKguy,
These people were not expert criminals. They did not consider every possibility that LE would notice. They would not necessarily think that the size 12's would attract attention.

I also object to the idea that JR would have thought they were ridiculous. It honestly seems to me like something a man would not consider, as boys can wear very large boxers and still be comfortable.

There does not have to be blood on her skin corresponding to blood on the panties. There was a small amount of blood found around the perineum and in the vestibule of her genitals. Since we agree that the panties are ridiculously large, consider how they would have bunched or folded in her leggings. This would have been undone when they were removed. Perhaps when the leggings were on the panties were right against her skin and when unfolded, appeared in quite a different spot.

I don't see how "they" could fail to realize that size 12s would attract attention. I agree JR might have been less sensitive to the size issue than PR would be, but then the use of size 12s would seem to be his decision, not "theirs".

There's the obvious possibility of BR putting them on her, but I have rejected BDI so I'll let others speculate on that. My point is simply that if Patsy had anything to say about how the body was redressed I don't see her opting for the size 12s. Why? There was a drawer full of correctly sized panties.

JMO but I think it's most likely the size 12s were in the "gift wrapping station" PR had set up in the basement. They were used primarily because they were available w/o having to go back upstairs to JBR's underwear drawer.

That said, I'm not sure why any panties were needed. To cover her nakedness the LJ's are more than sufficient. No intruder is likely to have wasted time redressing the body in any case. I suspect the plan to stage a kidnapping occurred to the perp(s) after the redressing. If the plan was to present the police with a kidnapping gone wrong then the obvious thing to do would be leave her naked and violated out in the open. As it was, it was impossible to tell there was a sexual assault until the autopsy was performed.

The whole size 12 think makes very little sense.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
My thought process is brand new panties wouldn't have troublesome DNA. The fact that JonBenets original panties are missing says they may contain important clues to her murder.

Teresa,

It could that the size-12's were used because it was assumed they were forensically clean, yet her longjohns were not brand new, and the pink barbie nightgown was bloodstained and contained BR's touch dna, why remove the size-6 underwear and not the pink barbie nightgown, if removing forensic evidence was important?

It looks to me as if someone staged JonBenet in an attempt to match the R's version of events?

If a kidnapping and sexual assault was being staged then cleaning JonBenet, wiping away the blood etc, should not matter, they can just leave JonBenet bloodied and undressed and blame it all on an intruder?

That never happened JonBenet was presented as if she had been taken from her bed, and asphyxiated with a ligature, so why the latter but not a visible sexual assault?

Someone wiped JonBenet clean after she had been redressed in the size-12's since they had bloodstains but no matching blood on her body, so I have the impression someone restaged the crime-scene?

The simplest explanation for the size-12's is that they were available and to hand.

 

[andreww]

Double post

 

[andreww]

Someone wiped JonBenet clean after she had been redressed in the size-12's since they had bloodstains but no matching blood on her body, so I have the impression someone restaged the crime-scene?

Why do you think that? It simply could have been an afterthought, "maybe I should wipe her groin in case any DNA was left when I put my hand in her panties".

Personally I don't see any evidence of re-staging, with the exception of John possibly moving the body just before he found her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I don't see how "they" could fail to realize that size 12s would attract attention. I agree JR might have been less sensitive to the size issue than PR would be, but then the use of size 12s would seem to be his decision, not "theirs".

There's the obvious possibility of BR putting them on her, but I have rejected BDI so I'll let others speculate on that. My point is simply that if Patsy had anything to say about how the body was redressed I don't see her opting for the size 12s. Why? There was a drawer full of correctly sized panties.

JMO but I think it's most likely the size 12s were in the "gift wrapping station" PR had set up in the basement. They were used primarily because they were available w/o having to go back upstairs to JBR's underwear drawer.

That said, I'm not sure why any panties were needed. To cover her nakedness the LJ's are more than sufficient. No intruder is likely to have wasted time redressing the body in any case. I suspect the plan to stage a kidnapping occurred to the perp(s) after the redressing. If the plan was to present the police with a kidnapping gone wrong then the obvious thing to do would be leave her naked and violated out in the open. As it was, it was impossible to tell there was a sexual assault until the autopsy was performed.

The whole size 12 think makes very little sense.

Never thought of that before, that the long johns are essentially long underwear. Why the need for panties at all? Would anyone have even noticed that she wasn't wearing panties?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Why do you think that? It simply could have been an afterthought, "maybe I should wipe her groin in case any DNA was left when I put my hand in her panties".

Personally I don't see any evidence of re-staging, with the exception of John possibly moving the body just before he found her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,

I think the focus will have been on bloodstains and fiber evidence rather than dna.

We do not know who wiped the blood from JonBenet's body, it might have been the person who redressed her in the size-12's, it might have happened at a later point, it patently was an afterthought!

Why not leave JonBenet naked from the torso down, what motivated the person who redressed JonBenet to do so?

The white blanket, size-12's and longjohns appear to have been added after her assault, so to that extent this aspect was staged.

James Kolar thinks one person sexually assaulted JonBenet, whacked her on the head and deliberately asphyxiated her, so was there premeditation, was it planned, could it have been sibling rivalry gone wrong?

ETA: the long johns function might simply to have been to hold the size-12's up? Similarly the white blanket: to mask any further seepage of blood, since the size-12's were a forensic issue.

.
.

 

[Dynamic88]

Never thought of that before, that the long johns are essentially long underwear. Why the need for panties at all? Would anyone have even noticed that she wasn't wearing panties?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If proper procedures were followed -and they were in this instance- then no, nobody would have noticed she wasn't wearing panties. The police should not pull down the LJs, and they didn't. It's not until autopsy that anyone can discover she's not wearing two pairs of underwear. Even then there is no reason it should have been taken as any kind of sign of something wrong. There would be nothing strange about wearing LJs w/o panties. At least it wouldn't be anywhere near as strange as wearing LJs with size 12 panties underneath.

 

[Dynamic88]

Sorry, double post

 

[UKGuy]

If proper procedures were followed -and they were in this instance- then no, nobody would have noticed she wasn't wearing panties. The police should not pull down the LJs, and they didn't. It's not until autopsy that anyone can discover she's not wearing two pairs of underwear. Even then there is no reason it should have been taken as any kind of sign of something wrong. There would be nothing strange about wearing LJs w/o panties. At least it wouldn't be anywhere near as strange as wearing LJs with size 12 panties underneath.

Dynamic88,
Sure and if you check the R's version of events, nobody asked the R's why long-johns, Patsy has a story about the long-johns which I do not believe, especially with the pink barbie nightgown being placed into the wine-cellar, who did that?

So it could be someone was going to replace the size-12's with the long-johns, but those bloodstains made them think twice, so put them on over the size-12's, after wiping JonBenet down, followed by the white blanket to hide any further bloodstains?

Kolar has theory that is at variance with nearly everyone else's RDI theory, that might be explained because we are all using fabricated evidence or the remnants of a staged crime-scene?

.

 

[andreww]

If proper procedures were followed -and they were in this instance- then no, nobody would have noticed she wasn't wearing panties. The police should not pull down the LJs, and they didn't. It's not until autopsy that anyone can discover she's not wearing two pairs of underwear. Even then there is no reason it should have been taken as any kind of sign of something wrong. There would be nothing strange about wearing LJs w/o panties. At least it wouldn't be anywhere near as strange as wearing LJs with size 12 panties underneath.

So lets explore that a little further. If JB is found wearing just the long johns, the question then becomes "why, when you carried a sleeping JB to bed, did you decide to remove her panties?". Bottom line here is that the state she was found in should be the state that Patsy supposedly left her in bed. And one step further, the size 12s that she was found in should have been what she wore to the White's party. Because, if JB did not wear those size 12's to the White's party, either an intruder rooted around JBs bathroom and grabbed the size 12s before grabbing JB, or Patsy is lying.

As the package was not in JBs underwear drawer, wasn't in the basement, and wasn't carried off by an intruder, one has to wonder how that intruder would have come across them?

Was Patsy asked if JB was wearing the size 12s when she changed her for bed?

 

[InstantProof]

Teresa,

It could that the size-12's were used because it was assumed they were forensically clean, yet her longjohns were not brand new, and the pink barbie nightgown was bloodstained and contained BR's touch dna, why remove the size-6 underwear and not the pink barbie nightgown, if removing forensic evidence was important?

It looks to me as if someone staged JonBenet in an attempt to match the R's version of events?

If a kidnapping and sexual assault was being staged then cleaning JonBenet, wiping away the blood etc, should not matter, they can just leave JonBenet bloodied and undressed and blame it all on an intruder?

That never happened JonBenet was presented as if she had been taken from her bed, and asphyxiated with a ligature, so why the latter but not a visible sexual assault?

Someone wiped JonBenet clean after she had been redressed in the size-12's since they had bloodstains but no matching blood on her body, so I have the impression someone restaged the crime-scene?

The simplest explanation for the size-12's is that they were available and to hand.

Maybe there was an attempt to clean her up in order to take her to the hospital?

 

[andreww]

Teresa,

It could that the size-12's were used because it was assumed they were forensically clean, yet her longjohns were not brand new, and the pink barbie nightgown was bloodstained and contained BR's touch dna, why remove the size-6 underwear and not the pink barbie nightgown, if removing forensic evidence was important?

It looks to me as if someone staged JonBenet in an attempt to match the R's version of events?

If a kidnapping and sexual assault was being staged then cleaning JonBenet, wiping away the blood etc, should not matter, they can just leave JonBenet bloodied and undressed and blame it all on an intruder?

That never happened JonBenet was presented as if she had been taken from her bed, and asphyxiated with a ligature, so why the latter but not a visible sexual assault?

Someone wiped JonBenet clean after she had been redressed in the size-12's since they had bloodstains but no matching blood on her body, so I have the impression someone restaged the crime-scene?

The simplest explanation for the size-12's is that they were available and to hand.

I believe that the sexual assault was an effort to show that an intruder had penetrated her, breaking the hymen. As there was no effort to remove the blood stained panties, one would assume that plan hadn't changed. I feel the wiping was simply to ensure that either Burke's or John's DNA wasn't there. They could explain it anywhere else on her body but not there.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Do we know for a fact that the red turtleneck which P allegedly wanted JB to wear to be alike was the red balled up blouse in the sink ? or were they two different items ? Couldn't find that info anywhere..Cause if that was the same red turtleneck , I am thinking that maybe it was smeared fecet like the box of choclates from the pjama bottoms and JB ending up wearing the white Gap top..If so, it shows the dispute between the siblings which P tried to hide to protect B saying that JB herself insisted on the gap top.

 

[UKGuy]

Do we know for a fact that the red turtleneck which P allegedly wanted JB to wear to be alike was the red balled up blouse in the sink ? or were they two different items ? Couldn't find that info anywhere..Cause if that was the same red turtleneck , I am thinking that maybe it was smeared fecet like the box of choclates from the pjama bottoms and JB ending up wearing the white Gap top..If so, it shows the dispute between the siblings which P tried to hide to protect B saying that JB herself insisted on the gap top.

MURDERER_SERVANT,

(0265-22) THOMAS HANEY: Number 18? TRIP DeMUTH: How about the red item in the upper right-hand corner? PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's a little turtleneck, a little cotton turtleneck, and I had wanted her to wear it to the Whites and she didn't want to wear it. TRIP DeMUTH: How did it end up there? PATSY RAMSEY: Don't remember. A crown. Oh, God. THOMAS HANEY: It's about 10:25. Do you want to take about a ten-minute break, how's that sound? We will come back. PATSY RAMSEY: (Crying.) (INAUDIBLE RESPONSE.) (Recess taken.) (0266-14) THOMAS HANEY: We are back on tape and it's about 10:59 a.m.

BBM: I've seen a picture of this and its difficult to identify it conclusively, since it appears as an indistinct dark bundle, the red color adds to the dullness.

Yet Patsy reckons its the same red turtleneck, from memory it was on a shelf next to the sink, but do not quote me on that, also Steve Thomas admits he does not know if it was wet or dry?

I think Patsy stated in some interview that she washed a red jumpsuit or ironed it early that morning 12/26/1996?

If the turtleneck was smeared then BPD have missed out here. According to Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, much of JonBenet's underwear "had been soiled with fecal material.".


.

 

[Dynamic88]

So lets explore that a little further.

OK.

If JB is found wearing just the long johns, the question then becomes "why, when you carried a sleeping JB to bed, did you decide to remove her panties?".

Comfort. Panties had a little wet spot on them. Panties came off when removing jeans so they just left them off before putting on the LJs. Most any explanation will do if it's half way reasonable.

Bottom line here is that the state she was found in should be the state that Patsy supposedly left her in bed.

Exactly. So which perp needed to make it so JBR was wearing what she had on when put to bed? If both JR and PR had some say in the redressing then they were free to redress her anyway they wanted. They could have redressed her in a cowgirl outfit as long as they told police she was dressed as a cowgirl when she went to bed. Obviously a silly example, but the point is they can simply "verbally modify" what it is she supposedly had on at bedtime making the story consistent with what she had on when John "discovered" the body. So they can choose anything to redress her in. So why the size 12s? But were JR and PR both working on the redressing, or was one redressing w/o the other's knowledge?

And one step further, the size 12s that she was found in should have been what she wore to the White's party. Because, if JB did not wear those size 12's to the White's party, either an intruder rooted around JBs bathroom and grabbed the size 12s before grabbing JB, or Patsy is lying.

And it would be silly to suggest that the intruder would go routing around for size 12s. In fact it's silly to suggest that the intruder would have bothered with redressing at all. So why panties of any size. Why LJs? But even if JBR wore the size 12s to the party (which I think is unlikely) the "intruder" still had to remove the entire package of size 12s from the underwear drawer. Why would he do that? It's also possible JBR put them on herself, sometime between coming home and being taken from her bedroom. That would explain a lot. The perp redressed her in the most literal possible sense, putting back on exactly what he (or she) had taken off JBR before assaulting her. (Or the LJs/panties may simply have been pulled down rather than removed altogether) The problem with that is that the perp still has to be responsible for removing the entire package of size 12s from the underwear drawer and I see no reason for this.
So, JMO, but I think Patsy is lying about having put them in JB's underwear drawer. The police didn't find them there, or anywhere else. Years later a package of panties supposedly turns up, but there is no chain of custody and no way to know if that is the "missing" package.

As the package was not in JBs underwear drawer, wasn't in the basement, and wasn't carried off by an intruder, one has to wonder how that intruder would have come across them?

Well, the package had to be one of those places because after all a pair of size 12s was used to redress the body. My guess is that it was in the basement, in the makeshift "wrapping station" Patsy had set up for wrapping gifts. It's still perplexing that he/she/they expected the police to believe that the intruder found the size 12s.

Was Patsy asked if JB was wearing the size 12s when she changed her for bed?

Not directly, but as I recall she was asked if she'd have noticed if JBR wasn't wearing any panties, or if there was anything unusual.

 

[Dynamic88]

I believe that the sexual assault was an effort to show that an intruder had penetrated her, breaking the hymen. As there was no effort to remove the blood stained panties, one would assume that plan hadn't changed. I feel the wiping was simply to ensure that either Burke's or John's DNA wasn't there. They could explain it anywhere else on her body but not there.

It's possible the perp didn't know about the blood stains on the panties. It might have been seepage that occurred after moving the body into the WC.

The plan to make it look as if an intruder broke her hymen makes some sense. But the whole kidnapping gone bad scenario is at odds with the way the body is cleaned/wiped/wrapped and hidden in the WC. Unless the perp(s) figured that is what a kidnapping gone bad looks like.

 

[pukasonqo2]

It's possible the perp didn't know about the blood stains on the panties. It might have been seepage that occurred after moving the body into the WC.

The plan to make it look as if an intruder broke her hymen makes some sense. But the whole kidnapping gone bad scenario is at odds with the way the body is cleaned/wiped/wrapped and hidden in the WC. Unless the perp(s) figured that is what a kidnapping gone bad looks like.

not an expert but here i go
in most cases of child victims who had been redressed, covered or placed in "comfortable" places eg: not exposed to the elements or scavengers, points out to a family member making sure the child is "look after" and not discarded like trash
someone went through a lot of trouble making sure JB was dressed and"look after" in death, wrapping her in her own blanket, making sure she was clean, dry and warm
that is what, for me, points out to a R
a kidnapper would actually take her away (like polly klaas) and discard her once he/she was finished
why stay at the house and risk jail if the adults woke up? waste precious time redressing a victim he/she had no longer any need for?



Lupus est *advertiser censored* homini, non *advertiser censored*, quom qualis sit non novit

 

[andreww]

It's possible the perp didn't know about the blood stains on the panties. It might have been seepage that occurred after moving the body into the WC.

The plan to make it look as if an intruder broke her hymen makes some sense. But the whole kidnapping gone bad scenario is at odds with the way the body is cleaned/wiped/wrapped and hidden in the WC. Unless the perp(s) figured that is what a kidnapping gone bad looks like.

It is possible that the blood got there via seepage after she was cleaned up. But the fact that wiped blood was found on her groin, it would suggest that her original blood stained panties would have been removed, then replaced with fresh size 12s that would stain due to seeping.

But if you recall, the coroner stated that there was no corresponding stains on her body. Blood simply doesn't leap from her inner vagina to the panties. So logic dictates she was wearing the size 12s, was wiped down, and they were pulled back up.

To me this shows that the perp was not hiding blood, but was worried that tdna, sweat, saliva or semen may be in that region and they wanted it gone.

And although I think it is unlikely, there is always the possibility that someone left the house and wiped a stain from a public men's room, then purposely transferred it to JBs groin. Possibly she was wiped with DNA, not wiped clean?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

MURDERER_SERVANT,


BBM: I've seen a picture of this and its difficult to identify it conclusively, since it appears as an indistinct dark bundle, the red color adds to the dullness.

Yet Patsy reckons its the same red turtleneck, from memory it was on a shelf next to the sink, but do not quote me on that, also Steve Thomas admits he does not know if it was wet or dry?

I think Patsy stated in some interview that she washed a red jumpsuit or ironed it early that morning 12/26/1996?

If the turtleneck was smeared then BPD have missed out here. According to Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, much of JonBenet's underwear "had been soiled with fecal material.".


.

Could that be the reason for the size 12s? No mother wants their child found in feces stained underwear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dynamic88]

not an expert but here i go
in most cases of child victims who had been redressed, covered or placed in "comfortable" places eg: not exposed to the elements or scavengers, points out to a family member making sure the child is "look after" and not discarded like trash
someone went through a lot of trouble making sure JB was dressed and"look after" in death, wrapping her in her own blanket, making sure she was clean, dry and warm
that is what, for me, points out to a R
a kidnapper would actually take her away (like polly klaas) and discard her once he/she was finished
why stay at the house and risk jail if the adults woke up? waste precious time redressing a victim he/she had no longer any need for?



Lupus est *advertiser censored* homini, non *advertiser censored*, quom qualis sit non novit

Right. And this "looked after" condition is at odds with the story they are telling of a sex killer.

And, as you mention, a real kidnapper would have taken her.

Yet we are left with a "cared for" body wrapped in a blanky in the WC and a RN that clearly sets up a kidnapping that is supposed to be already completed, then we are asked to buy into a kidnapping gone bad.

It's all very inconsistent.