The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Dynamic88]

Dynamic88,
No! They found size-6 underwear as stated to Patsy in her interview, what I'm attempting to illustrate is PR's consistency on the underwear topic, she forgets or was not present when it matters about the size-6 underwear except when someone is required for the size-12 purchase, get it?

Patsy was already pinned down in the interview when she agreed that the intruder never brought the size-12 underwear into the house as Patsy agreed she purchased it.

When the investigators ask Patsy if she purchased a size-6 pack of Bloomingdale underwear, at the same time as the size-12 pack of underwear, she forgets, do you see the pattern in Patsy's response, e.g. size-12 remember, size-6 forgets.


Investigators normally do not ask irrelevant questions, so when Patsy is asked did you purchase a pack of Bloomingdales size-6 for JonBenet, then this question has to be based on prior knowledge, else why bother.

So I'm inferring there is a missing pair of Wednesday size-6 underwear and that is key to solving the JonBenet homicide!

.

I see your point.

I wanted to make sure because I have always assumed the police asked about the size 12s precisely because they never found any, anywhere in the house. Thus it was necessary to establish whether or not the intruder could have brought the single pair with him. Had the police found other size 12s in the home, they would have assumed the pair JBR had on came from the same source -e.g. the package. As an aside, I feel it's unlikely the police searched the house and missed an open package of size 12 panties.

As far as size 6s, there were plenty on hand so I don't see that it's necessary to establish that Patsy bought size 6s when she bought the size 12s. She bought size 6s at some time, otherwise how is the underwear drawer full of underwear? (15pair iirc)

I wouldn't infer misssing size 6 Wed. panties. Or rather, I'd infer it, but not insist on it. It may well be, but then again she may have been wearing Thursday size 6s. Or she may have worn the size 12s to the party and when put to bed, though I'd suspect that is unlikely. It is possible. It's unlikely, imo, that she always wore the correct day of the week.

The main problem, as I see it, is that if both JR and PR are in on the redressing decision there is no (apparent) reason for the size 12s. They are free to redress her in anything they choose claiming that she was dressed that way for bed.

 

[Dynamic88]

Idea:

What if the Wednesday panties were chosen because they were in the middle of the package? Not because of the day or pattern or anything. Simply because, in haste, someone pulled one out of the middle. It just happened to match the day of the week.

Makes sense, but why the size 12s from the middle of the package when there were many pairs of size 6s in her drawer?

 

[UKGuy]

I see your point.

I wanted to make sure because I have always assumed the police asked about the size 12s precisely because they never found any, anywhere in the house. Thus it was necessary to establish whether or not the intruder could have brought the single pair with him. Had the police found other size 12s in the home, they would have assumed the pair JBR had on came from the same source -e.g. the package. As an aside, I feel it's unlikely the police searched the house and missed an open package of size 12 panties.

As far as size 6s, there were plenty on hand so I don't see that it's necessary to establish that Patsy bought size 6s when she bought the size 12s. She bought size 6s at some time, otherwise how is the underwear drawer full of underwear? (15pair iirc)

I wouldn't infer misssing size 6 Wed. panties. Or rather, I'd infer it, but not insist on it. It may well be, but then again she may have been wearing Thursday size 6s. Or she may have worn the size 12s to the party and when put to bed, though I'd suspect that is unlikely. It is possible. It's unlikely, imo, that she always wore the correct day of the week.

The main problem, as I see it, is that if both JR and PR are in on the redressing decision there is no (apparent) reason for the size 12s. They are free to redress her in anything they choose claiming that she was dressed that way for bed.

Dynamic88,
The subtleties of the size-12's are many, not many get them.

As an aside, I feel it's unlikely the police searched the house and missed an open package of size 12 panties.

The police never realized the importance of the size-12's until well after the autopsy, when they returned looking for the rest of JonBenet's underwear.

I wouldn't infer misssing size 6 Wed. panties. Or rather, I'd infer it, but not insist on it. It may well be, but then again she may have been wearing Thursday size 6s. Or she may have worn the size 12s to the party and when put to bed, though I'd suspect that is unlikely. It is possible. It's unlikely, imo, that she always wore the correct day of the week.

Sure JonBenet might have worn anything other, or none, than a Wednesday size-6 pair. That is an inference not based on anything, we know Patsy purchased Bloomingdales size-12 as a gift for her niece Jenny, but what did she buy for JonBenet, size-6 or size-12, if it was size-12 then there should be two packs of Bloomingdales size-12 in the house, there were none! So again what size did she purchase for JonBenet, read the transcript below at your leisure.

Patsy Interview Atlanta 2000, Excerpt

18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start

19 with what - I will make it very simple for

20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you

21 in possession of or what do you know about

22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing

23 at the time she was found murdered?

24 A. I have heard that she had on a

25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.

0078

1 Q. The underwear that she was

2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you

3 know where they come from as far as what

4 store?

5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.

6 Q. Who purchased those?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased

9 them?

10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.

11 Q. In the fall of 1996, how many

12 trips did you make to New York?

13 A. Two, I believe.

14 Q. Do you recall, and again, the

15 same, same qualification I gave you when we

16 started, which is, I understand that you are

17 not going to give me exact dates, but the

18 two trips you made, did you make those with

19 different groups of people?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The first trip, who was that trip

22 with?

23 A. The first trip was a

24 mother-daughter trip with my mother Nedra

25 Paugh, my sister Pam Paugh, friends Susan

0079

1 Flanders from Charlevoix, Michigan, and her

2 daughter and a friend of Susan's, Ms.

3 Kirkpatrick I believe was her name, and her

4 daughter, and JonBenet and myself.

5 Q. And the second trip you made was?

6 A. The second trip we made was with

7 Glen and Susan Stein.

8 Q. Is that the trip -- which trip

9 was the November trip?

10 A. With the children.

11 Q. Was that -- that is the first

12 trip?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the second trip that you and

15 your husband and the Steins took, was that

16 also November, but later in the month, or

17 was that a December trip?

18 A. I think it was December.

19 Q. And maybe this will help jog your

20 memory as to time. I believe that was the

21 time of the Christmas parade in Boulder.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Were you out of town?

0080

1 A. I remember that.

2 Q. Which of those two trips did you

3 purchase the Bloomi's?

4 A. The first trip.

5 Q. Was it something that was selected

6 by JonBenet?

7 A. I believe so.

8 Q. Was it your intention, when you

9 purchased those, for those to be for her,

10 not for some third party as a gift?

11 A. I bought some things that were

12 gifts and some things for her. So I

13 don't --

14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is

15 your best recollection that the purchase of

16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the

17 week, was something that you bought for her,

18 whether it was just I am buying underwear

19 for my kids or these are special, here's a

20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your

21 intention that she would wear those?

22 A. Well, I think that I bought a

23 package of the -- they came in a package of

24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

25 I think I bought a package to give to my

0081

1 niece.

2 Q. Which niece was that?

3 A. Jenny Davis.

4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do

5 you remember that they come in kind of a

6 plastic see-through plastic container.

7 A. Right.

8 Q. They are rolled up?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,

11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your

12 niece, and one for JonBenet?

13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or

14 two.

15 Q. Do you remember what size they

16 were?

17 A. Not exactly.

18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the

19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your

20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you

21 can accept that as a fact, when she was

22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit

23 her. Were you aware of that?

...

20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the

21 package had been opened, we made the

22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and

23 use them because, you know, we weren't going

24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,

25 so.

...

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in

16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I

17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all

18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can

19 help herself to whatever is in there.

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not

21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to

22 Jenny.

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in

25 JonBenet's bathroom?

0087

1 A. Right.

...

5 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it

6 this way. Did you say you bought more than

7 one set of Bloomi's?

8 A. I can't remember.

9 Q. You bought some for JonBenet?

10 A. I can't remember.

11 Q. Why is it that you remember

12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of

13 1996?

...

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?

Since the investigators are asking about the Bloomingdales purchased by Patsy then presumably these are size-6, furthermore you can infer the Wednesday pair might be missing, hence Patsy's sudden onset of amnesia when asked about what she purchased for JonBenet!

The main problem, as I see it, is that if both JR and PR are in on the redressing decision there is no (apparent) reason for the size 12s. They are free to redress her in anything they choose claiming that she was dressed that way for bed.

I agree, and no parent is going to redress their child in oversized underwear, only at a staged crime-scene might someone think We must have a Wednesday pair, since thats what she was wearing,, since in nearly every other scenario size and day of the week are irrelevant, or can be explained away, i.e. size-12's were not used because she had already been wearing size-12's!


ETA: note from the interview JonBenet selects her underwear, and that if Patsy had redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, she would make sure they really were placed into her underwear drawer!


.

 

[andreww]

I see your point.

I wanted to make sure because I have always assumed the police asked about the size 12s precisely because they never found any, anywhere in the house. Thus it was necessary to establish whether or not the intruder could have brought the single pair with him. Had the police found other size 12s in the home, they would have assumed the pair JBR had on came from the same source -e.g. the package. As an aside, I feel it's unlikely the police searched the house and missed an open package of size 12 panties.

As far as size 6s, there were plenty on hand so I don't see that it's necessary to establish that Patsy bought size 6s when she bought the size 12s. She bought size 6s at some time, otherwise how is the underwear drawer full of underwear? (15pair iirc)

Are you saying that there were 15 pairs of size 6 "days of the week" panties?

 

[andreww]

The main problem, as I see it, is that if both JR and PR are in on the redressing decision there is no (apparent) reason for the size 12s. They are free to redress her in anything they choose claiming that she was dressed that way for bed.

This isn't true at all. Jonbenet had a habit of asking anybody that was around to help her in the bathroom. Fleet White had pointed this out. So lets assume jonbenet wore size 6 Wednesday panties to the party and somebody helped her in the bathroom. The Ramsey alibi says she should still be wearing those Wednesday panties. Because they have no more size 6 Wednesday panties, they use the size 12s.

 

[elannia]

Greetings, elannia. I stayed for a week in Boulder last April (2015). Several times, I drove by all of the major players' homes and churches. I also drove down the alleyway behind the Ramsey's home where John Fernie parked his vehicle on Dec 26. Personally, I believe Fernie was there for hours before the 911 call. The home has become shrouded in tall evergreens so the home is not all that visible from the street view but don't miss driving the alleyway!

I could not spot the electric fence where Burke was allegedly shocked on Christmas evening while attending the White's party. Their home is huge and on a large, heavily wooded lot. The White's other property two doors down from the Ramsey's is nondescript. I think secret parties were held in that home prior to the time of the crime. jmho I was a bit surprised at how close the University, where John's oldest son attended, was to the Ramsey house.

I toured Pearl Street Mall and dined at Pasta Jay's. I saw the building that once was home to Access Graphics. There was some heavy construction nearby but did not inquire about it. I carried a copy of A Mother Gone Bad by Andrew Hodges to read while there. It's a must read on this case although his slant is toward PDI.

We stayed in a cottage at Chautauqua Park at the foot of the FlatIrons Mountain where the famous Christmas tree was lit when JonBenet wanted to go to the top on Christmas Eve but her parents refused to drive up the mountain for her to get a closer view. The Chatauqua Park is one of only two that are still active in the nation. The other is in New York State. It has a fascinating history that you'll want to read before your trip. We adored our stay at the park so I highly recommend it for your accommodations.

https://www.chautauqua.com/
http://greenvillechautauqua.org/about_chautauqua/chautauqua_history/

Boulder itself is a beautiful area tucked neatly in a valley of evergreens, piñon pines and junipers surrounded by rocky mountainous terrain. I could easily see what draws people to the scenic area. I hope you will enjoy the visit as much as my traveling companions and I did.

Thanks so much! So are the White's still living there?

 

[andreww]

ETA: note from the interview JonBenet selects her underwear, and that if Patsy had redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, she would make sure they really were placed into her underwear drawer!

.

Fair enough, but IF the size 12s weren't in the underwear drawer, then how would anyone else know where to find them? The fact that detectives were trying to pin her on buying the size 6s leads me to believe that there were no 'Days of the week" panties found at all. Not in any size.

 

[questfortrue]

Fair enough, but IF the size 12s weren't in the underwear drawer, then how would anyone else know where to find them? The fact that detectives were trying to pin her on buying the size 6s leads me to believe that there were no 'Days of the week" panties found at all. Not in any size.

1998 interview with Haney:
16 THOMAS HANEY: Did JonBenet have
17 panties with the names of each day of the week
18 on it?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
20 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. And did she
21 wear those according to the day of the week or
22 was it just kind of --
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Just whatever.
24 THOMAS HANEY: Did she know, pay
25 much attention to what day of the week it was?
0237
1 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
2 THOMAS HANEY: So whatever would
3 come out of the drawer?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nodding).

 

[questfortrue]

Dynamic88,
The subtleties of the size-12's are many, not many get them.


The police never realized the importance of the size-12's until well after the autopsy, when they returned looking for the rest of JonBenet's underwear.


Sure JonBenet might have worn anything other, or none, than a Wednesday size-6 pair. That is an inference not based on anything, we know Patsy purchased Bloomingdales size-12 as a gift for her niece Jenny, but what did she buy for JonBenet, size-6 or size-12, if it was size-12 then there should be two packs of Bloomingdales size-12 in the house, there were none! So again what size did she purchase for JonBenet, read the transcript below at your leisure.

Patsy Interview Atlanta 2000, Excerpt


Since the investigators are asking about the Bloomingdales purchased by Patsy then presumably these are size-6, furthermore you can infer the Wednesday pair might be missing, hence Patsy's sudden onset of amnesia when asked about what she purchased for JonBenet!


I agree, and no parent is going to redress their child in oversized underwear, only at a staged crime-scene might someone think We must have a Wednesday pair, since thats what she was wearing,, since in nearly every other scenario size and day of the week are irrelevant, or can be explained away, i.e. size-12's were not used because she had already been wearing size-12's!


ETA: note from the interview JonBenet selects her underwear, and that if Patsy had redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, she would make sure they really were placed into her underwear drawer!


.

Tip of the hat. Great exposition of PR fumbling around and not knowing how to explain those size 12 panties. It makes no sense that she wouldn’t have figured out that they would have to be in the drawer to back up her story of why they were on JB. She obviously does believe that an intruder wouldn’t have redressed her in them, so it made sense to give JB responsibility for choosing them to wear. It is possible someone did not count on the extra large Bloomies being an issue so PR couldn’t be prepared very well to respond.

So making an assumption, and just for argument sake, that BR or JR is responsible for placing those new Bloomies on her, I fashioned some questions and possible answers anyone can consider.

If BR is staging for a bad guy, then 1)Why not leave the tip of the paintbrush in plain sight, presumably with blood on it? 2) What was wrong with placing the Size 6 Bloomies back on her? Why not simply place those back on her after wiping up her genital area, wiping the drip of blood on her thigh?

Possible ideas about this,
1) He uses a paintbrush on her in some sort of pathological anger. He isn’t concerned about staging for the bad guy as much as staying out of trouble with his parents. He therefore breaks off the tip and hides it.
2) She’s changed because the size 6’s were soaked in urine. This would explain the doctors’ opinions that the child released urine while she was awake, urine released in fear, or in a toileting accident, and this was a reason for a totally empty bladder. (Final urine release took place at death.) Could BR have been concerned with forensic evidence like tDNA at that point?

Same questions if JR had been staging the final scene. JR is also staging for a bad guy, an intruder who took his daughter’s virginity. 1) Why not leave the tip of the paintbrush in plain sight? 2) Why not simply place the size 6 underwear back on her after cleaning her up?

Possible ideas about this scenario,
1) The motivation, if JR, would be different. He might be thinking it would be more believable for a perverse evil person to assault with a finger, not a paintbrush. Plus the paintbrush could provide a reason for a “fresh” assault and also hide (he hopes) the previous abuse, no matter who in his family perpetrated that abuse. We don’t know who molested JB and never will with any certainty. Could have been BR, PR, DP, JR – anyone with ongoing access. But it’s been reasoned, that the parents must know something about it, or why hide it.

One of the arguments against JR involved with this segment is that the “assault” is covered up. It’s an excellent argument. I acknowledge I may be on a wrong path here, but, imo, he could be doing the scenario of A, or if you don’t accept A, then B. (Just as he switches from ‘A’ - an “inside job” like LHP who had a key, to ‘B’ - an intruder coming through the window, or finding an unlocked door.)

With blood occurring, it necessitates hiding this assault by cleaning her up and placing her in another layer of clothing – the large Bloomies; he may be thinking ‘A’ - why bring attention to something where someone might consider a family member’s involvement in a prior molestation. The blood will be obvious and it would be best to cover it up. No one need know that she had been previously assaulted. OTOH, if they do discover genital injuries, then ‘B’ - they are freshly perpetrated by a pedophile. They will never know that someone used a paintbrush on her. He didn’t count on them finding the injuries and connecting the two – paintbrush and assault. This may be one reason he disposes of the paintbrush tip somewhere.

2) Why change the panties - it could be to hide any forensic evidence on the size 6 panties, or they were urine soaked.

One thing to add: Masterful interview by Haney. Even Smit believed he was one of the best.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

As for the paintbrush, I guess the perp couldn't have foreseen that the particles of it in the vagina would be found out in the autopsy .. but again it was bloodied so he/she hid the tip of it in case an evidence could be intermingled with blood on it which perp knew would be tested forensically.

He/she also couldn't bear any blood in the scene perhaps .That's why the wiping and clean panties and disappearing of the bloodied paintbrush tip ..

 

[andreww]

Keep in mind, that likely wasn't the only paintbrush in the house. I highly doubt that little tip was used. I think a full second brush is more likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

And who even knows if the paintbrush assault came before or after strangulation? Could it even have been the reason for the head bash? When the parents come on the scene the realize what Burke has been up to and try to erase any trace of the sexual assault? Who knows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Why was the paintbrush broken anyway ? There were lots of them in the tray

https://www.forumsforjustice.org

 

[UKGuy]

Tip of the hat. Great exposition of PR fumbling around and not knowing how to explain those size 12 panties. It makes no sense that she wouldn’t have figured out that they would have to be in the drawer to back up her story of why they were on JB. She obviously does believe that an intruder wouldn’t have redressed her in them, so it made sense to give JB responsibility for choosing them to wear. It is possible someone did not count on the extra large Bloomies being an issue so PR couldn’t be prepared very well to respond.

So making an assumption, and just for argument sake, that BR or JR is responsible for placing those new Bloomies on her, I fashioned some questions and possible answers anyone can consider.

If BR is staging for a bad guy, then 1)Why not leave the tip of the paintbrush in plain sight, presumably with blood on it? 2) What was wrong with placing the Size 6 Bloomies back on her? Why not simply place those back on her after wiping up her genital area, wiping the drip of blood on her thigh?

Possible ideas about this,
1) He uses a paintbrush on her in some sort of pathological anger. He isn’t concerned about staging for the bad guy as much as staying out of trouble with his parents. He therefore breaks off the tip and hides it.
2) She’s changed because the size 6’s were soaked in urine. This would explain the doctors’ opinions that the child released urine while she was awake, urine released in fear, or in a toileting accident, and this was a reason for a totally empty bladder. (Final urine release took place at death.) Could BR have been concerned with forensic evidence like tDNA at that point?

Same questions if JR had been staging the final scene. JR is also staging for a bad guy, an intruder who took his daughter’s virginity. 1) Why not leave the tip of the paintbrush in plain sight? 2) Why not simply place the size 6 underwear back on her after cleaning her up?

Possible ideas about this scenario,
1) The motivation, if JR, would be different. He might be thinking it would be more believable for a perverse evil person to assault with a finger, not a paintbrush. Plus the paintbrush could provide a reason for a “fresh” assault and also hide (he hopes) the previous abuse, no matter who in his family perpetrated that abuse. We don’t know who molested JB and never will with any certainty. Could have been BR, PR, DP, JR – anyone with ongoing access. But it’s been reasoned, that the parents must know something about it, or why hide it.

One of the arguments against JR involved with this segment is that the “assault” is covered up. It’s an excellent argument. I acknowledge I may be on a wrong path here, but, imo, he could be doing the scenario of A, or if you don’t accept A, then B. (Just as he switches from ‘A’ - an “inside job” like LHP who had a key, to ‘B’ - an intruder coming through the window, or finding an unlocked door.)

With blood occurring, it necessitates hiding this assault by cleaning her up and placing her in another layer of clothing – the large Bloomies; he may be thinking ‘A’ - why bring attention to something where someone might consider a family member’s involvement in a prior molestation. The blood will be obvious and it would be best to cover it up. No one need know that she had been previously assaulted. OTOH, if they do discover genital injuries, then ‘B’ - they are freshly perpetrated by a pedophile. They will never know that someone used a paintbrush on her. He didn’t count on them finding the injuries and connecting the two – paintbrush and assault. This may be one reason he disposes of the paintbrush tip somewhere.

2) Why change the panties - it could be to hide any forensic evidence on the size 6 panties, or they were urine soaked.

One thing to add: Masterful interview by Haney. Even Smit believed he was one of the best.

questfortrue,

It is possible someone did not count on the extra large Bloomies being an issue so PR couldn’t be prepared very well to respond.

This is what I think. And the size-12's are a Gotcha just like the Pineapple-Snack over which Patsy exhibits similar behaviour, suggesting alike the size-12's she was ignorant about the pineapple-snack?

If BR is staging for a bad guy, then 1)Why not leave the tip of the paintbrush in plain sight, presumably with blood on it? 2) What was wrong with placing the Size 6 Bloomies back on her? Why not simply place those back on her after wiping up her genital area, wiping the drip of blood on her thigh?

Any Bad Guy staging might have been restaged by one or both of the parents, something I reckoned happened. Thats the thing about the size-12's is that they really were not required, as you suggest why not leave her size-6 pair on her? The obvious answer is forensic evidence.

Pathological behaviour regarding the paintbrush is a possibility or it might simply represent more staging, again this is another item not required.

Same questions if JR had been staging the final scene. JR is also staging for a bad guy, an intruder who took his daughter’s virginity. 1) Why not leave the tip of the paintbrush in plain sight? 2) Why not simply place the size 6 underwear back on her after cleaning her up?

Same answers as above, the tip of the paintbrush might have been retrieved from JonBenet and been redacted, just like the Brand of JonBenet's underwear.

Nothing was going to hide the sexual assault, only a nine-year old boy might think that way.

Removing the blood and redressing JonBenet is either part of plan B, i.e. RN and abduction scenario, or it was part of the person who assaulted JonBenet attempt at staging?

2) Why change the panties - it could be to hide any forensic evidence on the size 6 panties, or they were urine soaked.

The long-johns were urine soaked so thats not an issue, the parents would be aware that post-mortem bladder evacuation could account for any urine issues. The simplest answer for changing the size-6 underwear is that they were bloodstained, and since there was to be no signs of a sexual assault the size-6 underwear had to go, next in the stagers mind was they must be a Wednesday pair since thats what the size-6 pair was, but she was wearing the only Bloomingdales Wednesday size-6 pair available, OK lets go for the Bloomingdales Wednesday size-12, if anyone looks they should match?

Neither PR or JR would stage JonBenet as she was found, we know that PR did not know everything, only JR gives the impression of knowing something?

Kolars implicit BDI suggests JonBenet had been in bed, dressed in her pink barbie nightgown, BR lures JonBenet downstairs for a pineapple snack, where she is digitally sexually assaulted and manually choked leading to unconciousness?

JonBenet is then moved down to the basement which causes some of the contusions and abrasions on her body, next she is assaulted with the painbrush as a post-mortem pathological afterthought, the head blow might have happened at this point too, all part of pathological behaviour or someone staging a Bad Guy scenario?

Next the size-6 underwear is removed and used to wipe her down, she is redressed in the size-12's, and left in place? The bloodstained size-6 underwear is hidden away somewhere in the house or flushed down the toilet?

Parents arrive whenever, remove the pink barbie nightgown, wipe her down again, redress her in the white gap top and longjohns so to claim they all went to bed soon after arriving home. Its also possible that BR redressed JonBenet in the longjohns?

The RN does not explain a sexual assault it explains why JonBenet went from upstairs to downstairs. The longjohns are required to hold the size-12's up in place, and mask them from immediate view.

So initially we have a sexual assault gone wrong, with pathological post-mortem behaviour, and an attempt at a cleanup and staging.

Latterly the parents tidy this crime-scene up adding a few elements, i.e. RN, removing others, i.e. pink barbie nightgown, and convene to agree on their version of events, next up, dial 911!


.

 

[UKGuy]

And who even knows if the paintbrush assault came before or after strangulation? Could it even have been the reason for the head bash? When the parents come on the scene the realize what Burke has been up to and try to erase any trace of the sexual assault? Who knows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
According to Kolar's BDI, the use of the paintbrush, and the head blow were likely pathological postmortem behaviour, i.e. done on lets see how this goes mentality?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Fair enough, but IF the size 12s weren't in the underwear drawer, then how would anyone else know where to find them? The fact that detectives were trying to pin her on buying the size 6s leads me to believe that there were no 'Days of the week" panties found at all. Not in any size.

andreww,
Read the transcript. Patsy says JonBenet selected Bloomingdales underwear for purchase, she just cannot remember all the details!

if Patsy had said I remember purchasing Bloomingdales size-12's for JonBenet, the investigators would have replied that must mean there were two packs of Bloomingdales size-12 in the house, JonBenet's and Jenny's?

No size-12's were found, conclusion: Patsy purchased Bloomingdales size-6 for JonBenet.

.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

questfortrue,


This is what I think. And the size-12's are a Gotcha just like the Pineapple-Snack over which Patsy exhibits similar behaviour, suggesting alike the size-12's she was ignorant about the pineapple-snack?


Any Bad Guy staging might have been restaged by one or both of the parents, something I reckoned happened. Thats the thing about the size-12's is that they really were not required, as you suggest why not leave her size-6 pair on her? The obvious answer is forensic evidence.

Pathological behaviour regarding the paintbrush is a possibility or it might simply represent more staging, again this is another item not required.


Same answers as above, the tip of the paintbrush might have been retrieved from JonBenet and been redacted, just like the Brand of JonBenet's underwear.

Nothing was going to hide the sexual assault, only a nine-year old boy might think that way.

Removing the blood and redressing JonBenet is either part of plan B, i.e. RN and abduction scenario, or it was part of the person who assaulted JonBenet attempt at staging?


The long-johns were urine soaked so thats not an issue, the parents would be aware that post-mortem bladder evacuation could account for any urine issues. The simplest answer for changing the size-6 underwear is that they were bloodstained, and since there was to be no signs of a sexual assault the size-6 underwear had to go, next in the stagers mind was they must be a Wednesday pair since thats what the size-6 pair was, but she was wearing the only Bloomingdales Wednesday size-6 pair available, OK lets go for the Bloomingdales Wednesday size-12, if anyone looks they should match?

Neither PR or JR would stage JonBenet as she was found, we know that PR did not know everything, only JR gives the impression of knowing something?

Kolars implicit BDI suggests JonBenet had been in bed, dressed in her pink barbie nightgown, BR lures JonBenet downstairs for a pineapple snack, where she is digitally sexually assaulted and manually choked leading to unconciousness?

JonBenet is then moved down to the basement which causes some of the contusions and abrasions on her body, next she is assaulted with the painbrush as a post-mortem pathological afterthought, the head blow might have happened at this point too, all part of pathological behaviour or someone staging a Bad Guy scenario?

Next the size-6 underwear is removed and used to wipe her down, she is redressed in the size-12's, and left in place? The bloodstained size-6 underwear is hidden away somewhere in the house or flushed down the toilet?

Parents arrive whenever, remove the pink barbie nightgown, wipe her down again, redress her in the white gap top and longjohns so to claim they all went to bed soon after arriving home. Its also possible that BR redressed JonBenet in the longjohns?

The RN does not explain a sexual assault it explains why JonBenet went from upstairs to downstairs. The longjohns are required to hold the size-12's up in place, and mask them from immediate view.

So initially we have a sexual assault gone wrong, with pathological post-mortem behaviour, and an attempt at a cleanup and staging.

Latterly the parents tidy this crime-scene up adding a few elements, i.e. RN, removing others, i.e. pink barbie nightgown, and convene to agree on their version of events, next up, dial 911!


.

Then do you think that tip of the paintbrush for assault and the remaining middle portion is used by two different persons? That means the bloody paintbrush was in the scene , and who made the coverup broke it and used for the garrote.

We can also say that at garrote phase JB was wearing the white gap top as the cord was over her shirt's sleeve so someone came down with the gap top and changed whatever was on her and then applied the garrote.

A theory maybe it was not the pink nightie but was the red turtleneck and then the turtleneck ended up soaked in water in the sink .. P could have told sb at the party about the argument over the red turtleneck and being alike stuff so she could not risk it disappear.. Pink nightie was maybe put there as a decoy..

I wonder whether there were any sort of fiberlike evidence on the Gap top from her bed indicating she was in bed with that top?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I didn't give much credit to being alike thing until I saw this



Rip JBR

 

[UKGuy]

Then do you think that tip of the paintbrush for assault and the remaining middle portion is used by two different persons? That means the bloody paintbrush was in the scene , and who made the coverup broke it and used for the garrote.

We can also say that at garrote phase JB was wearing the white gap top as the cord was over her shirt's sleeve so someone came down with the gap top and changed whatever was on her and then applied the garrote.

A theory maybe it was not the pink nightie but was the red turtleneck and then the turtleneck ended up soaked in water in the sink .. P could have told sb at the party about the argument over the red turtleneck and being alike stuff so she could not risk it disappear.. Pink nightie was maybe put there as a decoy..

I wonder whether there were any sort of fiberlike evidence on the Gap top from her bed indicating she was in bed with that top?

MURDERER_SERVANT,

Then do you think that tip of the paintbrush for assault and the remaining middle portion is used by two different persons? That means the bloody paintbrush was in the scene , and who made the coverup broke it and used for the garrote.

The whole paintbrush might have been used to inflict a postmortem assault, then broken by stepping on it, against the external wine-cellar, thus explaining the wooden shards found outside the wine-celler, close to the urine stain. Alternatively it may have been broken first then used as an assault weapon, or as you suggest its purpose may have been to stage?

We can also say that at garrote phase JB was wearing the white gap top as the cord was over her shirt's sleeve so someone came down with the gap top and changed whatever was on her and then applied the garrote.

The cord may have been applied after she was asphyxiated since it is affixed to the exterior of the white gap top.

A theory maybe it was not the pink nightie but was the red turtleneck and then the turtleneck ended up soaked in water in the sink .. P could have told sb at the party about the argument over the red turtleneck and being alike stuff so she could not risk it disappear.. Pink nightie was maybe put there as a decoy..

Possibly so why not toss the turtleneck into the wine-cellar too?

Patsy's ignorance regarding the size-12's and the pineapple snack suggests the case is not PDI. Similarly for JR, i.e. both parents neglected to factor the pineapple snack into the R's version of events, so provisionally I reckon the case is not JDI.

Guess what that leaves?


.

 

[icedtea4me]

MURDERER_SERVANT,


The whole paintbrush might have been used to inflict a postmortem assault, then broken by stepping on it, against the external wine-cellar, thus explaining the wooden shards found outside the wine-celler, close to the urine stain. Alternatively it may have been broken first then used as an assault weapon, or as you suggest its purpose may have been to stage?


The cord may have been applied after she was asphyxiated since it is affixed to the exterior of the white gap top.


Possibly so why not toss the turtleneck into the wine-cellar too?

Patsy's ignorance regarding the size-12's and the pineapple snack suggests the case is not PDI. Similarly for JR, i.e. both parents neglected to factor the pineapple snack into the R's version of events, so provisionally I reckon the case is not JDI.

Guess what that leaves?


.

Can you be certain Patsy didn't feign her ignorance?