The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[CorallaroC]

For anyone who is interested, here is a good reference showing PR being asked about the contents of JBR's panty drawer in the bathroom (as shown to her in crime scene photos during the interview)

(snip from PR interview June 23, 1998, day 2)
link here: http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm


2 TOM HANEY: I think, if we could check the
3 notes where we left off yesterday, 273, four, five and
4 six. We talked about the stains on the pillow.
5 Next is 277. Can you describe that? Tell us
6 what that is.
7 PATSY RAMSEY: It looks like her underwear
8 drawer, one of the drawers there in the bathroom
9 cabinet.
10 TOM HANEY: What is in there?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: It looks like underwear, a
12 hair band or something, and a pencil, a pen, a pen back
13 there. (Inaudible). A magic marker or something. I
14 don't know why that would be in there, but --
15 TOM HANEY: And in the normal course there at
16 home would just underwear be in there or would other
17 items be in there, too.
18 PATSY RAMSEY: Primarily underwear, but
19 she -- often times things would be on the top and fall
20 down in the drawers. But that be unusual for a pen
21 like that to be in an underwear drawer.

~~~

Considering that we also know about housekeeper LHP's later statement to author Schiller about dates or days of the week written on all the Ramsey children's underwear, this small detail of a magic marker in the underwear drawer seems to have some significance, IMO. And the fact that PR quickly comes up with a possible innocent explanation makes me suspect that she knew more about this than she let on.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

For anyone who is interested, here is a good reference showing PR being asked about the contents of JBR's panty drawer in the bathroom (as shown in crime scene photos)

(snip from PR interview June 23, 1998, day 2)
link here: http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm


2 TOM HANEY: I think, if we could check the
3 notes where we left off yesterday, 273, four, five and
4 six. We talked about the stains on the pillow.
5 Next is 277. Can you describe that? Tell us
6 what that is.
7 PATSY RAMSEY: It looks like her underwear
8 drawer, one of the drawers there in the bathroom
9 cabinet.
10 TOM HANEY: What is in there?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: It looks like underwear, a
12 hair band or something, and a pencil, a pen, a pen back
13 there. (Inaudible). A magic marker or something. I
14 don't know why that would be in there, but --
15 TOM HANEY: And in the normal course there at
16 home would just underwear be in there or would other
17 items be in there, too.
18 PATSY RAMSEY: Primarily underwear, but
19 she -- often times things would be on the top and fall
20 down in the drawers. But that be unusual for a pen
21 like that to be in an underwear drawer.

~~~

Considering that we also know about housekeeper LHP's later statement to author Schiller about dates or days of the week written on all the Ramsey children's underwear, this small detail of a magic marker in the underwear drawer seems to have some significance, IMO. And the fact that PR quickly comes up with a possible innocent explanation makes me suspect that she knew more about this than she lets on.

This is like twilight zone... What 's so surprising then for a marker to be in the underwear drawer where all the panties were marked with a marker? Don't buy it..

 

[questfortrue]

Tadpole12,
"These weren't naughty children. They dressed themselves, and Patsy did JonBenet's hair. All her daughter's clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Dates on all their underclothes."

I have the hardback and its quoted in the section with the heading Media Stalking Her, Ramsey Complains pp 181.

The exact page will vary between different editions due to page size and font type etc, but Dates is the word used by Linda Hoffman Pugh.

Just checked the paperback edition and on pp 236 its says "Days of the week on all their underclothes."

Very strange!


.

ACR quotes this from PMPT: All her daughter's clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Dates on all their underclothes.

I've the Kindle edition and it quotes "Days of the week" It may be that an editor corrected this in the paperback and Kindle editions. But unless I've missed it, nowhere does it state that PR marked this on JB's underclothes. It sounds like she organized the underwear drawer according to Days of the Week, not that she marked the underwear. Does anyone have a reference that she actually wrote something on the underwear?
I'm confused.

 

[CorallaroC]

ACR quotes this from PMPT: All her daughter's clothes were organized in drawers. Turtlenecks in one drawer, pants in another, nighties and panties in one, socks in another. Dates on all their underclothes.

I've the Kindle edition and it quotes "Days of the week" It may be that an editor corrected this in the paperback and Kindle editions. But unless I've missed it, nowhere does it state that PR marked this on JB's underclothes. It sounds like she organized the underwear drawer according to Days of the Week, not that she marked the underwear. Does anyone have a reference that she actually wrote something on the underwear?
I'm confused.

Good question QFT, and thank you for checking on this!

I hope I have not misled or confused this topic! I tried to find other sources, but was only able to find the quote from PMPT/Schiller/LHP.

If memory serves, there should also be a several page discussion about dated panties on a thread here at WS or at FFJ. If I can find that, or another solid source I will post it.

But you are right QFT, at the moment nothing specifically saying that dates were written with a marker on the children's underwear.

 

[UKGuy]

Good question QFT, and thank you for checking on this!

I hope I have not misled or confused this topic! I tried to find other sources, but was only able to find the quote from PMPT/Schiller/LHP.

If memory serves, there should also be a several page discussion about dated panties on a thread here at WS or at FFJ. If I can find that, or another solid source I will post it.

But you are right QFT, at the moment nothing specifically saying that dates were written with a marker on the children's underwear.

CorallaroC,
The change to Days of the week might be a deliberate edit, i.e. to change the significance of the pens and underwear?

After all why do we need to be told the underwear has Day of the week , nothing unusual there, but putting the date of purchase is?

I reckon we are on the right track, since BPD have released no information about the underwear taken from JonBenet's underwear drawer, other than the size.

They probably have a set of Bloomingdales size-6, Day of the week underwear, minus a Wednesday pair, the big Q is did Patsy mark them with the date of purchase? This would explain why, during the interview, they pinned Patsy down on when she bought them, i.e. first trip or second trip?

Another thing missing or at least never itemized on any search list is the pink pajama bottoms. The top can be seen on JonBenet's bed, allegedly its absence is what caused Patsy to put the long-johns on JonBenet.

Those markers in the drawer and LHP mentioning Dates on the underwear is good enough for me!

.

 

[questfortrue]

Good question QFT, and thank you for checking on this!

I hope I have not misled or confused this topic! I tried to find other sources, but was only able to find the quote from PMPT/Schiller/LHP.

If memory serves, there should also be a several page discussion about dated panties on a thread here at WS or at FFJ. If I can find that, or another solid source I will post it.

But you are right QFT, at the moment nothing specifically saying that dates were written with a marker on the children's underwear.

LOL. You didn’t confuse me; the saga of the Bloomies is confusing in and of itself! If Patsy did mark anything on the panties in the underwear drawer, it may have been to figure out what was going on with JB’s several infections. But, of course, that’s my own speculation. Btw, a bit of trivia: In a podcast Kolar indicated he did not remember the details regarding the large Bloomies.

Like everyone from the investigators to the GJ I’ve tried to separate out who may have done what in the staging phase. I remember that the profilers noted the staging showed ‘two hands at work’ – one organized and one disorganized. This was a night of fear-driven chaos, and I recognize we sometimes try to apply too much logic and reasoning to the crime.

To many of us the obvious importance of the Bloomies lies in what the investigators were trying to establish, namely that one of the three Rs dressed her in those 12-14 Bloomies in the basement. It would diminish the intruder theory as efficiently as the other ‘bugaboo’ – the pineapple.

The year 2000 interviews contain the most important info on the Bloomies, imo. Besides agreeing that they would not ask questions which had been posed in the other two interviews, they stipulated that they wanted to interview Patsy first. One can only guess why, but if they had evidence implicating JR, they would not want him to help Patsy to come up with some kind of lame excuse for it.

As UKGuy commented, these interviews are planned and frequently the interviewers already have evidence. They are seeking to learn how the Rs would respond. Additionally, the interviews were negotiated over a period of time. I find it most probable that because of the planning that went into them, they had specific information they were wanting to cover. From what I’ve gleaned from these interviews, besides wanting to know more about the private detective work which the Rs communicated they were conducting through outside investigators and besides the questions about JB’s activities on Christmas Day, they were also focused on these Bloomies.

One can slice this staging portion between any combination of the three of them of course, but what I come back to is the interesting fiber info introduced. In the 1998 interviews they specifically ask JR how he handles his laundry. The 2000 interviews, however, go into more precise questioning: Did he assist JonBenet in dressing or in the bathroom that night. The reason for the questions, as everyone has heard, was that fibers consistent with his shirt were found in the crotch of her Bloomies. Now, according to PR, they did not use ‘bad’ language in their home. However, that particular question causes JR to explode (with bad language).

(Since both parents' fibers are found at the crime scene, I agree with Kolar that as far as obstruction or child abuse charges go, the BPD had been closing in. What they were lacking was a prosecutor who had the will and the skill to try a circumstantial case.)

Scene shift, fast forward 2-3 years. ‘Someone’ finds the remaining 12-14 size Bloomies in an unpacked box at the Rs' home and sends them back to Boulder. I assume, since ML took over the case, that they were sent to her. It’s 2003 or 2004 and JR is running for office in Michigan. He has campaign literature with a bullet point which reads: "Finally cleared by Federal Judge and District Attorney."

However, when ML was contacted she declined comment on that point. She also declined to comment on JR’s remark to a Michigan reporter that he’d been told by prosecutors that they “have the killer’s DNA.” I digress. I just found it ironic that the Bloomies could have been used to enhance obstruction charges, and later, the Bloomies were used to ‘exonerate’ them. Go figure.

 

[Tadpole12]

maybe just a grammatical edit?


http://www.popsugar.com/moms/Trendtotting-Day-Week-Undies-Make-Mornings-Easier-2038548


"fun accessories that can help make mornings (and the overall organizational process) easier. Day of the Week underwear are both practical and fun.
Some "Days of the Week" Underwear ($16) don't have dates printed on them, while others do. Either way, your kindergartener will have a set of underwear for the week, learn the importance of doing laundry and possibly learn to spell while getting dressed."

"Some "Days of the Week" Underwear ($16) don't have dates printed on them, while others do."

--------------------------------------------------------------

I would have thought the ink would run, but moms' experience varies.....

"Quick question - does using a sharpie to write ds's name on his clothes for play camp work? Or do I need to use a special laundry pen?"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...lothes-sharpie.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

---------------------------------------------------------------

Was the point to be made that a sharpie was hidden in the drawer?

---------------------------------------------------------------

FFJ, The Huge (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear on JonBenet, Modeled By Six-Year-Old:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ar-on-JonBenet-Modeled-By-Six-Year-Old/page16

 

[UKGuy]

maybe just a grammatical edit?


http://www.popsugar.com/moms/Trendtotting-Day-Week-Undies-Make-Mornings-Easier-2038548


"fun accessories that can help make mornings (and the overall organizational process) easier. Day of the Week underwear are both practical and fun.
Some "Days of the Week" Underwear ($16) don't have dates printed on them, while others do. Either way, your kindergartener will have a set of underwear for the week, learn the importance of doing laundry and possibly learn to spell while getting dressed."

"Some "Days of the Week" Underwear ($16) don't have dates printed on them, while others do."

--------------------------------------------------------------

I would have thought the ink would run, but moms' experience varies.....

"Quick question - does using a sharpie to write ds's name on his clothes for play camp work? Or do I need to use a special laundry pen?"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...lothes-sharpie.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

---------------------------------------------------------------

Was the point to be made that a sharpie was hidden in the drawer?

---------------------------------------------------------------

FFJ, The Huge (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear on JonBenet, Modeled By Six-Year-Old:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...ar-on-JonBenet-Modeled-By-Six-Year-Old/page16

Tadpole12,

maybe just a grammatical edit?

Possibly, but why Days of the week, is that important, i.e. all the underwear was day of the week, or just some?

At the FFJ link you provide there is an implicit assumption regarding the size-12's that might be clarified later on in that thread, I never read it all, but below I tease out this assumption and demonstrate why it might be inconsistent.

1. Patsy says she bought the size-12's November 1996

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.

2. Patsy says JonBenet selected the size-12's.

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 --

Patsy says she also purchased a pack of size-12's for her niece.

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.

So Patsy is saying to the interviewers that she purchased two packs of size-12 underwear, or is she deliberately being ambiguous, since the question put to her was:

Q. Which of those two trips did you purchase the Bloomi's?

Note no mention of size, i.e. just the collective or plural Bloomi's, later in the interview Patsy answers:

11 Q. you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your niece, and one for JonBenet?
13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or two.

Patsy realizes her previous answers must mean there were two packs of size-12 in her house, so she now inkokes amnesia to save the day.

Since the R's never handed back two packs of size-12 underwear, surely we can assume the Bloomingdales underwear purchased by Patsy for JonBenet was size-6, otherwise why would JonBenet ask specifically for Jenny's gift?

.

 

[Dynamic88]

Let's think simple for a while..
The oversized huge panties screamed redressing. Add that the obsession of Patsy to write the days onto the panties and given a wednesday pair was selected from a full package on a wednesday, it was P who redressed JBR

They screamed redressing just as much as clown shoes would scream that the child's original shoes had gone missing. So the person who put the 12s on Jonbenet was either unaware of the size issue, (I don't really see how this is possible) or insensitive to the size issue. Since it's obvious that the child has been redressed there is no need for the "Wed." label. Size 12s scream redressing whether the label says Wed., Thurs., or Sunday. Thus the Wed. label selection was due to some peculiar fixation of the person redressing, not to conform to something worn to the party ?

 

[andreww]

UKGuy, sorry I'm just not following you.

You quoted Patsy as saying...

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

Then you say...

So Patsy is saying to the interviewers that she purchased two packs of size-12 underwear

Am I missing something here?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, sorry I'm just not following you.

You quoted Patsy as saying...



Then you say...



Am I missing something here?

andreww,
I guess you are, its not me should follow its Patsy!

The subject of the interview is the size-12 underwear. Patsy says she purchased two pairs, one selected by JonBenet and one for her niece Jenny.

When asked to confirm this Pasty is not certain. Since no size-12's were found in the house and Patsy states JonBenet asked for Jenny's gift, for which there is no need if JonBenet already has a pack of size-12's in her drawer.

We can conclude Patsy purchased size-6 underwear for JonBenet at Bloomingdales.

BPD probably have the remaining size-6 Bloomingdale underwear in their custody?

.
.

 

[andreww]

andreww,
I guess you are, its not me should follow its Patsy!

The subject of the interview is the size-12 underwear. Patsy says she purchased two pairs, one selected by JonBenet and one for her niece Jenny.

When asked to confirm this Pasty is not certain. Since no size-12's were found in the house and Patsy states JonBenet asked for Jenny's gift, for which there is no need if JonBenet already has a pack of size-12's in her drawer.

We can conclude Patsy purchased size-6 underwear for JonBenet at Bloomingdales.

BPD probably have the remaining size-6 Bloomingdale underwear in their custody?

.
.

Patsy NEVER says she purchased two pairs.

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

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.

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.

As for the quote about buying things for JB

11 A. I bought some things that were

12 gifts and some things for her. So I

13 don't --

Nowhere does she specifically state that she is talking about panties here. To me she is saying "I bought a lot of stuff, some was for JB, some were gifts".

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy NEVER says she purchased two pairs.










As for the quote about buying things for JB



Nowhere does she specifically state that she is talking about panties here. To me she is saying "I bought a lot of stuff, some was for JB, some were gifts".

andreww,

Patsy NEVER says she purchased two pairs.

mmm, why do I think you just wish to take issue, like I say watch what Patsy says not me, and note she says she bought two sets of size-12's.


The subject of the interview is the size-12's:

8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, we

9 are going to move on to another area. And

10 what I want to discuss with you is the

11 underpants that JonBenet was wearing at the

12 time that she was discovered on the 26th.

13 We are going to try to get some background

14 information on those from you. Hopefully you

15 can help us out a little bit. Okay?

Patsy says she purchased them, i.e. the first set.

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.

Patsy states the size-12's, i.e. the first set, were chosen by JonBenet

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.

The second set of size-12 Bloomingdales.

25 I think I bought a package to give to my niece
Q. Which niece was that?
3 A. Jenny Davis.

Patsy is saying she purchased two packs of size-12 underwear one for JonBenet and one for her niece Jenny. Then she forgets whether its one or two or what the size is.

That does not detract from what she stated.

 

[reintarnation]

I think that JBR was put in those panties because they were the one pair of clean girls' panties in the home, and the ones JBR had on contained material that points to the motive behind her murder.

Specifically, I think she had urinated and/or defecated in her bed that night. I think PR had been abusing JBR over her toileting issues by hitting her and cleaning her violently (wipe over her finger inside JBR's vagina and/or douching) and on that particular night PR exploded, either hitting JBR in the head or slamming her into something.

It was reported that the underwear in JBR's drawer was all stained from feces. If the reason for JBR's unintended murder was her toileting issues, PR would hesitate putting her in the stained panties because it would immediately draw attention to those issues. She would have remembered that package of panties she bought for her niece, which may have been wrapped with the other presents in the basement meant to be delivered later.

So PR goes to the basement searching for this package of panties and has to tear back the wrapping paper of several presents before she finds them (explains why there are some partially unwrapped presents found down there). She finds them and then picks out the Wednesday ones because they match the day and then it looks like she was not redressed. As for the size difference, maybe PR thought it didn't look so bad under the long johns or that no one would notice or think it was weird. Or maybe she figured she could come up with an explanation later or feign ignorance. Ultimately, the important thing is that they were clean.

I believe that these panties were the first part of the staging, all of the staging was done on the fly, and it was all meant to point away from PR. I won't get in to how other evidence fits into my theory here so that I don't derail the purpose of this particular thread.

If there is any part of this that contradicts the evidence, I would be happy hear it. I've become attached to my theory, but don't want to waste time pursuing it if it can be refuted by the evidence.

 

[BoldBear]

The bed wetting theory is one of the best. It's an interesting idea that the new underwear was the first part of the staging. If you're trying to avoid the issue of toilet training, why leave pajama bottoms with fecal material on JBR's bathroom floor? Why leave a drawer full of fecal stained underwear in her drawer? And why leave a box of pull-ups hanging out of the cupboard in the area outside JBR's room? What about the plastic covering her mattress? All of this draws attention to the issue.

Patsy claimed that the package of underwear was in JBR's drawer in her bathroom. Others have speculated that it was a wrapped Christmas present that was left in the windowless room. Given Patsy's memory and how few details she could recall about the home she lived in, I don't believe Patsy's story. This package could have been anywhere in the house. More importantly, why wasn't the package found in JBR's underwear drawer with all of her fecal stained underwear?

We need to give the investigators a tin cup and a cane.

 

[reintarnation]

The bed wetting theory is one of the best. It's an interesting idea that the new underwear was the first part of the staging. If you're trying to avoid the issue of toilet training, why leave pajama bottoms with fecal material on JBR's bathroom floor? Why leave a drawer full of fecal stained underwear in her drawer? And why leave a box of pull-ups hanging out of the cupboard in the area outside JBR's room? What about the plastic covering her mattress? All of this draws attention to the issue.

Patsy claimed that the package of underwear was in JBR's drawer in her bathroom. Others have speculated that it was a wrapped Christmas present that was left in the windowless room. Given Patsy's memory and how few details she could recall about the home she lived in, I don't believe Patsy's story. This package could have been anywhere in the house. More importantly, why wasn't the package found in JBR's underwear drawer with all of her fecal stained underwear?

We need to give the investigators a tin cup and a cane.

I think the purpose of the clean Wednesday panties is they don't indicate that a toileting issue immediately preceded or caused the murder.

In interviews, PR attempted to downplay the toileting issues, but it was impossible for her to deny that JBR was having them at all. As you detailed, there was voluminous evidence of JBR's accidents, which makes for a lot of material to dispose of discreetly (not to mention she wouldn't have any underwear left!). Even if PR had been successful in identifying and destroying all of it, she couldn't destroy the knowledge of those accidents from family and friends. PR would have had to ask everyone who knew of JBR's toileting issues to not mention them to LE or lie about them if LE asked. Any way you slice it, hiding the toileting issues completely would be impossible and attempting to do so would create tremendous suspicion of PR.

I think PR felt it was necessary to destroy the panties or pull up JBR had soiled that night, but otherwise figured the toileting issues would come out and she could explain that without having it connected to the murder. The important part was to ensure that soiled underwear indicating an accident occurred just before her murder weren't part of the crime scene when JBR's body was found. (Recognizing, of course, that the Wednesday panties were urine stained, but that was from her bladder emptying upon death from strangulation.)

I don't buy PR's amnesia-filled interviews, either, and the fact that she was being so cagey about the Wednesday panties in particular seemed significant to me. PR also changed her story about how JBR was put to bed, saying that she was changed into the white shirt from the red turtleneck she had been wearing at the White's party. The balled up turtleneck was found in her bathroom along with other signs that JBR was awake and preparing for bed (the pineapple is part of this, too). Why would PR lie about something as normal as giving your daughter a snack and getting her ready for bed? Why did PR feel the need to insist JBR was asleep the whole time?

The only reason I can think of is that PR wanted LE to believe that she didn't interact with JBR once they returned home and certainly didn't redress her. If that's the case, it means, IMO, that the murder began in JBR's room, that PR caused the murder, and that PR participated in the cover-up.

That got me wondering again about the panties and why she chose those specifically (detailed in my previous post). I believe that the package of panties was wrapped in the basement (no alternative location seems logical to me), and in remembering them maybe that is where PR got the idea to take JBR to the basement and stage the crime scene there (it gets JBR away from where the blow to her head happened and where the motive behind the abuse could be found). As PR continued with her staging, each successive action led to the other, all with the intent of pointing away from PR and the true motive. As I continued following that train of thought, a clearer picture began to form that connected all of these confounding evidentiary dots, which is why I have held firm to this theory ever since.

 

[BoldBear]

That is a fairly standard theory. Of course, there's also the exaggerated size of the underwear. Some have argued that Patsy would not have selected them for that reason. I agree with that position. I know the arguments for PDI or P covered it (PCI?). I don't see her ever being calm enough to write about the beheading of her daughter. I don't see her going into the 'she dies' hurdles or saying that there would be a 99% chance of her being killed. She audibly cried that 'she couldn't hear her'. After JBR's death, she also cried, 'Why did they do this?' One of the people who heard her say that claimed that it sounded like Patsy knew who the killers were.

The biggest issue I have is that Patsy was a girly girl. (Please don't be offended by the term. I'm simply saying that she relished being well dressed, perfumed and dyed. She loved to be the flirtatious southern belle. She seemed to be the matriarch of the household and left the John the responsibility of making money and paying for her lifestyle.) The idea that Burke hurts JB and Patsy then covers it up to me is counterintuitive. Patsy had a long list of plans for JB. She loved Burke too, but her interest, her path to success, was to raise a trophy child. She wanted JB to achieve the dream. It doesn't make sense to me. "Aw, you just killed your sister. Well, you're now my only child so I'll cover-up her death to protect you."--this isn't who Patsy was. She was the knees on the floor, open palms and face up to the heavens, "Please help me Lazarus," type of woman.

The panicky type of Patsy who just killed her daughter works better, but is incomplete. SuperDave's theory (that she was shoved and went flying across her room to put the injury in that exact location of her skull) is the most logical of JB's being shoved theories. Otherwise, you get ST's rage scenario in the bathroom and you really have to explain how you got the impact on the top of the skull and not on the side of the skull. I really can't see that one in my mind's eye.

I personally lean to JB being hit over the head with a blunt object, but then you have to put intent with her murder. If she was struck, it could have been intentional or accidental. Still, it was a hell of a lot of force and that pushes the actions to intentional. *sigh* Now you get to go in circles over why someone would want to strike her over the head. *ohi*

 

[BBB167893]

That is a fairly standard theory. Of course, there's also the exaggerated size of the underwear. Some have argued that Patsy would not have selected them for that reason. I agree with that position. I know the arguments for PDI or P covered it (PCI?). I don't see her ever being calm enough to write about the beheading of her daughter. I don't see her going into the 'she dies' hurdles or saying that there would be a 99% chance of her being killed. She audibly cried that 'she couldn't hear her'. After JBR's death, she also cried, 'Why did they do this?' One of the people who heard her say that claimed that it sounded like Patsy knew who the killers were.

The biggest issue I have is that Patsy was a girly girl. (Please don't be offended by the term. I'm simply saying that she relished being well dressed, perfumed and dyed. She loved to be the flirtatious southern belle. She seemed to be the matriarch of the household and left the John the responsibility of making money and paying for her lifestyle.) The idea that Burke hurts JB and Patsy then covers it up to me is counterintuitive. Patsy had a long list of plans for JB. She loved Burke too, but her interest, her path to success, was to raise a trophy child. She wanted JB to achieve the dream. It doesn't make sense to me. "Aw, you just killed your sister. Well, you're now my only child so I'll cover-up her death to protect you."--this isn't who Patsy was. She was the knees on the floor, open palms and face up to the heavens, "Please help me Lazarus," type of woman.

The panicky type of Patsy who just killed her daughter works better, but is incomplete. SuperDave's theory (that she was shoved and went flying across her room to put the injury in that exact location of her skull) is the most logical of JB's being shoved theories. Otherwise, you get ST's rage scenario in the bathroom and you really have to explain how you got the impact on the top of the skull and not on the side of the skull. I really can't see that one in my mind's eye.

I personally lean to JB being hit over the head with a blunt object, but then you have to put intent with her murder. If she was struck, it could have been intentional or accidental. Still, it was a hell of a lot of force and that pushes the actions to intentional. *sigh* Now you get to go in circles over why someone would want to strike her over the head. *ohi*

Before I touch on all of this, there's something I wanted to say. Along the same lines, I've never bought the BDI story, for much the same reason: he wouldn't have been so calm the next morning. Now, those of you who know more about child psychology can tell me if I'm wrong, but to me, if it had happened, Burke would have been hysterical and screaming. I don't want to get more specific than that.

As for what you say, as I look at it, Patsy was running so fast that night she didn't have time to really think about what she was doing. I admit, I just don't like picturing the woman you describe as a killer, but it's where I'm led. RIP, Patsy.

 

[reintarnation]

I don't really think of PR as a cold-blooded murderer, and I don't think her first reaction was being calm. I do see her potential for being manipulative, controlling, and abusive, especially if the right buttons are pushed. I could see her viewing JBR's toileting issues as rebellion against what PR wanted for her. The fact that PR is the one who always cleaned up after them and dealt with them could also make an accident feel like a personal attack.

This article is from 1993 - very sad read - and explains how commonly toileting issues cause abuse and death in children:
http://articles.philly.com/1993-11-...ses-toilet-training-accidents-toilet-training

If this is really what happened that night, I imagine PR being upset, crying, and panicking. I don't think she ever wanted her daughter to die, and after the fact I think her sadness was pretty genuine. At the same time, once that initial blow happened, PR had to decide what to do next. Call 911 and explain what happened or lie about what happened? That's what most parents would do, but I don't think PR was like most parents. The blow was so bad, she may have thought JBR was already dead, heading that way, or that she would never be the same (vegetable). In the middle of the night, exhausted and stressed as she was, now faced with this awful scenario, I think she decided to stage a cover-up rather than deal with the repercussions of her actions and have her dark secret (her abusiveness) exposed. I can see her collecting herself, going into action, finding some sort of sick satisfaction in staging things and thinking about getting one over on LE...it was CYA for PR, and she was going to make it work. Realistically, IMO, I don't think it would have worked if she didn't get lucky with LE and DA.

JMO! Didn't address everything that was brought up, but I think so much of it depends on our own personal perspectives, what we accept, and our knowledge or personal experiences. All very good conversation!

 

[UKGuy]

Before I touch on all of this, there's something I wanted to say. Along the same lines, I've never bought the BDI story, for much the same reason: he wouldn't have been so calm the next morning. Now, those of you who know more about child psychology can tell me if I'm wrong, but to me, if it had happened, Burke would have been hysterical and screaming. I don't want to get more specific than that.

As for what you say, as I look at it, Patsy was running so fast that night she didn't have time to really think about what she was doing. I admit, I just don't like picturing the woman you describe as a killer, but it's where I'm led. RIP, Patsy.

SuperDave,

Any of the RDI theories could be correct, depending on your perspective, BDI appears to explain more of the evidence than say JDI, with PDI explaining the least.

Personally I think it depends on whether you think JonBenet was being sexually abused, or specific aspects of the crime-scene were staged, e.g. digital penetration?

Patsy could have ligature asphyxiated JonBenet and JR could have redressed and assaulted JonBenet internally, BPD described it as Vaginal Trauma, how cute and neutral is that?

The redressing of JonBenet is interesting since the R's got it so wrong. Assuming a PDI, it looks like Patsy was attempting to wash the balled up turtleneck, but gave up, maybe because, as you suggest, she was running so fast?

Dumping the blood stained pink barbie nightgown into the wine-cellar simply destroys any semblance of an intruder homicide. So the white gap top is placed on JonBenet to match the R's version of events, the size-12's can only be a male mistake, evident by covering them up with the long johns.

On the long johns, or long underwear according to Coroner Meyer, these were urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs.

excerpt, Autopsy Report

Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

So on re-reading the AR I noticed that Coroner Meyer is particular in his location specifications, e.g. anterior, posterior, lateral, etc.

Although the standard explanation for the underwear being urine stained is that this happened when JonBenet was asphyxiated face down?

How do we know that what Meyer describes as the anterior of the long underwear is actually that of the front? Could the long underwear have been put on back to front, maybe it does not matter?

Yet on the size-12's in all of the AR, Coroner Meyer makes no distinction between anterior or posterior, and we know from his verbatim remarks he thinks the red areas of staining on the size-12's do not match bloodstains on JonBenet?

If as Kolar hints, BR exhibits aspects of some behavioral issue, then his response the following morning might be, just what was reported. This can be interpreted variously as representative of Autism, indicative of a Sociopathic Personality, or a simple Lack of Remorse, even Play Acting, with the latter consistent with the parents later admitting BR was present during the 911 call, i.e. why should BR be emotional over that which he has no knowledge, he just woke up!



.