The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Ellie9]

Because the sheet, BBs and LJs were freshly stained with urine, we must use some logic and that logic tells me that JBR wet herself while face down in her bed, wearing the BBS.

Actually it's more likely that urine came around the time of death. Most people, adults included, evacuate their bladder at the time of death. This is because the muscles that normally work all relax when a person dies. So the clothes could have been put on her before the strangulation is my timing theory. (After the head hit, though).

IS it not possible that one pair from the package was left in JBRs room and she chose to wear them?

I think it's possible but improbable. It's more likely PR bought them for Jenny like she said. Then she wrapped them. Put them downstairs. And then during this incident she unwrapped the package and used them to put on JBR when she was unconscious from head blow and they were staging.

It's possible she could have worn them herself, but PR said she got JBR ready for bed and put her into her longjohns. So what kind of parent leaves their kid in bunched up uncomfortable panties all night?

So which thing is PR lying about then? Was she lying about getting JBR ready for bed or was she lying about deciding not to give Jenny the gift after all? That could be a trick question.... she could be lying about both of those things.

I think the Ramsey's lying is all over the place. Why lie when innocent? Why?

ETA: My possible theory on why bother changing the panties at all: If someone touched her down there without gloves... the R's might have known possible DNA or hairs could be on her or on her panties that she had on originally. So this leads me to wonder that something sexual happened that night which lead to her death. Any of the three could have done something to her in that way, but for someone killing her for some reason I have to wonder if Burke would be the culprit in this scenario.

I want to add, if Burke did it, I would not blame adult him or want him to face any consequences. At his age at this time he was obviously acting out from some kind of abuse he was facing and/or witnessing, or suffering from some other severe psychological issue.

 

[UKGuy]

When I hear hooves, I try not to think "zebras" (unless I am in Africa) and I believe that the panties have been explained away.

My responses are in blue.

TeaTime,

The collection of JBR's panties happened on 12/27, PR's underwear was not taken by LE and Pam was there on 12/28, looting the place. It is my opinion that Pam collected all of PR's underwear and the panties were in her dresser or bathroom drawer and Pam packed them up and took them. Probably unintentionally.

Who took all the size-12's from JonBenet's underwear drawer, when they only required one pair, and placed them into Patsy's underwear drawer, and WHY?

.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I wonder what JB wore after she took off her pink pajamas which she was wearing Christmas morning.. She probably was not wearing them whole day until they went to the Whites's party in the evening..
P mentioned lots of children came in and they were all playing and she rode her biycle so i would guess she would change her pink pajamas which she wore to bed.

She probably wore something casual ..that is significant imo , as there are no other photos at home from that day and they could be deleted.. A theory .. I think pink pajamas were under the pillow so who dressed her to bed maybe did not see them and put on her those casuel bottoms she wore at home and somehow they disappeared like her panties which could be bloodied and those bottoms were used for wiping.. And maybe thats why no other photos..

Also during the interviews P mentioned that their camera were stolen while their house was painted or something.. She was asked whether they informed LE and she said no.
This makes me think could it be that it contained kind if recording from that day and was hidden along with other items....?

 

[Annapurna]

The R's had mostly summer clothes at the MI house.

In one interview PR does say that JB changed into "play clothes" and in response to a photo says she sees "play pants" on the ground in JB's room which were said to be fecal stained.

The video camera was said to have been out of batteries. Photos were taken that morning.

I don't know why we have to repeat this so often: all the panties taken from the house were either a size 4 or 6. That means, there were no size 12's found anywhere else. That means that she was not wearing them as a normal thing. The package was not found by LE, therefore it was not in her drawer. Why would PR put the panties intended as a gift for a 12 year old girl into her own drawer? If she did, why did she only take out the one pair? She would have had to run up 4 flights of stairs from the basement. If PR bought them for JB to grow into them (keep them for 6 years...?) why didn't she just buy size 8 or 10? those would be the next sizes between 4-6 and 12.

It seriously makes no sense at all for JB to be wearing those size 12's unless someone else put them on her. They're so large they would fall off.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Just throwing it out there ..they might have two cameras ..An old out of battery video camera might be given to LE as decoy , the one used that day could be hidden and thus an explanation in an interview about a stolen camera sometime ago... Just before a Christmas vacation an out of battery camera is a red flag imo..The parents usually love recording children..The last recordings on the camera delivered to LE , could maybe prove whether it was the one used recently though.. I hope that was checked ..

 

[AndHence]

Can someone put the Ramsey statements with regard to putting JonBenet to bed in order for me? According to the parents, John carried to JonBenet to bed and Patsy later dressed her into the long johns, right? Does either parent mention seeing the Bloomingdales on her? You don't miss panties that oversized.

 

[UKGuy]

Can someone put the Ramsey statements with regard to putting JonBenet to bed in order for me? According to the parents, John carried to JonBenet to bed and Patsy later dressed her into the long johns, right? Does either parent mention seeing the Bloomingdales on her? You don't miss panties that oversized.

AndHence,
JR revised his version of events and saw no underwear, either PR or JR answered, paraphrasing, I'd have noticed if she had not been wearing any

PR when interviewed could not remember if JonBenet was or was not wearing underwear just that she redressed her in the long-johns.

PR also stated she never saw JonBenet dressing in clean underwear for the White's Party, just that she would have!

From JR and PR's answers on the underwear topic, both know why its relevant so evade anything specific, even if it means a loss of memory.

e.g. JR says he never dresses JonBenet thats PR's job, PR says she oversees JonBenet bathing, i.e. thats her job definitely not JR's.

PR's story about the size-12's is pure invention, she needed to explain away the size-12's, so came up with the JonBenet wanted them story, but it all falls apart on inspection!




.

 

[AndHence]

AndHence,
JR revised his version of events and saw no underwear, either PR or JR answered, paraphrasing, I'd have noticed if she had not been wearing any

PR when interviewed could not remember if JonBenet was or was not wearing underwear just that she redressed her in the long-johns.

PR also stated she never saw JonBenet dressing in clean underwear for the White's Party, just that she would have!

From JR and PR's answers on the underwear topic, both know why its relevant so evade anything specific, even if it means a loss of memory.

e.g. JR says he never dresses JonBenet thats PR's job, PR says she oversees JonBenet bathing, i.e. thats her job definitely not JR's.

PR's story about the size-12's is pure invention, she needed to explain away the size-12's, so came up with the JonBenet wanted them story, but it all falls apart on inspection!




.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'd always wondered why, if the panties were incontrovertibly sourced to the Ramsey home, neither parent recalled seeing them on JonBenet that night when getting her ready for bed. None of it makes much sense. Why change JonBenet into long johns if she's already sleeping? Did they fear she'd get her good clothes wet during the night? Patsy had to have seen the Bloomingdales if that's what she wore to bed.

 

[Fides]

Burke - He is certainly a suspect and his DNA is on the pineapple and at the crime scene. If his statement is true, he also opened all those presents and might have had an idea where the size 12s were. But you have to be willing to believe that Burke, in a panic, had the presence of mind to wipe her down without leaving any additional DNA evidence on her, then dress her in the panties without leaving any DNA on them. Doesn't sound likely to me.[/QUOTE

This supposes that Burke was a child who would not be capable of a methodical cover-up due to panic. Not an unreasonable assumption, given his age.

It can also be argued that he was unusually mature in his interests (i.e. watched pilot training videos made for adult pilots like his father -- watched them for his entertainment, according to his mother). One might also assume that he watched crime shows and movies, another interest of his father's.

If he 1) was a very calm child and 2) watched and understood crime shows and movies, then it becomes less of a stretch to imagine that he could carry out parts of the cover-up. While some elements might be semi-accurate based on his Hollywood knowledge of criminals ("must get rid of my DNA"), given his age some elements could be very irrational (a heinous murderer searching about the basement for clean panties to re-dress a victim is odd, and a young boy would not know that).

Burke's ability to stay unusually calm and detached was witnessed by many throughout the hours and days following the events of 12/26/96. It is possible that was simply his personality. A calm and detached child can be capable of very logical actions even when under duress. In fact, people with that personality tend to become calmer and more focused when under extreme stress. We appreciate these kids very much when they grow up to be astronauts or police officers or surgeons, for example.

As I have mentioned before, the "garrote" appears to be a half-complete Scout Merit Badge project to me, it is so carefully constructed to represent part of an antique Spanish garrote. But it is half complete - to be authentic it requires that the cord be attached to the middles of two sticks, not one. It is as if the person constructing it tired of the project, or became aware of the time, and turned it into something else by looping the cord into a noose. The entire scene, including the panties, seems like this to me. Created by a person who has some incorrect ideas about true crime but who nonetheless has the presence of mind to give staging a murder a go. The construction of the "garrote" and ligatures seems incredibly methodical and incredibly naive at the exact same time. So does wiping and redressing in enormous Wednesday panties. Someone did that thinking that the Wednesday was important and the size was not - someone who knew nothing about little girls and underwear.

That said, I believe that the ransom note - the second phase - was Patsy alone, attempting to hide/explain all of the above. It could be said that the first phase of staging was the more methodical and less panicky, even if the stager was very young.

 

[AndHence]

I think it's entirely possible that Burke was sent off to bed that night thinking that he'd only hurt JonBenét and not killed her. Upon waking he is eventually told by John that JonBenét is "missing". In the child's mind these are two disparate events and he does not connect them.

 

[Fides]

I think it's entirely possible that Burke was sent off to bed that night thinking that he'd only hurt JonBenét and not killed her. Upon waking he is eventually told by John that JonBenét is "missing". In the child's mind these are two disparate events and he does not connect them.

Good thought. That was my original theory as well. I believe it may still be true in part, even if the above theory is accurate and he constructed the garrote to cover the head bash. John just went on TV to say that he and Patsy and their friends made sure all the grocery stores hid the "He Did It" tabloids. I believe that little speech was his main purpose for the Barbara Walters interview. His son perhaps in hindsight feels he let his mother down by letting her take the rap - the information that his son was continually protected from true information about allegations regarding his involvement makes perfect sense. Denial is a powerful force, and it easily screws with reality, if you'll forgive the vernacular.

 

[AndHence]

Good thought. That was my original theory as well. I believe it may still be true in part, even if the above theory is accurate and he constructed the garrote to cover the head bash. John just went on TV to say that he and Patsy and their friends made sure all the grocery stores hid the "He Did It" tabloids. I believe that little speech was his main purpose for the Barbara Walters interview. His son perhaps in hindsight feels he let his mother down by letting her take the rap - the information that his son was continually protected from true information about allegations regarding his involvement makes perfect sense. Denial is a powerful force, and it easily screws with reality, if you'll forgive the vernacular.

Does anyone know what got the tabloids started on the BDI headlines? What leaks or innuendos were there that led to these allegations?

 

[Fides]

Does anyone know what got the tabloids started on the BDI headlines? What leaks or innuendos were there that led to these allegations?

My memory is hazy but as I recall Burke's lawyer came to Boulder a week ahead of Burke's Grand Jury testimony and was rumored to be in meetings with Alex Hunter regarding a plea deal. One of the tabloids ran with that story and later was sued by the Ramseys for same. Hunter and the lawyer denied it, and a day after Burke's GJ testimony Hunter declared he was not a suspect, only a witness. I think the lawyer later sued the Ramseys for fees and said that he was the one who convinced Hunter to clear Burke, and so the settlement from the tabloid lawsuit should be shared with him. What a lovely group of human beings.

 

[TeaTime]

Well, let's think about this. No defense is ever presented to a GJ, just the prosecution's case. A suspect, such as perhaps BKR, is entitled to be represented by counsel and can not be compelled to testify against himself. But BKR was immune from prosecution due to his age at the time of the murder and therefore nothing he says can be used to prosecute him for the murder. He could confess and still go unpunished.

So it is possible that rather than a 'deal' there was a written, binding, admission by the DA that BKR was not a suspect, had age immunity and could therefore testify as to what he knew with impunity. It is never wise to trust the DA on these things without having it in writing, signed and witnessed.

Leave it to the Rs to let the criminal lawyer work his butt off to prove their civil case and then not pay him. Greedy.

I think most people who are familiar with the case have questioned why the parents would stick together in a cover up and the only thing that really makes sense is that they were protecting the other child. Of course it could have been "you killed her!" and "well, YOU molested her!" and they were bound together in silence, each guilty of something horrific that they didn't want known to anyone. But I believe the BDI gained popular appeal because both parents conspired to derail the investigation and many people can stomach the first reason better than the second.

 

[questfortrue]

In October 2000 (before he left office) AH signed an affidavit drafted by LW, the Rs’ civil attorney. In that affidavit AH crossed out the lines which “cleared” BR and substituted the verbiage that no evidence had been developed “to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect.” A copy of the affidavit is in Kolar’s book.

"In May of 1999, I was made aware that tabloid newspapers had indicated that Burke Ramsey was a suspect in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey or was believed to be her killer. As a result of these articles, I was contacted by media representatives and I instructed my office to release a press statement which publicly and officially stated that Burke Ramsey was not a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister and that stated in part, '...almost a year ago (Boulder) Police Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke (Ramsey) was not a suspect and that we are not looking at him as a possible suspect.' The information in the May 1999 press release was true and correct."

 

[andreww]

I can't believe these cops! How the hell can they say that Burke is not a suspect? The mere fact that he was one of three people in that house at least warranted that they look at him. And there are now letters exonerating all three Ramsey's???? It's like Andy Griffith and Barney Fife were running that investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for clearing that up. I'd always wondered why, if the panties were incontrovertibly sourced to the Ramsey home, neither parent recalled seeing them on JonBenet that night when getting her ready for bed. None of it makes much sense. Why change JonBenet into long johns if she's already sleeping? Did they fear she'd get her good clothes wet during the night? Patsy had to have seen the Bloomingdales if that's what she wore to bed.

AndHence,

Why change JonBenet into long johns if she's already sleeping?

A little thought on this subject should lead you ask what is the difference between the black velvet pants JonBenet wore to the Whites and the long johns, i.e. why would Patsy replace one set of pants for another?

I reckon it was BR who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, which quite likely mandated the long johns by necessity, otherwise the size-12's would literally fall down.

December 27, 1996 Search Warrant, Excerpt

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

So somebody had wiped JonBenet down after she had been redressed in the size-12's.

So if it was Patsy or JR that is two opportunities to recognize this size-12 pair are no good, so lets fetch her a normal size-6 pair which will be clean and the bloodstained size-12's can be dumped along with the size-6 pair worn to the White's!

So I infer the same person who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's wiped her down?

Only BR or JR would be dumb enough to use size-12's, but I credit JR with enough sense to realize, if he wiped her down, that the bloodstained size-12's needed to be changed?

That leaves BR doing both the redressing and wiping down, which makes sense to me, given he thinks he is normalizing the situation?

.

 

[BBB167893]

I can't believe these cops! How the hell can they say that Burke is not a suspect? The mere fact that he was one of three people in that house at least warranted that they look at him. And there are now letters exonerating all three Ramsey's???? It's like Andy Griffith and Barney Fife were running that investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least Barney might accidentally shoot the killer!

 

[Fides]

AndHence,


A little thought on this subject should lead you ask what is the difference between the black velvet pants JonBenet wore to the Whites and the long johns, i.e. why would Patsy replace one set of pants for another?

I reckon it was BR who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, which quite likely mandated the long johns by necessity, otherwise the size-12's would literally fall down.

December 27, 1996 Search Warrant, Excerpt


So somebody had wiped JonBenet down after she had been redressed in the size-12's.

So if it was Patsy or JR that is two opportunities to recognize this size-12 pair are no good, so lets fetch her a normal size-6 pair which will be clean and the bloodstained size-12's can be dumped along with the size-6 pair worn to the White's!

So I infer the same person who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's wiped her down?

Only BR or JR would be dumb enough to use size-12's, but I credit JR with enough sense to realize, if he wiped her down, that the bloodstained size-12's needed to be changed?

That leaves BR doing both the redressing and wiping down, which makes sense to me, given he thinks he is normalizing the situation?

.

I think this makes sense. Almost all of the quirks in the case can be explained by a child trying to imitate a bad guy while concealing his own presence at the scene.

 

[Teresa]

I have an almost impossible time thinking Burke committed this cover-up. As a past teacher and parent of two my experience is that kids panic and make poor choices in trying to cover up "bad" behavior. Most times the child will run to an adult or parent seeking help. Burke would not be thinking like an adult and thinking about JonBenets undies, cleaning her up or staging. Burke would be concerned getting away from JonBenet and his parents finding out what he did. His birthday was coming and he would be worried about being punished. Burke was a child he wouldn't have thought about evidence.