The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[KoldKase]

Here are a couple of images--you get the idea.

For a couple of similar photos, you can visit the case photos at the bottom of this page at the FFJ Case Library: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=188011&posted=1#post188011

 

[cynic]

One other thing off the top of my head: it took some time before LE realized the size of the Bloomies was significant. Thomas was asked by Lin Wood in his Wolf law suit deposition if Thomas had ever seen an autopsy photo of the Bloomies on JB's body, and I believe Thomas said he knew of no such photo existing. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about who asked Thomas about this, but I think it was Wood.)

You are correct.
Lin Wood: Thank you. Were there any autopsy photos is my question?
Steve Thomas: Without the long-john over pants covering the underwear, I don't recall seeing any autopsy photos of just the child in her underpants.
Deposition of Steve Thomas, Wolf v Ramsey, September 21, 2001

 

[UKGuy]

This was what the maid had to say about the children's underwear:



I remember lots of discussion back in the early part of the case history about the maid saying JB always wore day-of-the-week panties, but this is what I found in a quick google. Linda Hoffman Pugh was on talk show interviews, radio in Colorado, etc., as the case lingered, so I'm thinking she was asked about this again, but I can't swear to it as it's been so long ago.

One other thing off the top of my head: it took some time before LE realized the size of the Bloomies was significant. Thomas was asked by Lin Wood in his Wolf law suit deposition if Thomas had ever seen an autopsy photo of the Bloomies on JB's body, and I believe Thomas said he knew of no such photo existing. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about who asked Thomas about this, but I think it was Wood.)

That's sad in so many ways.

But from an investigator's POV, it's a tragic loss of critical evidence the medical examiner had right in his hands: the size of the Bloomies on the child is very important, and as any defense would, will always be argued as insignificant. Since I believe they were far too large to ever have been put onto or put on by a child JB's size while she was alive and moving, walking, etc., I think those panties put a time frame on when they were put on her which correlates to her death.

I also think the location of that package of 12-14 Bloomies in the home is critical. I think the unwrapped packages in the cellar room, with the Bloomies wrapping paper lying on the floor, are what you think they are, DeeDee: evidence they were unwrapped there, in that dirty room.

OH, to see the full array of crime scene photos. There is a lot in that basement we haven't seen, even though we've been told there isn't.

At any rate, UKGUY: I understand what you're saying about Patsy not knowing the Bloomies package was taken from the house. Personally, I don't think she really had thought it through before LE started pummeling her with questions about the package almost four years later, in August of 2000 in Atlanta. I could speculate a lot on how the package got packed and neither Ramsey knew about it; I believe the Ramseys hired a moving company to move their belongings out after the home was turned back over to them. I don't know the timeline on that, but I remember it was said by the Smit-led publicity spin team online the Ramsey's PIs went over their house conducting searches, etc.

So no one can really say how that package magically got transported across time and space, back and forth, until it came to land once again in Boulder, in Team Ramsey's Lacy-Led Exoneration Brigade. At least, no one other than those who moved it.

The question I'll always ask is did Team Ramsey ever actually have Lacy test the package when they "gave" it to her in 2002? She was their puppet, after all, and she had worked hand-in-glove with Wood once he (IMO) blackmailed the BPD into handing the case over to Lacy.

There should have been fingerprints on it. Yes, "touch" DNA, anyone?

One last thing, as to the excellent question about testing the other panties in the package for matching DNA: the package zipped from one side to another, leaving an opening where all the panties could be accessed individually without taking others out. I'll try to attach a couple of photos if I can.

KoldKase,
Thanks for the quote.

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.

Presumably JonBenet could not read, otherwise the dates might be redundant?

The assumption of date importance lends more weight to DeeDee249's theory that the Day Of The Week was very important for the redresser, possibly outranking a size-6 Tuesday pair available upstairs?

There are some curious questions about the remaining size-12's, e.g. how they left the house, and who took command of them. Why were they kept at all, incriminating evidence? And of course the biggie, why return them after being told they were not in the house. There had to be some heated discussion over this one?

Returning the remainder confirms that the Intruder did not remove them, thus rendering Patsy's initial account consistent. Except for the part where she stated placing them all into JonBenet's underwear drawer. So whatever the Ramsey' rationale is, it's not that the intruder molested JonBenet, cleaned her up, and redressed her in size-12 underwear!

Patsy was likely prepared to mount an amnesia defence and say she misremembered placing the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, their return invalidates her original position.

But is what was returned the original remaining size-12's?

There should have been fingerprints on it. Yes, "touch" DNA, anyone?

One last thing, as to the excellent question about testing the other panties in the package for matching DNA: the package zipped from one side to another, leaving an opening where all the panties could be accessed individually without taking others out. I'll try to attach a couple of photos if I

It's a dereliction of duty not to test for touch-dna, why the crime-scene specimen, but not the control pairs, so to speak? Testing should confirm they are the originals?

Looks to me as if the Ramsey's position was going to be : sexual assault , really, how disgusting, who would have done that, must have been that nasty abductor!


.

 

[UKGuy]

You are correct.
Lin Wood: Thank you. Were there any autopsy photos is my question?
Steve Thomas: Without the long-john over pants covering the underwear, I don't recall seeing any autopsy photos of just the child in her underpants.
Deposition of Steve Thomas, Wolf v Ramsey, September 21, 2001

cynic,
No photos? Why not, do they not photograph victims as they undress them for autopsy, and bag the evidence as it emerges, with the photos acting as backup?

Or was this another mistake?


.

 

[cynic]

No photos? Why not, do they not photograph victims as they undress them for autopsy, and bag the evidence as it emerges, with the photos acting as backup?
Or was this another mistake?

Hi UK,

I’m not certain if absolutely everything at an autopsy is documented with photographs, although, obviously, all marks, injuries, or anything deemed to be important forensically would be. It’s also possible that such a picture was not available because of the way Meyer conducted the autopsy.
A read through of this description from PMPT seems to indicate that maybe Meyer may have conducted an examination of a fully clothed JonBenet, followed by an examination of an unclothed JonBenet. The description seems to support the possibility that he may have looked beneath the long johns to check for matching stains but perhaps did not remove them entirely. This all assumes that what follows is an accurate depiction of what Meyer did.

Shortly after 8:15 A.M. on December 27, Dr. John Meyer entered the autopsy room at Boulder Community Hospital, accompanied by his medical investigators, Tom Faure and Patricia Dunn. Dunn had been at the Ramsey house the previous day and was Meyer’s primary investigator on the case. For the autopsy, Detectives Linda Arndt and Tom Trujillo were on hand for the Boulder police; senior trial deputies Trip DeMuth and John Pickering were there for the DA’s office.
Attendants unsealed a heavy white plastic bag, revealing JonBenét’s body wrapped in a sterile white sheet. The child was placed on the steel autopsy table, whose slightly inclined subtray permitted fluids to drain into a sink-type apparatus. The sheet was removed and set aside as part of the evidence.
Meyer knew that in nine out of ten cases of a child’s suspicious death, the perpetrator or an accomplice says that a bike fell on the victim or the child slipped in the bathtub—some accident is concocted to explain the victim’s injuries. Meyer also knew, however, that good forensic pathology usually reveals the real cause of death.
JonBenét’s body was just as Meyer had observed it twelve hours earlier in the Ramsey living room. Every stitch of her clothing, plus the ligatures on her right wrist and around her neck, remained in place. Paper bags had been sealed around her hands and feet to preserve any possible trace evidence.
Patricia Dunn took color slides for the coroner’s office, while Detective Trujillo shot photos for the police department. Dunn shot 113 frames, documenting each stage of the procedure. Meyer dictated his observations into a tape recorder.
“The decedent is clothed in a long-sleeved white knit collarless shirt, the mid-anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorated with silver sequins,” Meyer began. “Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt, is a white cord.”
On the child’s right sleeve, the coroner saw a brownish-tan stain about 2½ by 1½ inches in area, which seemed consistent with mucus from her mouth or nose.
“There are long white underwear with an elastic waistband containing a red-and-blue stripe.” Meyer also noted urine stains on the underwear, in the crotch area, and at the front.
“Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rosebuds and the word Wednesday on the elastic waistband.” The panties were also stained with urine. At the crotch, the coroner spotted several red spots that were each up to ½ inch in diameter.
Meyer then recorded the injuries that were visible with the body clothed. Beneath her right ear, at the point where the jawbone forms roughly a right angle, was a rust-colored abrasion about 3/8 by ¼ inch. There was pinpoint hemorrhaging on the upper and lower eyelids.
Meyer described the cord around the child’s neck: “Wrapped around the neck with a double knot in the midline of the posterior neck is a length of white cord similar to that described as being tied around the right wrist.” He cut through the cord on the right side of her neck and slipped it off.
“A single black mark is placed on the left side of the cut and a double black ink mark on the right side of the cut.” Meyer stated these specifics in case it would be necessary to reconstruct the cord as evidence. He knew the police would want the knot left intact, to study the technique used to secure the ligature.
There were two tails of cord trailing from the knot. One was 4 inches long and frayed. The other was 17 inches long and had multiple loops secured around a wooden stick that was about 4½ inches long.
“This wooden stick,” Meyer said, “is irregularly broken at both ends, and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Printed in gold letters on one end of the wood [stick] is the word Korea.”
Fine blond hair, Meyer noted, was tangled in the knot of the cord around the child’s neck as well as in the knot of the cord tied around the stick.
“The white cord is flattened and measures approximately ¼ inch in width. It appears to be made of a white synthetic material. Also secured around the neck is a gold chain with a single charm in the form of a cross.”
Meyer then recorded a series of observations about a groove left in JonBenét’s neck by the cord. In front, it was just below the prominence of her larynx. The coroner noted that the groove circled her neck almost completely horizontally, deviating only slightly upward near the back. At some points, the furrow was close to half an inch wide, and hemorrhaging and abrasions could be seen both above and below it. The groove included a roughly triangular abrasion, about the size of a 25-cent piece on the left side of the neck, that Meyer had seen when he first viewed the body at the Ramseys’ house.
Continuing with the external examination, Meyer noticed—and Detective Arndt also observed—a number of dark fibers and hairs on the outside of JonBenét’s nightshirt. Using forceps, Meyer lifted these for later microscopic analysis. Everyone in the room could also see strands of a green substance tangled in the child’s hair. Arndt believed she’d seen the same thing the day before; it was probably some of the holiday garland decorating the spiral staircase that led downstairs from JonBenét’s bedroom.
Meyer then removed her clothes and set the garments aside to be placed into evidence.
“The unembalmed, well-developed, and well-nourished Caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds,” Meyer dictated. “The scalp is covered by long blond hair, which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified.”
Meyer began an internal examination of the body.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 38 - 43

 

[mcsmom]

PMPT claims on page 255 that JonBenet started to read at age three.

 

[mcsmom]

KoldKase
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 691
This was what the maid had to say about the children's underwear:

Quote:
From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town

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.

"Days of the week on all their underclothes" not dates, is the exact quote.

 

[UKGuy]

Hi UK,

I’m not certain if absolutely everything at an autopsy is documented with photographs, although, obviously, all marks, injuries, or anything deemed to be important forensically would be. It’s also possible that such a picture was not available because of the way Meyer conducted the autopsy.
A read through of this description from PMPT seems to indicate that maybe Meyer may have conducted an examination of a fully clothed JonBenet, followed by an examination of an unclothed JonBenet. The description seems to support the possibility that he may have looked beneath the long johns to check for matching stains but perhaps did not remove them entirely. This all assumes that what follows is an accurate depiction of what Meyer did.

Shortly after 8:15 A.M. on December 27, Dr. John Meyer entered the autopsy room at Boulder Community Hospital, accompanied by his medical investigators, Tom Faure and Patricia Dunn. Dunn had been at the Ramsey house the previous day and was Meyer’s primary investigator on the case. For the autopsy, Detectives Linda Arndt and Tom Trujillo were on hand for the Boulder police; senior trial deputies Trip DeMuth and John Pickering were there for the DA’s office.
Attendants unsealed a heavy white plastic bag, revealing JonBenét’s body wrapped in a sterile white sheet. The child was placed on the steel autopsy table, whose slightly inclined subtray permitted fluids to drain into a sink-type apparatus. The sheet was removed and set aside as part of the evidence.
Meyer knew that in nine out of ten cases of a child’s suspicious death, the perpetrator or an accomplice says that a bike fell on the victim or the child slipped in the bathtub—some accident is concocted to explain the victim’s injuries. Meyer also knew, however, that good forensic pathology usually reveals the real cause of death.
JonBenét’s body was just as Meyer had observed it twelve hours earlier in the Ramsey living room. Every stitch of her clothing, plus the ligatures on her right wrist and around her neck, remained in place. Paper bags had been sealed around her hands and feet to preserve any possible trace evidence.
Patricia Dunn took color slides for the coroner’s office, while Detective Trujillo shot photos for the police department. Dunn shot 113 frames, documenting each stage of the procedure. Meyer dictated his observations into a tape recorder.
“The decedent is clothed in a long-sleeved white knit collarless shirt, the mid-anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorated with silver sequins,” Meyer began. “Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt, is a white cord.”
On the child’s right sleeve, the coroner saw a brownish-tan stain about 2½ by 1½ inches in area, which seemed consistent with mucus from her mouth or nose.
“There are long white underwear with an elastic waistband containing a red-and-blue stripe.” Meyer also noted urine stains on the underwear, in the crotch area, and at the front.
“Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rosebuds and the word Wednesday on the elastic waistband.” The panties were also stained with urine. At the crotch, the coroner spotted several red spots that were each up to ½ inch in diameter.
Meyer then recorded the injuries that were visible with the body clothed. Beneath her right ear, at the point where the jawbone forms roughly a right angle, was a rust-colored abrasion about 3/8 by ¼ inch. There was pinpoint hemorrhaging on the upper and lower eyelids.
Meyer described the cord around the child’s neck: “Wrapped around the neck with a double knot in the midline of the posterior neck is a length of white cord similar to that described as being tied around the right wrist.” He cut through the cord on the right side of her neck and slipped it off.
“A single black mark is placed on the left side of the cut and a double black ink mark on the right side of the cut.” Meyer stated these specifics in case it would be necessary to reconstruct the cord as evidence. He knew the police would want the knot left intact, to study the technique used to secure the ligature.
There were two tails of cord trailing from the knot. One was 4 inches long and frayed. The other was 17 inches long and had multiple loops secured around a wooden stick that was about 4½ inches long.
“This wooden stick,” Meyer said, “is irregularly broken at both ends, and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Printed in gold letters on one end of the wood [stick] is the word Korea.”
Fine blond hair, Meyer noted, was tangled in the knot of the cord around the child’s neck as well as in the knot of the cord tied around the stick.
“The white cord is flattened and measures approximately ¼ inch in width. It appears to be made of a white synthetic material. Also secured around the neck is a gold chain with a single charm in the form of a cross.”
Meyer then recorded a series of observations about a groove left in JonBenét’s neck by the cord. In front, it was just below the prominence of her larynx. The coroner noted that the groove circled her neck almost completely horizontally, deviating only slightly upward near the back. At some points, the furrow was close to half an inch wide, and hemorrhaging and abrasions could be seen both above and below it. The groove included a roughly triangular abrasion, about the size of a 25-cent piece on the left side of the neck, that Meyer had seen when he first viewed the body at the Ramseys’ house.
Continuing with the external examination, Meyer noticed—and Detective Arndt also observed—a number of dark fibers and hairs on the outside of JonBenét’s nightshirt. Using forceps, Meyer lifted these for later microscopic analysis. Everyone in the room could also see strands of a green substance tangled in the child’s hair. Arndt believed she’d seen the same thing the day before; it was probably some of the holiday garland decorating the spiral staircase that led downstairs from JonBenét’s bedroom.
Meyer then removed her clothes and set the garments aside to be placed into evidence.
“The unembalmed, well-developed, and well-nourished Caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds,” Meyer dictated. “The scalp is covered by long blond hair, which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified.”
Meyer began an internal examination of the body.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 38 - 43

cynic,
Thanks for the text. Looks like Dunn took photos as per the autopsy procedure. I can imagine Meyer talking into his dictaphone “Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rosebuds and the word Wednesday on the elastic waistband.” The panties were also stained with urine. as Dunn photographs the underwear. So the Coroner's office still has these photos, and if Steve Thomas says he never saw them, maybe duplicates were never made, or did he fall down on this feature?


.

 

[UKGuy]

PMPT claims on page 255 that JonBenet started to read at age three.

mcsmom,
Sure and who taught her, and do you believe it?


.

 

[UKGuy]

KoldKase
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 691
This was what the maid had to say about the children's underwear:

Quote:
From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town

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.

"Days of the week on all their underclothes" not dates, is the exact quote.

mcsmom,
If all her underwear were Day Of The Week then that is even more specific. Maybe thats why we were told JonBenet could read at three?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

mcsmom,
Sure and who taught her, and do you believe it?


.

I had read that JB could not read. She wasn't able to read names on the presents Christmas morning.
Some kids can certainly recognize simple words or "read" familiar signs (like a McDonald's sign or logo for a toy, etc.) at age 3. My grandson could, but I wouldn't say at that age he could actually READ.
Reading a word like "Wednesday" would be difficult for a child who couldn't actually "read".

 

[UKGuy]

I had read that JB could not read. She wasn't able to read names on the presents Christmas morning.
Some kids can certainly recognize simple words or "read" familiar signs (like a McDonald's sign or logo for a toy, etc.) at age 3. My grandson could, but I wouldn't say at that age he could actually READ.
Reading a word like "Wednesday" would be difficult for a child who couldn't actually "read".

DeeDee249,

I tend to agree with you. Although sequences like: days of the week, digits 1-9 or ABC etc are not uncommon starting points for children to grasp the reading concept.

If JonBenet could read I'd like some more concrete examples of her ability or a report card. Just saying she could read when that might be required to back up size-12's appearing on her, is not good enough!

If the remaining size-12's are the originals, then someone must have kept them, presumably the other stuff has been binned?

At least with the size-12's we can offer two explanations for their appearance in Atlanta:

1. They were always in the house, just hidden somewhere, and BPD never discovered them so they were shipped to Atlanta?

2. Pam spirited them out of the house during her supermarket sweep of Ramsey possessions?

In both cases the redresser took control of the size-12's and hid them away, until it was required to hand them over. So to allow the wine-cellar staging to remain a plausible scenario. Otherwise you are looking at the intruder removing the remaining size-12's and possibly her worn size-6 pair?

But why would the intruder do that if it was JonBenet who dressed herself in those size-12's, why only the small package of size-12's, how did the intruder know where to look, e.g. JonBenet's underwear drawer?

The thing about those remaining size-12's was that they were small and portable. Unless they were lying at the crime-scene, I doubt anyone gave them a second look?

If we assume Patsy was ignorant of the fact that there were no size-12's in JonBenet's drawer. Presumably because the redresser never told her they were no longer in the house?

Can you imagine what Patsy has to say to John once she returns from that interview?

Hey John, they said there were no size-12's in her drawer!

John: How can that be, did you put them there?

Patsy: Well I thought, after you dressed her you put the remainder back in her drawer?

John: I just rolled all the clothes up and dropped them into the golf-bag

Patsy: So where the **** are they?

John: I guess they are still there or been packed away in a crate, I forget <-- ramnesia.

Patsy: So how come you never told me, you knew I was going to be interviewed. The tabs had splashed that JonBenet had been found wearing Bloomingdale size-12's. It had to come up as a question

John: I forgot honey, with all the pressure, legal conference calls, it slipped my mind

Of course the other possibility is that the size-12's handed in are not the originals, but a duplicate set, that no one can query?

 

[treeseeker]

If PR accidently put the size 12 in JonBenet's drawer, the remaining 6 would be there and wouldn't have been suspicious. But no, she insisted she knew they were size 12, and they were not in the drawer as she claimed. Why make them disappear if they weren't significant? Why lie unless she knew they were of importance? The phrase "big girl panties" keeps coming to mind every time I think about this - is it too weird to think they were symbolic, rather than a staging slip?

 

[UKGuy]

If PR accidently put the size 12 in JonBenet's drawer, the remaining 6 would be there and wouldn't have been suspicious. But no, she insisted she knew they were size 12, and they were not in the drawer as she claimed. Why make them disappear if they weren't significant? Why lie unless she knew they were of importance? The phrase "big girl panties" keeps coming to mind every time I think about this - is it too weird to think they were symbolic, rather than a staging slip?

treeseeker,
I reckon they were a staging slip. But not by Patsy, she was ignorant about them being used. Otherwise she would have talked over the importance of the tabloids revealing JonBenet was wearing size-12's at the autopsy with John!

If she did not know and, I assume it was not Burke who redressed her, that leaves John who conveniently left some of his fibers on JonBenet. So the symbolism may be the Day of The Week feature e.g. Wednesday?

In John's mind this had some importance to the staging. Maybe he was attempting to match her size-6 underwear, or alternatively create an appearance that JonBenet died on a Wednesday.

This seems to be the important symbolic element e.g. Wednesday because to render it real JonBenet was left wearing size-12's. So for those seeking the truth the size-12's represent a very large red flag, and when combined with Patsy's lies, its obvious the parents line about them being the victim of an intruder does not stand up.


.

 

[Dymphna]

Here are a couple of images--you get the idea.

For a couple of similar photos, you can visit the case photos at the bottom of this page at the FFJ Case Library: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=188011&posted=1#post188011

KK, just wanted to tell you how much I have always appreciated your work on FFJ (I'm Catherine, there) and here at WS. Also Jayelles and River Rat!! &#9829;

 

[treeseeker]

I agree UKGuy, this was a family crime. I have always felt PR was responsible. I think she was a disturbed woman.

If the size 12s were just a slip-up, then the next question would be why were the undies changed at all? If one believes PR about the longjohns, then someone undressed, molested, then redressed JonBenet - with clean, new, huge undies that had to be located and unwrapped. Why not just put the original undies back on, which were likely bunched up in the longjohns when they were removed.

I generally have a problem with the longjohn story, it was an unusual choice to dress a sleeping child with. I wonder if they were in the laundry, static-clinging to the blanket, and not on JonBenet before she was taken to the basement.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree UKGuy, this was a family crime. I have always felt PR was responsible. I think she was a disturbed woman.

If the size 12s were just a slip-up, then the next question would be why were the undies changed at all? If one believes PR about the longjohns, then someone undressed, molested, then redressed JonBenet - with clean, new, huge undies that had to be located and unwrapped. Why not just put the original undies back on, which were likely bunched up in the longjohns when they were removed.

I generally have a problem with the longjohn story, it was an unusual choice to dress a sleeping child with. I wonder if they were in the laundry, static-clinging to the blanket, and not on JonBenet before she was taken to the basement.

treeseeker
I think most people's default theory is PDI. Since most mothers would dial 911 in an accident situation or request the police in a sexual assault case.

I think she was a disturbed woman.

Quite possibly so. imo Patsy always seemed to be two persons at once e.g. a rich urbane socialite, and a trailer park pageant attendee. I think the people we know the least about could have answered many questions: Nedra and Don Paugh. I have always wondered if Patsy suffered from sexual abuse trauma, its quite common for the underlying symptoms to be misdiagnosed as other personality disorders e.g. schitzophrenia?

There really is a mismatch between Patsy married to a millionaire and as a mother attending pageants, encouraging her 6-year old daughter to behave
like an adult woman. Here is Patsy, university educated, who has no need for the prize money or fame that comes with winning pageants, teaching her daughter to indulge in pageants. It maybe an entirely innocent ambition, with its origin in another generation, where the Good Ship Lollipop reigned supreme? And that might be the conventional explanation, except for JonBenet being sexually assaulted prior to her death and evidence of chronic abuse!

If the size 12s were just a slip-up, then the next question would be why were the undies changed at all?

Since the wine-cellar represents a staged crime-scene then the size-12's were changed to match whatever the ideal crime-scene was in the stager's mind. This is where most perpetrators fall down and investigators make mistakes.

We can infer that the size-12's were changed so to match the kidnapping scenario since the Ramsey's stated they placed JonBenet straight to bed only changing her black pants for the white longjohns. So, presumably, the size-12's are meant as either a replacement for her size-6 Wednesday pair, or an attempt by the redresser to suggest something important about Wednesday. JonBenet's headstone states she died on the Wednesday!

I wonder if they were in the laundry, static-clinging to the blanket, and not on JonBenet before she was taken to the basement.

The longjohn story is just that a story. JonBenet was snacking pineapple prior to being molested. So what really happened is that after snacking pineapple JonBenet likely headed off to someones bedroom, undresssed, was assaulted then asphyxiated, bashed on the head, with the consequent staging. I reckon its that simple.

The wine-cellar is simply how the crime-scene should look according to the stagers perspective.


.

 

[BBB167893]

I think she was a disturbed woman.

Quite possibly so. imo Patsy always seemed to be two persons at once e.g. a rich urbane socialite, and a trailer park pageant attendee. I think the people we know the least about could have answered many questions: Nedra and Don Paugh. I have always wondered if Patsy suffered from sexual abuse trauma, its quite common for the underlying symptoms to be misdiagnosed as other personality disorders e.g. schitzophrenia?

There really is a mismatch between Patsy married to a millionaire and as a mother attending pageants, encouraging her 6-year old daughter to behave
like an adult woman. Here is Patsy, university educated, who has no need for the prize money or fame that comes with winning pageants, teaching her daughter to indulge in pageants. It maybe an entirely innocent ambition, with its origin in another generation, where the Good Ship Lollipop reigned supreme? And that might be the conventional explanation, except for JonBenet being sexually assaulted prior to her death and evidence of chronic abuse!

NOW, you're onto it. I never cease to be amazed and sickened by the behavior of those pageant moms on TV. But by all accounts I can find, Patsy's behavior was extreme even by THOSE standards.

 

[UKGuy]

NOW, you're onto it. I never cease to be amazed and sickened by the behavior of those pageant moms on TV. But by all accounts I can find, Patsy's behavior was extreme even by THOSE standards.

SuperDave,

Sure, so did Nedra know about the abuse. Did she think pageant success allowed Patsy to move up the social ladder, and its continuation via JonBenet gave the Paugh's some kind of economic leverage?

The Paugh silence in this case is deafening!



.

 

[Whaleshark]

I want an IDI to tell me why they think JBR would be wearing size 12/14 underwear when she wears a size 6.

Patsy said JBR put them on herself.

This means they came from within the house, no one else put them on her, according to Patsy; it was all JBR.

I think one of the key answers to the case is here.

I always go back to, and rehash and regather my thoughts after a few months on certain aspects of this case.

Rehashing this - this fact, along with all the factors that go along with it, tells me this is key in telling me who did this -the fact that the package was returned 5 yrs later tells me what I need to know.

Give me reasons otherwise.