Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Why not, there may be another pair of size-6 Wednesday underwear in her drawer. We do not know and its telling that the BPD have not revealed this information.


What is so important about the Wednesday feature, when the size feature blows them out of the water? A much better solution would have been to neglect the Wednesday feature and select any Day-Of-The-Week size-6 underwear from her drawer. You can always argue anyone who says otherwise must be mistaken, who can corroborate this Wednesday feature?


Please refer me to the evidence list or BPD release that references this information.


Maybe, so what happens when someone asks: Where is the rest of the day of the week size-12's?


Why? You know their disappearance was such a red flag they reappeared years later.


Patsy may have been ignorant about the eventual location of the size-12's, as she would have been better off suggesting that it looked like the intruder had stolen them?

Whats really curious about those size-12's is that they do not pass any common sense crime-scene staging test. They fail spectacularly on the size issue. It could be that the redresser selected those size-12's at random, we do not know, or they were selected so to say something about the staging. Whatever the reason for the Wednesday feature, it failed - big time!

I am of the opinion that Patsy did not redress JonBenet in those size-12's.


.

When asked about her purchase of the Bloomies panty set, Patsy says she bought the size 12s for Jenny but says she doesn't remember if she bought one set or two (the other set being for JB in her own size). Of course, she does remember, she just doesn't want to say.
NO day of the week panties are on the evidence lists. (they are viewable on ACR). The only mention of a panty of this description is in the autopsy report.
Could there have been others in the drawer? I suppose so but I don't think so. I have already explained numerous times why the day of the week (Wednesday) was more important than the size. (if she went to the Whites wearing her own Wednesday panties and if she was supposed to have been carried to bed asleep and not seen alive again, she had to be found in Wednesday panties. But her own became bloodied, so another pair had to be used.) She wore the size 12s UNDER longjohns and to the outward appearance of the body, there was nothing unusual about the size of the panties or how they fit her.
When confronted about the fit, Patsy goes on to say that "if you look at these little panties, there is not much difference in the size". This isn't actually true- there may not be much difference between one size and the next size, but go up 3 sizes and there is a huge difference.
Bottom line as far as I am concerned- Patsy did not think the fit of the panties would seem unusual. When asked about it by LE she brushes it off by claiming there isn't much difference in the sizes. It was more important that she be still wearing the (seemingly) same pair of Wednesday panties she wore to the White's that day. There really isn't much more to explain about it

 

[Whaleshark]

When asked about her purchase of the Bloomies panty set, Patsy says she bought the size 12s for Jenny but says she doesn't remember if she bought one set or two (the other set being for JB in her own size). Of course, she does remember, she just doesn't want to say.
NO day of the week panties are on the evidence lists. (they are viewable on ACR). The only mention of a panty of this description is in the autopsy report.
Could there have been others in the drawer? I suppose so but I don't think so. I have already explained numerous times why the day of the week (Wednesday) was more important than the size. (if she went to the Whites wearing her own Wednesday panties and if she was supposed to have been carried to bed asleep and not seen alive again, she had to be found in Wednesday panties. But her own became bloodied, so another pair had to be used.) She wore the size 12s UNDER longjohns and to the outward appearance of the body, there was nothing unusual about the size of the panties or how they fit her.
When confronted about the fit, Patsy goes on to say that "if you look at these little panties, there is not much difference in the size". This isn't actually true- there may not be much difference between one size and the next size, but go up 3 sizes and there is a huge difference.
Bottom line as far as I am concerned- Patsy did not think the fit of the panties would seem unusual. When asked about it by LE she brushes it off by claiming there isn't much difference in the sizes. It was more important that she be still wearing the (seemingly) same pair of Wednesday panties she wore to the White's that day. There really isn't much more to explain about it

Right, and she even tried to say that JBR really wore 8/10 size panties even. No, those would have been huge on her as well. And that size wasn't found in her underwear drawer either, ONLY size 4/6. So if she wore any 8/10 where were those also? No 8/10s and no 12/14s were found in JBRs underwear drawer.

A 6 year old child who wears all size 4/6 cannot wear double that size: 12/14, nor can she even wear size 8/10. Period. Patsy knew that. She tried to explain it away as if JBR wanted those underwear, and was the one who put them on herself, cuz she knew darn well she wouldn't have been the one to put that size on her.

It would be different if PR said, 'I don't know why she is in size 12; those are way too big on her; JBR only wears size 4/6, and you'll see that all her underwear are that size as well. That doesn't make sense. Why would she be found in that size underwear? What did those monsters do to my poor baby?!'

But she does NOT say that. She is trying to explain why on earth she would be found in them.

 

[UKGuy]

Right, and she even tried to say that JBR really wore 8/10 size panties even. No, those would have been huge on her as well. And that size wasn't found in her underwear drawer either, ONLY size 4/6. So if she wore any 8/10 where were those also? No 8/10s and no 12/14s were found in JBRs underwear drawer.

A 6 year old child who wears all size 4/6 cannot wear double that size: 12/14, nor can she even wear size 8/10. Period. Patsy knew that. She tried to explain it away as if JBR wanted those underwear, and was the one who put them on herself, cuz she knew darn well she wouldn't have been the one to put that size on her.

It would be different if PR said, 'I don't know why she is in size 12; those are way too big on her; JBR only wears size 4/6, and you'll see that all her underwear are that size as well. That doesn't make sense. Why would she be found in that size underwear? What did those monsters do to my poor baby?!'

But she does NOT say that. She is trying to explain why on earth she would be found in them.

Whaleshark,

But she does NOT say that. She is trying to explain why on earth she would be found in them.

And she knew in advance of the interview that JonBenet was found wearing size-12's, one of the tabs splashed it. So you should expect some kind of explanation.

But Patsy stated she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, yet none were found there, or anywhere else in the house.

Patently Patsy never knew those size-12's were not in the underwear drawer!

Here is something else that you can infer from the size-12 feature: The story regarding JonBenet being placed into her bed on return from the White's party must be a last minute inventon, why so?

Because any premeditated or planned staging would get the underwear size correct, few would accept that JonBenet wore those size-12's to the White's party.

So thats three related errors in the staging : the size feature, JonBenet wore the size-12's to the Whites, and the remainder were removed.


Patsy's story about the size-12's suggests she thought whomever redressed JonBenet placed the remaining pairs into her underwear drawer, at this point in the interview, even she assumed they were still in the house, why bother removing them?

Looks to me as if Patsy was ignorant about the size-12's period!



.
.
.

 

[UKGuy]

When asked about her purchase of the Bloomies panty set, Patsy says she bought the size 12s for Jenny but says she doesn't remember if she bought one set or two (the other set being for JB in her own size). Of course, she does remember, she just doesn't want to say.
NO day of the week panties are on the evidence lists. (they are viewable on ACR). The only mention of a panty of this description is in the autopsy report.
Could there have been others in the drawer? I suppose so but I don't think so. I have already explained numerous times why the day of the week (Wednesday) was more important than the size. (if she went to the Whites wearing her own Wednesday panties and if she was supposed to have been carried to bed asleep and not seen alive again, she had to be found in Wednesday panties. But her own became bloodied, so another pair had to be used.) She wore the size 12s UNDER longjohns and to the outward appearance of the body, there was nothing unusual about the size of the panties or how they fit her.
When confronted about the fit, Patsy goes on to say that "if you look at these little panties, there is not much difference in the size". This isn't actually true- there may not be much difference between one size and the next size, but go up 3 sizes and there is a huge difference.
Bottom line as far as I am concerned- Patsy did not think the fit of the panties would seem unusual. When asked about it by LE she brushes it off by claiming there isn't much difference in the sizes. It was more important that she be still wearing the (seemingly) same pair of Wednesday panties she wore to the White's that day. There really isn't much more to explain about it

DeeDee249,

NO day of the week panties are on the evidence lists. (they are viewable on ACR). The only mention of a panty of this description is in the autopsy report.

mmm, no sizes are mentioned as are no colors or brands e.g. Bloomingdales. So I guess following your reasoning there will be no size-6 Bloomingdale underwear in the BPD evidence cage? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Could there have been others in the drawer? I suppose so but I don't think so.

But you do not know.

(if she went to the Whites wearing her own Wednesday panties and if she was supposed to have been carried to bed asleep and not seen alive again, she had to be found in Wednesday panties.

If, means you are speculating. She may have gone to the Whites wearing underwear that did not have a Day Of The Week feature.

The Wednesday feature may be evidence of intentional staging intended to make you form an opinion that advantages the killer?

she had to be found in Wednesday panties.

But not her own or normal sized underwear? What is the point in faking the Day Of The Week feature, but drawing attention to the fact that these were not JonBenet's everyday underwear, because they were size-12's? This is entirely inconsistent.

She wore the size 12s UNDER longjohns and to the outward appearance of the body, there was nothing unusual about the size of the panties or how they fit her.

Sure and we both know JonBenet was never going to go walk about in them. So once again if they were placed upon her for staging purposes, the redresser blew it big time. if those had been size-6 underwear, any Day Of The Week, or none at all , and any brand, we would not be having this discussion.

We would probbaly be asking why did the intruder pull down JonBenet's pants, assault her, pull them back up and place her into the wine-cellar?

It was more important that she be still wearing the (seemingly) same pair of Wednesday panties she wore to the White's that day. There really isn't much more to explain about

And that is possibly the result that JonBenet's redresser intended.



.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy admitted to buying the panties. She said she didn't know what happended to them. I think she wanted them to be part of the staging but she didn't know exactly what the police had on her - they were going through a ton of receipts. I think it's as simple as that...and the rest of the package went into her purse along with the duct tape and the rest of the rope.

vlpate,

She said she didn't know what happended to them.

Yes she did. Patsy explicitly stated she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

The police said, fine, and told her they found no size-12's in the drawer or anywhere else in the house.

If Patsy had already removed the size-12's, why is she offering a contradictory version of events?

Patsy probably never knew until the tabs splashed it, that JonBenet was wearing size-12 underwear!



.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
This is where critical discussion leads. Formerly the day of the week feature appeared gospel.

My view is that a crime-scene staging was taking place, now as DeeDee249 points out, JonBenet was never going to walk about in them.

Although you can view the size-12's as representing JonBenet's dressed state on arrival back from the White's.

Underwear is not mandatory, since you can blame the intruder for them missing, also she is wearing the longjohns, its possible to view the size-12's more as an obscuring device than a gesture to a particular dress code.

This is where and why I think the mistake was made, and I doubt its one Patsy would make?

So you tell me, if you go to the bother of placing the size-12's onto JonBenet, would you leave the remaining pairs lying in the wine-cellar or somewhere in the basement?

We know, the redresser knows and the police knows that the underwear JonBenet was wearing was going to be discovered and identified as unusual.

but:

So the R's made a big mistake.

Can you ever see Patsy thinking, oh they will never notice the size of these pants, and we can say we just put her straight to bed. I seriously doubt it?

The size mistake per se tells you it was overlooked or ignored.

.

So you tell me, if you go to the bother of placing the size-12's onto JonBenet, would you leave the remaining pairs lying in the wine-cellar or somewhere in the basement?

Probably not. It depends on overall story I'm trying to tell with the panties. The story the Rs want us to believe the size 12s were on JB at bedtime. But why?

As you say in another post, if someone at the White's party saw the underwear, and noted the Wed. feature, the R's might have simply countered, that person was mistaken. But, what if it became a topic of conversation? - "I was just in the bathroom helping JB, I noticed you got her DOTW panties. Those are so cute...blah blah blah." So possibly a half dozen people at the party heard this conversation, and therefore know JB wore Wed. DOTW panties? The problem of course is that if someone noticed the Wed. feature, they'd have noticed the size as well - if JB had been wearing size 12s. So I have to agree with you when you say the size 12s blew the story.

Even in that case, they could simply have said she peed her panties when she got home. They could have thrown the size 6 wed pair (if that's what she wore to the party) in the washer, and put any old pair of 6s on her.
Maybe they couldn't think quickly/rationally enough so the obvious solution escaped them?

It does seem important for the Rs that the story line is "We put her to bed and didn't see her alive again"'. I guess it makes life simpler. They don't have to discuss anything that happened after they (PR/JR) went to bed. "We put her to bed and woke up and found the RN....yada yada yada) Any question the police might ask about something happening during the night -"We don't know. We put JB to bed and woke up the next morning to find a RN...", end of discussion.

But it wasn't really necessary that she was wearing Wed. panties, or any panties, when "found". No reasonable detective expects the intruder would redress JB. If the intruder did redress JB, no one would expect hat he'd necessarily use the same clothes that she had on at bedtime. If he's weird enough to redress her, he's werid enough to use different clothes. The Rs could have stuck with their story "We put her to bed and know nothing until almost 6am the next morning...." no matter what JB was wearing when found.

Why weren't they in the drawer? Perhaps in their haste this element of staging simply was not completed? But then why take them from the house? I think it's very likely PR did not know the 12s were either removed from the drawer, or never placed in the drawer, as per plan. And, as you suggest, it's likely she didn't even know JB had size 12s on. In this last instance, if PR didn't know about the 12s being on JB, she could only have been telling the truth (as she knew it) when she said the panties were in the drawer.


I think you're right that the size factor destroys any advantage that might have been gained by the Wed. feature.

 

[Whaleshark]

the underwear has to be explained because this staged crime scene is of a kidnapping for ransom only, not a sexual assault and/or rape of a child staged crime scene.
the sexual assault aspect seems to be what is covered up. Patsy claims no knowlege of it. John claims no knowledge of it. No anger is expressed by the parents when that aspect of the crime is revealed to them. Even after they are told, neither parent expresses anger to the fact or realization that someone has assaulted and murdered their child, and state that they just want to go on with their lives.

Which of course, is in stark contrast to say, oh these parents' responses to their raped and murdered children:
http://www.northjersey.com/news/117299183_Victims__parents_team_up.html

 

[Chrishope]

the underwear has to be explained because this staged crime scene is of a kidnapping for ransom only, not a sexual assault and/or rape of a child staged crime scene.
the sexual assault aspect seems to be what is covered up. Patsy claims no knowlege of it. John claims no knowledge of it. No anger is expressed by the parents when that aspect of the crime is revealed to them. Even after they are told, neither parent expresses anger to the fact or realization that someone has assaulted and murdered their child, and state that they just want to go on with their lives.

Which of course, is in stark contrast to say, oh these parents' responses to their raped and murdered children:
http://www.northjersey.com/news/117299183_Victims__parents_team_up.html

the underwear has to be explained because this staged crime scene is of a kidnapping for ransom only, not a sexual assault and/or rape of a child staged crime scene.

It supposed to have started as a kidnapping, but it's clear enough there was a murder. The staging doesn't attempt to cover up the murder, it just attempts to make us think an intruder/perv/maniac/child molester did all this stuff to JB.

 

[UKGuy]

Probably not. It depends on overall story I'm trying to tell with the panties. The story the Rs want us to believe the size 12s were on JB at bedtime. But why?

As you say in another post, if someone at the White's party saw the underwear, and noted the Wed. feature, the R's might have simply countered, that person was mistaken. But, what if it became a topic of conversation? - "I was just in the bathroom helping JB, I noticed you got her DOTW panties. Those are so cute...blah blah blah." So possibly a half dozen people at the party heard this conversation, and therefore know JB wore Wed. DOTW panties? The problem of course is that if someone noticed the Wed. feature, they'd have noticed the size as well - if JB had been wearing size 12s. So I have to agree with you when you say the size 12s blew the story.

Even in that case, they could simply have said she peed her panties when she got home. They could have thrown the size 6 wed pair (if that's what she wore to the party) in the washer, and put any old pair of 6s on her.
Maybe they couldn't think quickly/rationally enough so the obvious solution escaped them?

It does seem important for the Rs that the story line is "We put her to bed and didn't see her alive again"'. I guess it makes life simpler. They don't have to discuss anything that happened after they (PR/JR) went to bed. "We put her to bed and woke up and found the RN....yada yada yada) Any question the police might ask about something happening during the night -"We don't know. We put JB to bed and woke up the next morning to find a RN...", end of discussion.

But it wasn't really necessary that she was wearing Wed. panties, or any panties, when "found". No reasonable detective expects the intruder would redress JB. If the intruder did redress JB, no one would expect hat he'd necessarily use the same clothes that she had on at bedtime. If he's weird enough to redress her, he's werid enough to use different clothes. The Rs could have stuck with their story "We put her to bed and know nothing until almost 6am the next morning...." no matter what JB was wearing when found.

Why weren't they in the drawer? Perhaps in their haste this element of staging simply was not completed? But then why take them from the house? I think it's very likely PR did not know the 12s were either removed from the drawer, or never placed in the drawer, as per plan. And, as you suggest, it's likely she didn't even know JB had size 12s on. In this last instance, if PR didn't know about the 12s being on JB, she could only have been telling the truth (as she knew it) when she said the panties were in the drawer.


I think you're right that the size factor destroys any advantage that might have been gained by the Wed. feature.

Chrishope,
I reckon the evidence suggests that the Wednesday feature is manifest crime-scene staging. That is it may be intended to offer a perspective that is misleading.

Even if it is not, then the size feature informs you that these are not JonBenet's normal underwear, hence any attempt at staging has failed.

Why weren't they in the drawer? Perhaps in their haste this element of staging simply was not completed? But then why take them from the house? I think it's very likely PR did not know the 12s were either removed from the drawer, or never placed in the drawer, as per plan. And, as you suggest, it's likely she didn't even know JB had size 12s on. In this last instance, if PR didn't know about the 12s being on JB, she could only have been telling the truth (as she knew it) when she said the panties were in the drawer.

This seems to be the situation. Patsy at the date of the interview can have three sources of information regarding the size-12's: the tabloids , team ramsey, or the actual redresser.

Now the actual redresser probably never told Patsy anything about the size-12's else she would not have said they were in the drawer. Presumably team ramsey and the tabloids would be in possession of the same information e.g. JonBenet was wearing size-12's.

So when Patsy comes to talk her way out of JonBenet wearing size-12's that are linked to her. the last thing she thinks is that the remaining unused pairs are not in her drawer, or even the house. So using that as an assumption Patsy proceeeded with her fabricated story.

It does seem important for the Rs that the story line is "We put her to bed and didn't see her alive again"'. I guess it makes life simpler. They don't have to discuss anything that happened after they (PR/JR) went to bed. "We put her to bed and woke up and found the RN....yada yada yada) Any question the police might ask about something happening during the night -"We don't know. We put JB to bed and woke up the next morning to find a RN...", end of discussion.

Yes that is their line and the staging was presumably fashioned to suit, except for the size-12's. Which were a mistake, and if you accept that Patsy was ignorant about the size-12's, then this suggests someone else amended the staging. Likely all done at the last minute, otherwise such a critical element as the correct underwear would not have been messed up!


I would speculate that JonBenet was initially naked from the waist down when she was taken down to the basement, and that she was either wearing the pink barbie nightgown, or it was a candidate for redressing her in.

Someone else decided that all that would not look good when she was found so came up with the abduction plan, which is not the same as a bedroom assault. So on went the size-12's, and the longjohns then she was wrapped in the blanket, all obscuring any signs of sexual assault.

The size-12's were a last minute thing, Wednesday may be a random or calculated to fool feature, but the underwear is underwear at any cost. Someone was attempting to fake their spur of the moment bedtime abduction plan, and partial evidence for this is the removal of the remaining size-12's e.g. they could not be left in the basement, so they probably left by the same route that the size-6's took?

As you suggest JonBenet did not need to be found actually wearing underwear, any number of scenarios could be offered to explain their absence. One scenario they are required is when the parents need explain away the longjohns and put JonBenet straight to bed. Curiously both R's along with a memory deficiency accumulate a vision blindspot and do not notice if JonBenet is wearing any underwear when undressed for bed!

Now Columbo would have another question for the R's since Patsy does not know that JonBenet was wearing size-12's, so that cannot be the reason for her lack of sight.

.

 

[UKGuy]

the underwear has to be explained because this staged crime scene is of a kidnapping for ransom only, not a sexual assault and/or rape of a child staged crime scene.
the sexual assault aspect seems to be what is covered up. Patsy claims no knowlege of it. John claims no knowledge of it. No anger is expressed by the parents when that aspect of the crime is revealed to them. Even after they are told, neither parent expresses anger to the fact or realization that someone has assaulted and murdered their child, and state that they just want to go on with their lives.

Which of course, is in stark contrast to say, oh these parents' responses to their raped and murdered children:
http://www.northjersey.com/news/117299183_Victims__parents_team_up.html

Whaleshark,
I tend to agree with you. the size-12 feature and Patsy's mistake at her interview suggest something else is going on here.

I reckon the wine-cellar staging has been fairly successful in muddying the waters, and that it is possible that it might not be the case that Patsy enacted the wine-cellar staging.

Someone else may have removed and added elements from a prior crime-scene, hence some of Patsy's forensics linking her to the wine-cellar!

I hope I am wrong but I am beginning to think the wine-cellar staging has fooled people into thinking a particular sequence of events took place.


.

 

[gypsychild]

I just wonder if the actual day of the week was the real reason for the Wednesday pair. I mean, if initially the plan was to have her not be found right away, perhaps the stager wanted the Wednesday underwear to show that JBR was murdered on that Wednesday.
I am a little of the belief that this went a little awry and the original plan was not to have JBR found in the house. The original plan was to truly stage a kidnapping.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Well, we DON'T know for sure, of course, because we weren't there. But the panties were tested and found to be new (unlaundered), and as part of a set of 7 they were obviously taken from somewhere and put on her. As there were NO other size 12 found in the house (that much is fact, or at least as much of a fact as we have to go on- LE makes this claim during Patsy's interviews, and as the rest of the tube was returned IN the tube to LE 5 years later, we can only deduce that the panties on JB came from the tube that had been in a wrapped gift in the basement. I don't know of any mom who'd put child's panties in a drawer still in the package, but obviously it can't be ruled out because it can't be proven one way or the other.
JB couldn't read- her family admitted this. Someone else had to select the Wednesday pair for her, and just knowing what I have come to know of Patsy, she'd be exactly the kind of person who would want the day on the panty to be the day it actually was. As I have mentioned before, I feel the choice of day wasn't random. Christmas Day that year WAS a Wednesday, and it was no coincidence.
I believe Patsy also bought a set of those panties for JB in her proper size along with the set she bought for her niece as a gift. I'd have a had time believing Patsy would not also have bought one for her own daughter. As to why there were none in JB's usual size found in the drawer- I have a theory on that. If JB was wearing her own Wednesday pair that day, and it came from her panty drawer, which also contained the other 6 pairs, there was a risk that someone at the White's party may have helped JB in the bathroom and noticed the "novelty" panties. That was why she had to be redressed in an identical pair (except for size). BUT it would also make it necessary to remove the rest of her own set of day-of-the-week panties because if the rest of the set was found, and was her usual size (6) it would be suspicious if the pair found on her was a different size, especially if the size 6 Wednesday pair was missing.
Again- I honestly think the R had no idea the size of the panties they redressed her in would be either noticed or made a big deal of.
Right again in that we don't know if the panties given to LE 5 years later is the identical remaining set that the Wednesday panties came from. The prints and colors of these panty sets do change from time to time, and only Bloomingdale's would be able to verify if a set such as was returned to LE was consistent with a set that would have been available in their store in November 1996. Obviously the best time for LE to have tried to obtain this verification would have been right after they came into their possession. But I have a feeling they did not try to do this. No surprise there.
I am not so sure JR would have snuck any panties from the house without Patsy's knowledge. Regardless of who the killer was, BOTH parents know who it was, know what happened, and were involved in the staging of the crime scene to varying degrees.

Why would the killer care whether she had on the same panties from the party? If it's an intruder, the intruder could have taken them with them. Was the intruder trying to frame the Ramseys? If it's not an intruder, then why care whether they're on her or not?

 

[Chrishope]

Why would the killer care whether she had on the same panties from the party? If it's an intruder, the intruder could have taken them with them. Was the intruder trying to frame the Ramseys? If it's not an intruder, then why care whether they're on her or not?

That's what we're trying to figure out. If IDI why would he put anything on her? If RDI why those panties? They were way too big. Any ideas are welcome.

 

[UKGuy]

Why would the killer care whether she had on the same panties from the party? If it's an intruder, the intruder could have taken them with them. Was the intruder trying to frame the Ramseys? If it's not an intruder, then why care whether they're on her or not?

Smelly Squirrel,

Why would the killer care whether she had on the same panties from the party?

Assuming the killer is an outsider e.g. intruder, how does this person know what underwear JonBenet wore to the White's party. The underwear JonBenet was wearing when he abducted her may be fresh on her, how does the intruder know otherwise?

If it's an intruder, the intruder could have taken them with them.

The size-6 underwear JonBenet wore to the White's party is missing, so presumably the intruder removed them.

If it's not an intruder, then why care whether they're on her or not?

They care for one of three reasons. Its staging and they want you to believe that Wednesday is important when it is not. Its staging in the form of clothing designed to hide JonBenet's genital injuries from immediate view. Its staging that has no meaning other than JonBenet normally wears underwear so the size-12's will do, and the Wednesday feature is inconsequential.

Another aspect to reason one is that if the Wednesday feature is to match the removed size-6 Wednesday pair, then I would assume BPD would check for a missing Wednesday pair, if only to eliminate this as a possibility.



Personally I reckon its staging to hide something, not to fake some scenario e.g. Wednesday.



.

 

[azwriter]

That's what we're trying to figure out. If IDI why would he put anything on her? If RDI why those panties? They were way too big. Any ideas are welcome.

Your questions Chrishope are very to the point. I am adding another question, why were the size 6 Wednesday panties taken off her? Were they bloody? Did they have a trace of DNA or evidence on them from the perp and had to be removed and destroyed?

I would assume putting on another pair of Wednesday pants, not matter what size, was important because it needed to appear as if she arrived home asleep and put to bed and not disturbed by her parents after that. Remember, even though Burke claimed she walked into the house and up the stairs, Patsy and John stuck with the story that she was asleep and carried h to bed. They wanted it to seem they had nothing more to do with her other than pull off her outer clothing, stick something on her to tuck her in as she slept. This puts the Ramseys away from her during the night. Something that was very important to them in their explanation to officials.

It woud seem to me that whoever put the larger size Wednesday pants on her didn't realize how really big the pants appeared on her becasue they were placed on her as she was laying down; after she was dead and not able to stand up. I do think that person now realizes have the correct day of the week wasn't enough, they should have checked the size.
jmo

 

[DeeDee249]

Why would the killer care whether she had on the same panties from the party? If it's an intruder, the intruder could have taken them with them. Was the intruder trying to frame the Ramseys? If it's not an intruder, then why care whether they're on her or not?

There was no intruder. The killer (and this also means accidental killer) knew she had on Wednesday panties that day. Christmas that year (1996) WAS a Wednesday. JR could NOT read yet. Patsy would have picked out the panties for her to wear that day and Patsy was exactly the kind of person who felt it important that JB wear a pair that matched the day.
That being said- JB was well-known to ask anyone within earshot to help her when she was on the toilet. Anyone doing that would very likely have noticed the Wednesday panties. When those panties became soiled later, probably with blood, it was necessary to replace them with another Wednesday pair. The only OTHER Wednesday pair was the one in the set bought for Jenny, JB's older cousin. They were size 12, and Patsy admitted buying them as a gift for Jenny.
JB had to appear to have the same panties on from the party because her parents claimed not to have seen her again from the time they came home from the party till her body was found. Had she been found in a different pair and LE questioned people at the party who may have seen her panties that day they would know there was a discrepancy.
A real intruder wouldn't have cared whether she had on panties at all, never mind trying to find a matching pair to what she already had on. Needless to say an intruder wouldn't even have known there was another pair. The other pair was part of a set wrapped up in gift wrap in the basement.

 

[DeeDee249]

Your questions Chrishope are very to the point. I am adding another question, why were the size 6 Wednesday panties taken off her? Were they bloody? Did they have a trace of DNA or evidence on them from the perp and had to be removed and destroyed?

I would assume putting on another pair of Wednesday pants, no matter what size, was important because it needed to appear as if she arrived home asleep and put to bed and not disturbed by her parents after that. Remember, even though Burke claimed she walked into the house and up the stairs, Patsy and John stuck with the story that she was asleep and carried h to bed. They wanted it to seem they had nothing more to do with her other than pull off her outer clothing, stick something on her to tuck her in as she slept. This puts the Ramseys away from her during the night. Something that was very important to them in their explanation to officials.

It woud seem to me that whoever put the larger size Wednesday pants on her didn't realize how really big the pants appeared on her becasue they were placed on her as she was laying down; after she was dead and not able to stand up. I do think that person now realizes have the correct day of the week wasn't enough, they should have checked the size.
jmo

There was blood found IN her vagina as well as evidence of blood having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. I think we can deduce from this that her original size 6 panties were bloodied. There may or may not have been any other DNA on them.
One thing for sure- JR's shirt fibers were found on the REPLACEMENT size 12 panties. If an intruder put them on her, how did his fibers get there? They were INSIDE the crotch of the panties. This, and the panties were under long johns, too, so it is nearly impossible for the fibers to have gotten there innocently. There is NO "innocent" or explainable reason for JR's fibers from his wool shirt (an unusual brand made in Israel) to be on the inside of a new pair of panties put on her after her death.
There is a BIG reason why the panties she was found in were not on her fro earlier in the day- the longjohns were stained with dried urine on the anterior surface. She likely died on her stomach wearing them, but the panties were put on her after, as staging. Someone pulled the longjohns off her and replaced the panties, pulling the longjohns up over them.
AsI have said before, the panties didn't LOOK unusually big because she was wearing them under the snug-fitting longjohns, and they weren't visible.
Like the skull fracture, the too-big panties were noticed first at the autopsy. Someone looking at her body, whether the killer, stager, or police, would not have noticed the size of the panties just from looking at her.

 

[UKGuy]

There was blood found IN her vagina as well as evidence of blood having been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. I think we can deduce from this that her original size 6 panties were bloodied. There may or may not have been any other DNA on them.
One thing for sure- JR's shirt fibers were found on the REPLACEMENT size 12 panties. If an intruder put them on her, how did his fibers get there? They were INSIDE the crotch of the panties. This, and the panties were under long johns, too, so it is nearly impossible for the fibers to have gotten there innocently. There is NO "innocent" or explainable reason for JR's fibers from his wool shirt (an unusual brand made in Israel) to be on the inside of a new pair of panties put on her after her death.
There is a BIG reason why the panties she was found in were not on her fro earlier in the day- the longjohns were stained with dried urine on the anterior surface. She likely died on her stomach wearing them, but the panties were put on her after, as staging. Someone pulled the longjohns off her and replaced the panties, pulling the longjohns up over them.
AsI have said before, the panties didn't LOOK unusually big because she was wearing them under the snug-fitting longjohns, and they weren't visible.
Like the skull fracture, the too-big panties were noticed first at the autopsy. Someone looking at her body, whether the killer, stager, or police, would not have noticed the size of the panties just from looking at her.

DeeDee249,

may or may not have been any other DNA on them.
One thing for sure- JR's shirt fibers were found on the REPLACEMENT size 12 panties. If an intruder put them on her, how did his fibers get there? They were INSIDE the crotch of the panties. This, and the panties were under long johns, too, so it is nearly impossible for the fibers to have gotten there innocently. There is NO "innocent" or explainable reason for JR's fibers from his wool shirt (an unusual brand made in Israel) to be on the inside of a new pair of panties put on her after her death.

Excellent points. If the discovery of touch dna is so important, why not the same status for these fibers? John would have to say transfer occurred when JonBenet was being put to bed?

There is a BIG reason why the panties she was found in were not on her fro earlier in the day- the longjohns were stained with dried urine on the anterior surface. She likely died on her stomach wearing them, but the panties were put on her after, as staging. Someone pulled the longjohns off her and replaced the panties, pulling the longjohns up over them.

Sounds like something John could have done at any point, even the next day late AM. So do you think there were possibly multiple stagings? Else why bother changing her underwear? Presumably the size-6 underwear was not bloodstained to such an extent because the interior of the longjohns were similarly unstained?

I reckon it was John who created the wine-cellar staging and placed those size-12's onto JonBenet. The profile of the mistake fits a male and we also have forensic evidence linking him with the size-12's! Corroborating this view is Patsy's howler of a mistake when being interviewed that she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer. Patently Patsy was ignorant and simply backing up John's version as best she could?

If it was John who redressed JonBenet in the size-12's and he chose them because he wanted JonBenet to be wearing a pair that said Wednesday. So to avoid any conflict with a witness who assisted or saw JonBenet in the bathroom.

This is patently a postmortem assumption, any presumed witness would never inspect JonBenet in the wine-cellar. JonBenet's underwear profile only becomes relevant postmortem!

And postmortem, in the cold light of day, the size-12 issue immediately becomes apparent. Any claims regarding Wednesday are nullified because the underwear is patently, prima facie, staging!

Was there a missing Wednesday size-6 pair from JonBenet's underwear drawer? If not does this imply the redressing in the size-12's was opportunistic? Why would any sexually motivated intruder pull JonBenet's underwear and longjohns back up? Why would JonBenet's redresser be concerned with JonBenet's underwear profile prior to her death. An intruder could not have had the information, and any Ramsey stager could not have assumed that a killer would attempt to preserve JonBenet's prior underwear profile. So it would appear the mistake the stager made was in assuming both an ante-mortem and postmortem consistency, which of course, is then highlighted by the size-12 feature? Normally a crime-scene displays an asymmetry in forensic evidence, here the staging implies a symmetry?

Holly Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, and she assisted the JonBenet investigation. She has written her memoirs, but her book has the JonBenet investigation redacted. If anyone could have or did know about the size/day-of-the-week issue it was her. Here is an excerpt from a Fox News interview :

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that.

It could indicate previous injury or infection, a sign of abuse, or nothing at all.

Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything.

"There was a lot of territoriality around the case,” she says.

Smith says she also saw things in the Ramsey investigation that she's seen in other cases, like the factor that money played in it.

"No one is exempt but people with money are able to keep themselves more cushioned,” she says.

She says she also saw a reluctance to even consider the issue of child sex abuse.

Says Smith, "It’s just not a place where you know it's so abhorrent to people that they can't even do it, they can't even wrap their heads around it but it's more common than we think. The sexual violation of children has been around for a long time."

Smith believes all of them involved with the case lost their way.

Sex Abuse or Vaginal Trauma but Holly Smith was probably pulled because she opined sexual abuse, and her opinion carried a lot of weight?

 

[UKGuy]

I just wonder if the actual day of the week was the real reason for the Wednesday pair. I mean, if initially the plan was to have her not be found right away, perhaps the stager wanted the Wednesday underwear to show that JBR was murdered on that Wednesday.
I am a little of the belief that this went a little awry and the original plan was not to have JBR found in the house. The original plan was to truly stage a kidnapping.

gypsychild,
Yes you could be correct here. A kidnapping might imply that JonBenet's underwear profile should remain the same both before and after her death?

This is what I am suggesting was the mistake in the stagers mind, not what underwear JonBenet wore but that there would be no variation?




.

 

[Chrishope]

Your questions Chrishope are very to the point. I am adding another question, why were the size 6 Wednesday panties taken off her? Were they bloody? Did they have a trace of DNA or evidence on them from the perp and had to be removed and destroyed?

I would assume putting on another pair of Wednesday pants, not matter what size, was important because it needed to appear as if she arrived home asleep and put to bed and not disturbed by her parents after that. Remember, even though Burke claimed she walked into the house and up the stairs, Patsy and John stuck with the story that she was asleep and carried h to bed. They wanted it to seem they had nothing more to do with her other than pull off her outer clothing, stick something on her to tuck her in as she slept. This puts the Ramseys away from her during the night. Something that was very important to them in their explanation to officials.

It woud seem to me that whoever put the larger size Wednesday pants on her didn't realize how really big the pants appeared on her becasue they were placed on her as she was laying down; after she was dead and not able to stand up. I do think that person now realizes have the correct day of the week wasn't enough, they should have checked the size.
jmo

The size 6s may very well have been bloody, or contained other forensic evidence.

It might be possible for a man -particularly one who didn't need to be closely involved with child rearing- to not realize the size was wrong, maybe. While possible, it seems unlikely. They'd be really big on her, even lying down, lying still.