Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion

[Chrishope]

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.

The problem I'm having understanding the "hiding" function of the size 12s is this - why combine with long johns?

The long johns, or leggings as they are sometimes referred to, hide the vaginal injuries. There was no need for panties at all for the purpose of hiding the injuries.

The panties wouldn't even be all that useful for hiding if someone pulled down her long johns. Being as large as they were, they'd probably have come off with the long johns. Even if they somehow stayed up, they'd be way too big, indicating something is wrong - which would encourage pulling them down to see what was wrong.

Who were the injuries to be hidden from? Presumably PR? So, if for some reason PR were to pull down the long johns, and she was previously unaware of the size 12s, then she knows immediately something is very wrong.

 

[Chrishope]

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 problem here is that anyone helping JB in the bathroom would have noticed the size 12s or, in the more likely event that she was wearing size 6, would not have noticed anything unusual.

So, later, if police actually found someone from the party who noticed the Wed. feature, they'd have been able to say yeah or nay on the size 12s.

As UKGuy has pointed out, if Wed seemed important, the wrong size blew the Wed. feature out of the water. We are left to assume either that the re-dresser did not notice the size, or that the re-dresser wants us to think the Wed feature is important when it actually isn't.

 

[Chrishope]

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?

.

gypsychild has a good point - leaving the body in the basement may have been plan B. Plan A may have been to remove the body from the house. For some reason, plan A could not be completed.

However, if we assume that the body would eventually be found, it would be noted she was wearing size 12 panties. That leaves investigators to wonder why would a kidnapper take the size 12 wed. pair, (even if they really were in her drawer) to redress her?

 

[Murdock]

I hope no one minds me joining in on the underware debate.

Here's my thought process on the subject: The correct size 6 underwear must have had more than just JBR's blood on them, or there would have been no reason to hide them. If the vaginal trauma was just part of staging, and they were blaming an intruder, then it would be expected that her blood would be on her underwear. If they had JR's semen on them, however, then they had to be hidden from the police.

Now, if JR had maybe killed JBR while molesting her, (maybe she screamed and in a panic he hit her on the head to keep her from waking PR & BR), then he would have to come up with a story for PR that didn't involve molestation, (unless PR is even sicker than I could imagine). Maybe he told her JBR died accidently and convinced her she had to help coverup or it would be a scandel that would ruin the business...or something like that.

So, if a scenario like that occurred, then it's likely JR would handle the body staging. Telling PR to just worry about the ransom note. Not wanting her to see the body. He would later tell her that the rope around the neck & the vaginal trauma were just "staging", but what reason would he give PR for the different underwear? If he was hiding the molestation, he couldn't tell her "Oh, I had to change them because they were covered in my semen." Eventually she would see police reports about the clothes, and if she remembered JBR had on Wednesday underwear when she went to bed she would want to know why he had changed them if it was just an accident.
He remembered that PR had wrapped "days of the week" underwear in the basement, and he didn't notice the size was way off, or did but was hoping it wasn't so noticable that it would ever be an issue.

Maybe later PR did figure out what must have happened, but it was too late to come clean without getting herself in trouble.

That's my underwear theory. Maybe it doesn't make sense, but it's the only explanation that I can think of. I agree with everyone who says that an intruder wouldn't bother with redressing. PR would have, IMO, grabbed underwear that fit, if she were the redresser, (sorry, but I don't think it would matter that people at the party saw the Wednesday underwear - it would not be at all unusual for a parent to change their child's underwear before putting them to bed).

 

[azwriter]

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.

Thanks Dee, I forgot about the long johns, but that just goes toward my point that she had to appear dressed as she was when she was brought home.

And the threads from John's unique shirt appearing in the replacement panties speaks volumns. In the common sense relm of the world, there's only one way those thread could have gotten there. Although there are those who will claim an intruder managed to get a hold of some of the shirt's threads in order to frame John But, Boulder officials turned their heads on that potentially critical piece of evidence.

After all these years I've come to the conclusion that the City of Boulder's police department did not want a crime of murder on its book. Especially one that might indicate a wealth well-known family. jmo

 

[UKGuy]

I hope no one minds me joining in on the underware debate.

Here's my thought process on the subject: The correct size 6 underwear must have had more than just JBR's blood on them, or there would have been no reason to hide them. If the vaginal trauma was just part of staging, and they were blaming an intruder, then it would be expected that her blood would be on her underwear. If they had JR's semen on them, however, then they had to be hidden from the police.

Now, if JR had maybe killed JBR while molesting her, (maybe she screamed and in a panic he hit her on the head to keep her from waking PR & BR), then he would have to come up with a story for PR that didn't involve molestation, (unless PR is even sicker than I could imagine). Maybe he told her JBR died accidently and convinced her she had to help coverup or it would be a scandel that would ruin the business...or something like that.

So, if a scenario like that occurred, then it's likely JR would handle the body staging. Telling PR to just worry about the ransom note. Not wanting her to see the body. He would later tell her that the rope around the neck & the vaginal trauma were just "staging", but what reason would he give PR for the different underwear? If he was hiding the molestation, he couldn't tell her "Oh, I had to change them because they were covered in my semen." Eventually she would see police reports about the clothes, and if she remembered JBR had on Wednesday underwear when she went to bed she would want to know why he had changed them if it was just an accident.
He remembered that PR had wrapped "days of the week" underwear in the basement, and he didn't notice the size was way off, or did but was hoping it wasn't so noticable that it would ever be an issue.

Maybe later PR did figure out what must have happened, but it was too late to come clean without getting herself in trouble.

That's my underwear theory. Maybe it doesn't make sense, but it's the only explanation that I can think of. I agree with everyone who says that an intruder wouldn't bother with redressing. PR would have, IMO, grabbed underwear that fit, if she were the redresser, (sorry, but I don't think it would matter that people at the party saw the Wednesday underwear - it would not be at all unusual for a parent to change their child's underwear before putting them to bed).

Murdock,
You may be correct and it was all a JR cover up, even from Patsy!

(sorry, but I don't think it would matter that people at the party saw the Wednesday underwear - it would not be at all unusual for a parent to change their child's underwear before putting them to bed).

You are spot on here. The Wednesday feature smells like staging intended to confuse, especially when the same concern was not given to the size feature.

.

 

[UKGuy]

gypsychild has a good point - leaving the body in the basement may have been plan B. Plan A may have been to remove the body from the house. For some reason, plan A could not be completed.

However, if we assume that the body would eventually be found, it would be noted she was wearing size 12 panties. That leaves investigators to wonder why would a kidnapper take the size 12 wed. pair, (even if they really were in her drawer) to redress her?

Chrishope,

Yes changing the underwear appears to make no sense postmortem, since the size feature immediately flags itself up.

Even as part of an abduction scenario, one that dumps JonBenet outdoors still has the size-12 flaw.

Patsy, in her interview, implies that JonBenet dressed herself in the size-12's not any intruder.

You have to wonder why the R's never suggested that the intruder took the remaining size-12's, since who else could it have been?


One of the R's made a critical staging error, its that simple, not being homicide experts they goofed!


.

 

[Chrishope]

I hope no one minds me joining in on the underware debate.

Here's my thought process on the subject: The correct size 6 underwear must have had more than just JBR's blood on them, or there would have been no reason to hide them. If the vaginal trauma was just part of staging, and they were blaming an intruder, then it would be expected that her blood would be on her underwear. If they had JR's semen on them, however, then they had to be hidden from the police.

Now, if JR had maybe killed JBR while molesting her, (maybe she screamed and in a panic he hit her on the head to keep her from waking PR & BR), then he would have to come up with a story for PR that didn't involve molestation, (unless PR is even sicker than I could imagine). Maybe he told her JBR died accidently and convinced her she had to help coverup or it would be a scandel that would ruin the business...or something like that.

So, if a scenario like that occurred, then it's likely JR would handle the body staging. Telling PR to just worry about the ransom note. Not wanting her to see the body. He would later tell her that the rope around the neck & the vaginal trauma were just "staging", but what reason would he give PR for the different underwear? If he was hiding the molestation, he couldn't tell her "Oh, I had to change them because they were covered in my semen." Eventually she would see police reports about the clothes, and if she remembered JBR had on Wednesday underwear when she went to bed she would want to know why he had changed them if it was just an accident.
He remembered that PR had wrapped "days of the week" underwear in the basement, and he didn't notice the size was way off, or did but was hoping it wasn't so noticable that it would ever be an issue.

Maybe later PR did figure out what must have happened, but it was too late to come clean without getting herself in trouble.

That's my underwear theory. Maybe it doesn't make sense, but it's the only explanation that I can think of. I agree with everyone who says that an intruder wouldn't bother with redressing. PR would have, IMO, grabbed underwear that fit, if she were the redresser, (sorry, but I don't think it would matter that people at the party saw the Wednesday underwear - it would not be at all unusual for a parent to change their child's underwear before putting them to bed).

I hope no one minds me joining in on the underware debate.

You have as much right to participate as anyone. We welcome some new thoughts.

Here's my thought process on the subject: The correct size 6 underwear must have had more than just JBR's blood on them, or there would have been no reason to hide them. If the vaginal trauma was just part of staging, and they were blaming an intruder, then it would be expected that her blood would be on her underwear. If they had JR's semen on them, however, then they had to be hidden from the police.

That makes sense. I wonder how they were hidden and removed from the crime scene? I also wonder if washing them would remove all traces of semen? After all, they could simply have explained that JB had an accident and the size 6s are in the wash for that reason.

I wonder if the thinking was that excessive blood would indicate use of an object (such as a paint brush handle?) so the clean-up was meant to make it look like penile penetration - which might have left blood, but not as much?

So, if a scenario like that occurred, then it's likely JR would handle the body staging. Telling PR to just worry about the ransom note. Not wanting her to see the body. He would later tell her that the rope around the neck & the vaginal trauma were just "staging", but what reason would he give PR for the different underwear? If he was hiding the molestation, he couldn't tell her "Oh, I had to change them because they were covered in my semen." Eventually she would see police reports about the clothes, and if she remembered JBR had on Wednesday underwear when she went to bed she would want to know why he had changed them if it was just an accident.
He remembered that PR had wrapped "days of the week" underwear in the basement, and he didn't notice the size was way off, or did but was hoping it wasn't so noticable that it would ever be an issue.

Maybe later PR did figure out what must have happened, but it was too late to come clean without getting herself in trouble.

I've often wondered if there came a moment when PR pieced together what really happened? If so, you're right that she was too involved at that point - she couldn't say anything.

As you mention, PR would eventually see coroner/police reports. So at some point, she's going to know the wrong underwear is on JB.

hat's my underwear theory. Maybe it doesn't make sense, but it's the only explanation that I can think of.

It makes as much sense as any theory. There are some holes, but there are holes in everyone's theories. There does not seem to be a way to get complete consistency with the known evidence.

 

[Chrishope]

Patsy, in her interview, implies that JonBenet dressed herself in the size-12's not any intruder.

That's one reason I suspect PR knew about the size 12s all along.

You have to wonder why the R's never suggested that the intruder took the remaining size-12's, since who else could it have been?

Maybe because it's too silly to present to a detective? You let the defense lawyer suggest it at trial, if things go that far. I wonder why they provided the "missing" packet of underwear years later. It only tends to prove they were not in the drawer when police looked. It also raises the question of why the intruder would know where to find them if they weren't in the drawer.

One of the R's made a critical staging error, its that simple, not being homicide experts they goofed!

Probably. But what an error.

 

[cynic]

That makes sense. I wonder how they were hidden and removed from the crime scene? I also wonder if washing them would remove all traces of semen? After all, they could simply have explained that JB had an accident and the size 6s are in the wash for that reason.

I wonder if the thinking was that excessive blood would indicate use of an object (such as a paint brush handle?) so the clean-up was meant to make it look like penile penetration - which might have left blood, but not as much?

Chrishope, have you read my thread on “undoing?”
In terms of explaining the redressing and some other associated actions, it is the explanation that I prefer.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126539"]The “Undoing” of the Ramseys. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[UKGuy]

The problem I'm having understanding the "hiding" function of the size 12s is this - why combine with long johns?

The long johns, or leggings as they are sometimes referred to, hide the vaginal injuries. There was no need for panties at all for the purpose of hiding the injuries.

The panties wouldn't even be all that useful for hiding if someone pulled down her long johns. Being as large as they were, they'd probably have come off with the long johns. Even if they somehow stayed up, they'd be way too big, indicating something is wrong - which would encourage pulling them down to see what was wrong.

Who were the injuries to be hidden from? Presumably PR? So, if for some reason PR were to pull down the long johns, and she was previously unaware of the size 12s, then she knows immediately something is very wrong.

Chrishope,

The problem I'm having understanding the "hiding" function of the size 12s is this - why combine with long johns?

Some lateral thought might help. If you are going to stage a crime-scene, possibly amend one, and one of the conditions is that little should change from prior to JonBenet's death to afterwards, what can you do?

So lets assume JonBenet is naked from the waist down, either as a consequence of staging or actual bodily assault, then this should be removed from view.

How so? Well just redress her in the pink pajamas or pink barbie nightgown, or whatever. The longjohns fulfil this function but just leaving JonBenet in the longjohns minus her size-6 underwear will provoke postmortem questions? So its decided that JonBenet will wear underwear, probably any underwear, as long the postmortem appearance matches the ante-mortem appearance.

Consider the wine-cellar staging as a process of layering, alike a russian doll, first comes the size-12's, next comes the longjohns, next comes the blanket, and finally the wine-cellar itself. the whole process occludes and obscures JonBenet's homicide and assault from view.

Most killers leave their vicitims naked and could not care less how they are dressed, some pose their victims for personal psychological motives.

In the stagers mind there appeared symmetry prior to JonBenet's death and afterwards, and this need not be reflected in the longjohns but certainly that of the underwear.

This was the mistake not the size or day of the week feature, the stager determined JonBenet must wear underwear.

They just made it obvious by using a size-12 pair.

So the size-12's in the stagers mind were intended to hide the genital assault.


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope, have you read my thread on “undoing?”
In terms of explaining the redressing and some other associated actions, it is the explanation that I prefer.
The “Undoing” of the Ramseys. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Thank you for the link. I will read it.

P.S.

Having read it, I can buy the idea that redressing was a form of undoing, and any panties would serve the psychological need to have her dressed.

However, it still remains a fact the Wed. panties were selected (if we assume they were not plucked randomly from the middle of the pack. An assumption we can't be completely sure of) so some thinking/planning was going on. If the re-dresser had the presence of mind to select Wed., why not the presence of mind not to use the wrong size?

 

[UKGuy]

That's one reason I suspect PR knew about the size 12s all along.

Maybe because it's too silly to present to a detective? You let the defense lawyer suggest it at trial, if things go that far. I wonder why they provided the "missing" packet of underwear years later. It only tends to prove they were not in the drawer when police looked. It also raises the question of why the intruder would know where to find them if they weren't in the drawer.

Probably. But what an error.

Chrishope,

That's one reason I suspect PR knew about the size 12s all along.

The tabloids splashed the size-12's as a headline just prior to the interview. This is why Patsy was asked if she knew JonBenet had been found wearing size-12's.

But it seems evident Patsy was not aware that there were no size-12's in her underwear drawer.

I wonder why they provided the "missing" packet of underwear years later.

I guess because as intended by the BPD they had locked themselves into a version of events, and needed to explain the size-12's, by producing them. I reckon in court the R's would say, Oh, I forgot we put them in the x container for JonBenet, years later who can contradict them?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

The tabloids splashed the size-12's as a headline just prior to the interview. This is why Patsy was asked if she knew JonBenet had been found wearing size-12's.

But it seems evident Patsy was not aware that there were no size-12's in her underwear drawer.

Yes, I agree. I think she believed the 12s were in the drawer.

I guess because as intended by the BPD they had locked themselves into a version of events, and needed to explain the size-12's, by producing them. I reckon in court the R's would say, Oh, I forgot we put them in the x container for JonBenet, years later who can contradict them?

.

Maybe, but at that point, why not just claim they were in the drawer? Who can contradict it? If the police say they didn't find any 12s, the implication is the intruder took them. That was the implication for all those years until the Rs "found" the missing pack anyway.

 

[DeeDee249]

Many children are accustomed to wearing underwear to bed, even under pajamas. My own grandkids do this, putting fresh pairs on after their baths and another fresh pair on in the morning.
Patsy was asked about this in one of her interviews (where they are discussing the too-big panties. She said that it would be unusual for her NOT to be wearing panties and she would have noticed that. So to me, that is one reason why she had to be redressed in panties after her own had to be removed. The Rs tried to stay within the limits of keeping her dressed the way she had been when they last claimed to have seen her- when they put her to bed.
BUT if this had truly been an intruder crime, she probably wouldn't have been redressed at ALL. For one, the intruder would want to get out of the house FAST, especially since she had screamed. Then too, an intruder would have not cared HOW she was found- nor would they even have hidden the body. Why hide her? Leave her under the Christmas Tree like a broken doll if hurting the parents was your aim.
I feel the sexual assault was what was really being hidden. Pedophiles that kill their victim usually do not care about hiding that fact, in many cases actually like to showcase their perversion.
The garrote, while touted by Lou Smit as a "sophisticated sexual device", was anything but, and did not function as a true garrote nor a noose. It was simply a cord with a stick (the brush handle) attached to the end. It strangled her, to be sure, but to call it a sexual asphyxiation device is quite a stretch.
If the stagers wanted to display the sexual assault, they'd have left her naked or left any bloodied panties there.
Because I believe the parents were the stagers, I think they simply could not bring themselves to leave her naked or bloodied. They dressed her as if she were readied for bed, just as she had been. They emphasized the "kidnapping" aspect by writing the note, but needed to add the garrote because there was no visible injury from the head bash, which I believe came first as a reaction to her scream. Immediately collapsing, she may even have appeared dead, or they assumed she would die imminently. How to explain that? Calling 911 was not a option- they knew there had been a sexual assault. Calling 911 and saying she died how? Coroners and emergency room personnel can tell if a child had really fallen down the stairs, off a roof, or been beaten. JB's body had no bruises consistent with that type of trauma. Her body bore few bruises- one on her shoulder (possible from someone kneeling as they tied the garrote knot- it was at the back of her neck) and there were a few small bruises in her vagina and a small bruise on her labia. Described as areas of purple discoloration, they are different from the "abrasions" that Smit said were from a stun gun.
It is true that someone looking at her wearing the panties, even still- even lying down- would notice their huge size. After all, the coroner and LE present at the autopsy noticed that very thing.
But looking at the BODY in situ would reveal no such thing. The panties could not be seen through the longjohns and their fit was not apparent.

 

[UKGuy]

Many children are accustomed to wearing underwear to bed, even under pajamas. My own grandkids do this, putting fresh pairs on after their baths and another fresh pair on in the morning.
Patsy was asked about this in one of her interviews (where they are discussing the too-big panties. She said that it would be unusual for her NOT to be wearing panties and she would have noticed that. So to me, that is one reason why she had to be redressed in panties after her own had to be removed. The Rs tried to stay within the limits of keeping her dressed the way she had been when they last claimed to have seen her- when they put her to bed.
BUT if this had truly been an intruder crime, she probably wouldn't have been redressed at ALL. For one, the intruder would want to get out of the house FAST, especially since she had screamed. Then too, an intruder would have not cared HOW she was found- nor would they even have hidden the body. Why hide her? Leave her under the Christmas Tree like a broken doll if hurting the parents was your aim.
I feel the sexual assault was what was really being hidden. Pedophiles that kill their victim usually do not care about hiding that fact, in many cases actually like to showcase their perversion.
The garrote, while touted by Lou Smit as a "sophisticated sexual device", was anything but, and did not function as a true garrote nor a noose. It was simply a cord with a stick (the brush handle) attached to the end. It strangled her, to be sure, but to call it a sexual asphyxiation device is quite a stretch.
If the stagers wanted to display the sexual assault, they'd have left her naked or left any bloodied panties there.
Because I believe the parents were the stagers, I think they simply could not bring themselves to leave her naked or bloodied. They dressed her as if she were readied for bed, just as she had been. They emphasized the "kidnapping" aspect by writing the note, but needed to add the garrote because there was no visible injury from the head bash, which I believe came first as a reaction to her scream. Immediately collapsing, she may even have appeared dead, or they assumed she would die imminently. How to explain that? Calling 911 was not a option- they knew there had been a sexual assault. Calling 911 and saying she died how? Coroners and emergency room personnel can tell if a child had really fallen down the stairs, off a roof, or been beaten. JB's body had no bruises consistent with that type of trauma. Her body bore few bruises- one on her shoulder (possible from someone kneeling as they tied the garrote knot- it was at the back of her neck) and there were a few small bruises in her vagina and a small bruise on her labia. Described as areas of purple discoloration, they are different from the "abrasions" that Smit said were from a stun gun.
It is true that someone looking at her wearing the panties, even still- even lying down- would notice their huge size. After all, the coroner and LE present at the autopsy noticed that very thing.
But looking at the BODY in situ would reveal no such thing. The panties could not be seen through the longjohns and their fit was not apparent.

DeeDee249,

I feel the sexual assault was what was really being hidden.

Of course , what else was left to hide?

I reckon a prior staging was amended to the kidnapping scenario. This suggested JonBenet should be clothed, hence her then clean underwear.

Maybe they intended to dump JonBenet outdoors then changed their mind and placed her into the wine-cellar, either way the size-12's would eventually catch up on them.

But looking at the BODY in situ would reveal no such thing. The panties could not be seen through the longjohns and their fit was not apparent.

Looks to me as if John with not a lot of time to spare, for whatever reason, placed those size-12's onto JonBenet, he made the mistake, and compounded it by not telling Patsy he had removed the remaining size-12's. Which strongly suggests Patsy may have been ignorant that JonBenet's size-6 underwear was also missing. Why tell her about the size-6 underwear but omit details regarding the size-12's?

It could be John did this later that morning when he was roaming about the house, or maybe he was actively hiding the abuse from Patsy masked as an acute genital assault?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Many children are accustomed to wearing underwear to bed, even under pajamas. My own grandkids do this, putting fresh pairs on after their baths and another fresh pair on in the morning.
Patsy was asked about this in one of her interviews (where they are discussing the too-big panties. She said that it would be unusual for her NOT to be wearing panties and she would have noticed that. So to me, that is one reason why she had to be redressed in panties after her own had to be removed. The Rs tried to stay within the limits of keeping her dressed the way she had been when they last claimed to have seen her- when they put her to bed.
BUT if this had truly been an intruder crime, she probably wouldn't have been redressed at ALL. For one, the intruder would want to get out of the house FAST, especially since she had screamed. Then too, an intruder would have not cared HOW she was found- nor would they even have hidden the body. Why hide her? Leave her under the Christmas Tree like a broken doll if hurting the parents was your aim.
I feel the sexual assault was what was really being hidden. Pedophiles that kill their victim usually do not care about hiding that fact, in many cases actually like to showcase their perversion.
The garrote, while touted by Lou Smit as a "sophisticated sexual device", was anything but, and did not function as a true garrote nor a noose. It was simply a cord with a stick (the brush handle) attached to the end. It strangled her, to be sure, but to call it a sexual asphyxiation device is quite a stretch.
If the stagers wanted to display the sexual assault, they'd have left her naked or left any bloodied panties there.
Because I believe the parents were the stagers, I think they simply could not bring themselves to leave her naked or bloodied. They dressed her as if she were readied for bed, just as she had been. They emphasized the "kidnapping" aspect by writing the note, but needed to add the garrote because there was no visible injury from the head bash, which I believe came first as a reaction to her scream. Immediately collapsing, she may even have appeared dead, or they assumed she would die imminently. How to explain that? Calling 911 was not a option- they knew there had been a sexual assault. Calling 911 and saying she died how? Coroners and emergency room personnel can tell if a child had really fallen down the stairs, off a roof, or been beaten. JB's body had no bruises consistent with that type of trauma. Her body bore few bruises- one on her shoulder (possible from someone kneeling as they tied the garrote knot- it was at the back of her neck) and there were a few small bruises in her vagina and a small bruise on her labia. Described as areas of purple discoloration, they are different from the "abrasions" that Smit said were from a stun gun.
It is true that someone looking at her wearing the panties, even still- even lying down- would notice their huge size. After all, the coroner and LE present at the autopsy noticed that very thing.
But looking at the BODY in situ would reveal no such thing. The panties could not be seen through the longjohns and their fit was not apparent.

The Rs tried to stay within the limits of keeping her dressed the way she had been when they last claimed to have seen her- when they put her to bed.

And that was a big mistake.

They emphasized the "kidnapping" aspect by writing the note, but needed to add the garrote because there was no visible injury from the head bash, which I believe came first as a reaction to her scream. Immediately collapsing, she may even have appeared dead, or they assumed she would die imminently. How to explain that?

I don't see the need for the garrote to balance the absence of visible head injury. Especially if she already appeared dead, or they assumed she'd die imminently. They knew the head injury would be discovered sooner or later. There is no need to "explain" the death is some visible obvious way.

But looking at the BODY in situ would reveal no such thing. The panties could not be seen through the longjohns and their fit was not apparent.

Right. So the panties didn't really hide anything. If the objective was for the re-dresser to hide injuries prior to the "discovery" of the body, the long johns served the purpose. If someone had pulled down the long johns the panties -being too big- would probably have come down with the long johns. Eve if the panties somehow stayed up they'd be obviously too big prompting the question -WTF? So the panties didn't really provide a secondary level of hiding. Possibly they were meant to be discovered later and lead investigators astray? Or, they may have been used as part of "undoing" as Cynic suggests, but they serve no purpose in hiding the injuries, being under the long johns.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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

According to who, are any size 6 panties allegedly missing? I haven't come across that info. Do we even know that a size 6 Wednesday panty is missing? It doesn't appear a catalog of the panties retrieved by LE has been made public.

I think we also need to keep in mind that any information given by police during interviews can be given deliberately false as an interrogation tactic.

However, I think we can assume JBR was wearing size 6 panties on Wednesday. Whether she was wearing any Bloomie's I'm not so sure.

The thing that makes this case so baffling is that some of the evidence left behind is illogical for someone trying to hide their guilt, whether intruder or Ramsey. I am left considering some of it as due to either weird psychological quirks or illogical reasoning of the killer.

For example, the size 12 may have been applied by an intruder because he wanted to take her original panties with him but didn't want anyone to know they were missing, and unwittingly used wrong size (he could have found them with JBR's help or from previously casing house).

But if I had to give a percentage, I'd say the size 12 points more toward a Ramsey: they would know where to find it, they might have more psychological motivation to cover her back up.

But see that also makes it illogical for the Ramsey's to put them on if they're trying to hide guilt.

It is troubling that PR was of little help in clearing this up. Her memory is horrible, almost too weak. First thing she should have done at the time, and should have been suggested to her, was try to remember the day's events and write them down in as much detail as possible. She knows almost nothing but generalities about these events. In interviews, she seemed intent on giving the impression that JBR would choose to wear the size 12 on her own but it all sounded sketchy. Why do that, when the size 12s could be explained as the intruder doing it? On the other hand, maybe she's just being honest.

Such a crazy case.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

There is one thing the size 12 panties issue does tell us beyond who put them on her. Since LE did not find or retrieve the size 12 package, this means, assuming RDI, that the Ramseys cold have hidden incriminating evidence somewhere without LE finding it, like the duct tape and cord and paint brush piece. The fact that those weren't found does not exonerate the Ramseys.

 

[DeeDee249]

There is one thing the size 12 panties issue does tell us beyond who put them on her. Since LE did not find or retrieve the size 12 package, this means, assuming RDI, that the Ramseys cold have hidden incriminating evidence somewhere without LE finding it, like the duct tape and cord and paint brush piece. The fact that those weren't found does not exonerate the Ramseys.

Right about this. The Rs did return (via their lawyer) the remaining 6 pairs of the size 12 panties, still in the original package. We have no way of knowing whether these really were the rest of the set from which the Wednesday panties came or if they had been bought at a later time. Proper investigation could determine of they were consistent with panties sold in Bloomindale's in 1996, but I doubt this was done.
I tend to think they were the same pack. I think Patsy lied when she said she put them in a drawer (or they wouldn't have been sent on years later still in the pack). I think the pack was either hidden by the Rs that night (possibly in that golf bag that JR was so anxious to have Patsy's sister get out of the house. It was right outside the wineceller door. I doubt police looked in there.
I really don't see what would be gained by their buying another set and sending them along. It was 5 years later- the Rs were no longer being asked about them and Patsy knew she'd never be put on a witness stand and questioned about them. She'd already admitted buying them anyway.