Was Burke Involved? # 4

[Tortoise]

When you compare that nightgown to the panties and long johns, reminds me of that John statement again...


That's not supposed to be there.

It probably got there by chance. Pull the blanket out of the dryer and they didn't realize her nightgown was with it. He was genuinely surprised by it and it caused that reaction.

There is a puzzle to be worked out here. I'm not sure anything came out of the dryer, I think I've read recently that the Barbie nightie and the blanket had blood on them.

It gets so difficult to keep tabs on everything I've read because of the number of threads. I mean it deserves this number of threads or we wouldn't have any order at all, but it's still difficult to remember where I've read something and if it's information backed up by sources. I probably shouldn't have even posted it in the "Was Burke Involved" thread either, but it kind of follows on from the link and photos posted above. So I'll continue with my thoughts for the moment.

When you say John was genuinely surprised by it, I have to wonder about that. He doesn't say much, IMO, that he can be caught out by, in other words I think he is a manipulator through and through. I don't take his surprise as genuine, because I think everything was put where it was for a reason. And I believe he put JonBenet in the wine cellar. Admittedly it may have been by torchlight, but part of me wants to say he wasn't surprised, he wanted it to be seen as he was surprised - it had to be the intruder that did everything of course.

The nightie also looks to me to be too small in the sleeve and for a younger age, for it to be one that JonBenet might have still been wearing. But then again I might have just forgotten how small 6 year olds are, and the longjohns also look to me to be very short in the leg, and we know she was wearing them. But they still could have been too short for her I suppose. Someone mentioned clothes grabbed from a charity donation pile/bag and that is an idea. John did mention a bag of clothes ready for charity donation, in one of the pictures taken by the hall near the internal garage door. I thought that was a strange comment from him, because I would have assumed John would have had nothing to do with sorting out the children's outgrown clothes and charity donations, and that would be more Patsy's department. But Patsy was clueless, as usual, when she was asked about the bag. She just wanted to be uncooperative IMO, and distance herself from everything that could be linked to the crime.

I've also heard the bag in the hall contained children's ski wear that belonged to some friends, and so it's hard to work out, with all the conflicting information.

My gut feeling is that the events of that night, after the pineapple, happened in JonBenet's bedroom. If the Barbie nightie wasn't from the charity bag, I feel it was from the bedroom and was moved to the basement because it had blood on it. They didn't want the crime to have occurred in the bedroom, it all had to be moved to the basement, where they decided to stage the crime scene, to divert eyes from the bedroom.

The final strangulation occurred outside the wine cellar because of the urine on the carpet, but I think this was a crime scene that was transferred from elsewhere. I am liable to change my mind :dunno:

 

[Tortoise]

The barbie nightgown..... That was the nightgown that went to the life size barbie, correct? I understand it was not JBR's nightgown but something she liked to sleep with because it was silky soft? And rumor has it, that this nightgown was clinging to the blanket when taken out of the dryer? Hence the "That's not supposed to be there?" Is that was JR was referring to?

I wondered about it belonging to the big Barbie doll, but then would it have a picture of Barbie on the front if it was?

Barbie doll clothes don't usually have her own picture on do they? I don't know, just thinking aloud.

 

[Charliegirl610]

I wondered about it belonging to the big Barbie doll, but then would it have a picture of Barbie on the front if it was?

Barbie doll clothes don't usually have her own picture on do they? I don't know, just thinking aloud.

Yes, in my obsessive search on this case, I have found other "My size barbie nightgowns" that have barbie on them but not this identical one.

 

[flourish]

Yes, Barbie is quite narcissistic, and most of her items have her name on them and many her likeness as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using Tapatalk

 

[Bemsmom]

This case is so full of contradictions!

I lean heavily towards BDI. I have questions though, as I am sure, everyone else does. I can see B or even JB undressing the pink pj pants and wiping her down, not with then intent to get rid of DNA but to clear up obvious trauma. IMO SHE could have been very much alive for that portion, pre head smack. If this all occurs down in the basement, they need something to change her into. Thus the clothing for donation and the long john bottoms. But where does the too big underwear come in? Were they in the donation bag because they were bought in error? I thought I read they were in the basement because she was going to give them to cousin Jenny, or whoever. Were the easily accessible and/or easily viewable so the kids saw them? Those pictures tell a totally different story than what I assumed had happened - those clothes are not staging clothes since she clearly urinated in them. It really makes me think that the parents came in on the very end of it, IE she was gone.

I am absolutely speculating, but Patsy's sweater fibers may be in/on that ligature because she was trying to get it off, perhaps John stopped her saying "its too late". John moves her to the cellar and they cover her with her blanket (the barbie nightgown is with it).

As much as I think they are Hinkey, I can't imagine seeing your child suffering from a head blow, and rather than calling 911, you strangle her and finish the job. I just don't see it. If she was still alive they could have lawyered up and pushed the "accident" scenario. You're willing to write a ransom note and lie your *advertiser censored* off for one child, but you will strangle the other. Nope. I realize that there are parents that do murder their children, but if they had done it, they would have been "smarter" and removed the body. Just MO.

 

[TeaTime]

"That's not supposed to be there". Well, JR, her body and her blanket weren't supposed to be there either. Why do the Ramseys always focus on the least important 'clue' in every photo? Diversion.

They make me sick.

 

[questfortrue]

The barbie nightgown..... That was the nightgown that went to the life size barbie, correct? I understand it was not JBR's nightgown but something she liked to sleep with because it was silky soft? And rumor has it, that this nightgown was clinging to the blanket when taken out of the dryer? Hence the "That's not supposed to be there?" Is that was JR was referring to?

Not focusing solely on your post, Charliegirl, but simply because you asked, I wanted to add this respectful caution about some photos seen on the forum. First - can someone please tell me in what program these photos of the nightgown, urine stained leggings and panties were presented? I have some reservations about all of them. The BPD would not release photos of these to the public, and it may be they are all re-creations for a TV audience. I’m not totally discounting them, but unless photos are from some other reliable source besides TV, I’d suggest caution in using them to enhance theories.

When a photo says “Crime Scene Photo Not for Publication”, its origination is from Smit. Smit’s photos are not reliable in that he circled items to prove his imaginary intruder. The BPD photo which shows suspicion about something on the carpet is one in which there’s a square of carpeting removed by technicians for testing.

As far as JR expressing surprise about the nightgown, he did that a lot in reference to various items in the home and at the crime scene. It was his style in order to show 'innocence' or 'naivete'. He almost got away with claiming he didn't know that JB wet the bed, but housekeeper LW busted him on that, and he later revised his story that it 'was no big deal.'

IIRC, there was a drop of blood on the nightgown (info from the Bonita papers) as well as tDNA (info from Kolar’s book). It did not come straight from the dryer, clinging to the blanket, but was likely placed in the wc by one of them. PR finally admitted that it was JB’s favorite Barbie nightgown after Nedra and PR’s sister told investigators about it being a favorite.

There were at least 2 stagers, and it may be considered that PR visited the basement after JR had gone to bed and revised the crime scene, cutting the wrist ties which may have been attached to the neck ligature, thereby loosening them. If she did revisit and revise the scene, she may have been experiencing some intense emotions which caused her to change the RN to Mr. Ramsey instead of Mr. and Mrs. R which was the original beginning of the RN. Anyway, just speculation on that.

 

[No it's not]

the Barbie nightgown screenshot

Hmm, I had this photograph filed as JB's Barbie nightgown..:

-Nin

 

[CoreyRocks]

Did anyone notice that in some of the photos of JB, B & PR that B had makeup on, as well as JB? I thought that was rather strange for a boy.

Yes i noticed foundation and lipstick. Creepy. Moo.

 

[Tortoise]

Hmm, I had this photograph filed as JB's Barbie nightgown..:

-Nin

Hi Nin, yes I've seen that one before. I read when I first started researching this case that it was not the actual one, it's a reconstruction, I think that was deduced from the white sheet it is laying on not being the same as the white blanket seen in the wine cellar pictures.

These latest photos are genuine IMO. They have identical red tags on them, they have the measuring scale at the side and evidence bags/stickers, they have samples cut out of them for forensic testing, and the underwear descriptions match those given in the autopsy report. I realise we are all responsible for making up our own minds on this, given that we don't yet know how they were released.

 

[No it's not]

Hi Nin, yes I've seen that one before. I read when I first started researching this case that it was not the actual one, it's a reconstruction, I think that was deduced from the white sheet it is laying on not being the same as the white blanket seen in the wine cellar pictures.

These latest photos are genuine IMO. They have identical red tags on them, they have the measuring scale at the side and evidence bags/stickers, they have samples cut out of them for forensic testing, and the underwear descriptions match those given in the autopsy report. I realise we are all responsible for making up our own minds on this, given that we don't yet know how they were released.

Thank you for the info, Tortoise. I'll file accordingly. Here is one more pic (screenshot) from the A&E documentary showing a photograph of the underwear:

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Nin, if I remember correctly that photo came from eBay. Someone was looking for Barbie nightgowns that would have been available by Christmas 96 and found that photo. I don't think that's officially JB's.

Questfortrue, the new photos came from the News9 video on the DNA story. I appreciate your skepticism but they do look legitimate to me. Or News9 put a lot of work into this oddly specific recreation of her clothing (old boy's long johns with a massive urine stain?) just to flash it on the screen for a few seconds. But I do wonder how they got these pictures if they are indeed genuine.

 

[questfortrue]

Nin, if I remember correctly that photo came from eBay. Someone was looking for Barbie nightgowns that would have been available by Christmas 96 and found that photo. I don't think that's officially JB's.

Questfortrue, the new photos came from the News9 video on the DNA story. I appreciate your skepticism but they do look legitimate to me. Or News9 put a lot of work into this oddly specific recreation of her clothing (old boy's long johns with a massive urine stain?) just to flash it on the screen for a few seconds. But I do wonder how they got these pictures if they are indeed genuine.

Yes the nightgown NIN posted was one found on ebay, which matched one in an old Globe article. OK, now that I see the photo of the panties with the screen of The Killing of JonBenet: The Truth Uncovered I understand. I recognize I may be alone in this, but David Mills and his associates went to considerable trouble to enhance their Intruder story. It was created over months, as they gathered forensic folks in England and back east to give their story credibility. (Some of the footage was constructed from clips back in the 90s and appeared originally in the JonBenet America movie they created and released right before the GJ.) If a reporter at 9news used that footage from the new David Mills production, then it is a re-creation. If 9news received it from somewhere else, I will not have so much skepticism about it. One last thought, the description by Patsy was of a large Barbie face on the nightgown. That description does not match that nightgown. All JMHO.

 

[PositiveLight]

This makes me wonder if those within the BPD aren't helping get this story out. Considering probably no one will be tried for murder in this case (unfortunately) someone is leaking out info and evidence. I feel the new pictures are legit. We've been wanting more evidence to be shown and maybe we are finally getting it. Honestly I think I a lot of the experts and investigators are sick of the lies and lawsuits. They want the truth out and are willing to work together to see it happen. Maybe now the powers that be will be forced to investigate and retest every single crumb of evidence. Until I saw these long johns, the way they were described were like regular long johns. Which are snug. These aren't regular long johns. At all.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[PositiveLight]

Some even described them as tights and leggings. Those thoughts made it hard to imagine her being redressed. But big panties and loose short long johns would be easily done.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Cranberry]

regarding long johns from JR 6/98 interview

21 MIKE KANE: Okay. When you saw
22 JonBenet in longjohns that morning, what did you
23 think? It wasn't her pajamas.
24 JOHN RAMSEY: On the morning I
25 found her?
0691
1 MIKE KANE: Yes. (INAUDIBLE.)
2 JOHN RAMSEY: I remember she had
3 the top on, she had worn to bed, that she had
4 worn when I laid her down. Her lower body was
5 clothed, but I don't remember, seems like it was
6 a white pull-up.
7 MIKE KANE: Like longjohn type?
8 JOHN RAMSEY: Like longjohns,
9 right.
10 MIKE KANE: Not pajamas?
11 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
12 MIKE KANE: Think about that.
13 JOHN RAMSEY: No, they were like
14 white tights or something. As I remember. And
15 she looked normally dressed. She looked --
16 MIKE KANE: Was she -- you know
17 what longjohns are?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.
19 MIKE KANE: What are under --
20 (INAUDIBLE)?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, they might
22 have been, I am sure, you know, I mean you have
23 them, but I mean my memory of it is they were
24 white, she had it looked like she had underwear
25 on under those. She looked normal in that
0692
1 respect. I didn't see any -- clothes weren't
2 askew.
3 MIKE KANE: Without dragging out
4 photographs or anything like that, but would she
5 normally have, when Patsy put her pajamas on put
6 a pair of long underwear on her?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: She might have. I
8 mean, it was, you know, it was winter. Usually
9 when she conks out like that, before she gets to
10 bed, we get her comfortable, but we don't get
11 her nightgown on her all the time. So like
12 Patsy obviously left that shirt on. I don't
13 remember if she had those tights on or the
14 longjohns on under her black pants. Patsy just
15 took the black pants off and put her bed or she
16 pulled those on, but...
17 MIKE KANE: What I am getting at,
18 the person that did this had put her in those.
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh.
20 MIKE KANE: I mean would those be
21 unusual for her to be wearing --
22 JOHN RAMSEY: No, they wouldn't.
23 MIKE KANE: -- longjohns?
24 JOHN RAMSEY: It's with the feet?
25 MIKE KANE: I am not talking pajama
0693
1 bottoms, I am talking about longjohns that are
2 just, you know, like the proverbial flap on
3 back. I am not saying they had it, they had a
4 flap, but those kind of --
5 JOHN RAMSEY: It wouldn't be, no,
6 it would be unusual for her to have those on.
7 Leggings, kind of just a regular nightgown. She
8 didn't always wear a nightgown to bed. If she
9 was awake when she went to bed, she got into a
10 nightgown and brushed her teeth, got into bed.
11 But if she was asleep, we usually just tried to
12 make her comfortable, make sure she was warm.
13 Didn't go into the trouble of getting her into a
14 nightgown, necessarily. Sometimes she had a tee
15 shirt on.
16 MIKE KANE: Pajama bottom?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Pajama bottoms,
18 maybe, yes.

 

[Cranberry]

and wear the long johns the next morning for the Michigan trip (?!):

JR to DP- "We weren't going to wake the kids up until we were absolutely ready to go because
they could stay in their pajamas and jump in the car."

 

[PositiveLight]

I think we should refer to them as short johns ! They sure ain't long! Didn't she atleast have some girly long johns? I'm still shocked those are the long johns that have been referred to all these years. Definitely not what I had in mind.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

Some girls get a kick out of wearing their big brother's hand-me-downs. I know I sure did. J/S.

 

[dogperson]

After seeing the photos of the long johns and panties, I'm in agreement with those of you who now think there was no redressing after the murder. Somebody might have pulled the clothes down and wiped her down (leaving the light brown cloth fibers) and then pulled the clothing back up.

I don't really find it odd that PR might have put her in a pair of BRs old, cast-off long johns to sleep in. Considering how frequently she wet the bed, why put her best pajamas or newer leggings on her? Plus, as someone mentioned, PR might have considered the long johns more absorbent. They do look kind of quilted and also would have been warmer to sleep in than thin pajama pants.

A former housekeeper stated that JBR wore a lot of BRs hand-me-downs and I don't find that surprising or necessarily an indication that the parents didn't care what she wore. For one thing, although I've never been wealthy, in my work and in my church and community I'm in quite close contact with several wealthy families and they are extremely thrifty. I'm not saying ALL wealthy people are this way, but those I am frequently in contact with don't believe in wasting anything. I can easily picture them putting a son's outgrown clothing on a younger daughter, especially to sleep in or to use as play clothes when staying home.

Maybe a size-6 pair of Wednesday panties and a pair of pajama bottoms aren't even missing. Maybe PR was in the habit of throwing just any old thing on JBR to sleep in but didn't want to admit that to LE. It wouldn't fit the "beauty queen" image if PR was dressing her so shabbily, so she claimed to have dressed her in something other than these awful looking long johns. But the bed-wetting issue may have been so out of hand that PR simply didn't care what JBR wore to bed because it was going to get soiled anyway. Messy as the house appeared to be, maybe she didn't keep up with the laundry and grabbed the size-12 panties from someplace, thinking it wouldn't matter if they were too big since the long johns would hold them on.

I have wondered at times whether BR had kept the package of size-12 panties to wear for himself but if he did, I'm thinking his parents weren't aware of it. JR doesn't strike me as the type of guy to put up with that and it wouldn't fit the image PR wanted for her family. I just can't picture her buying them for BR or giving them to him.

The more we see of this case and the more we find out the weirder it gets, and the more dysfunctional the family seems, but all of it seems to point right back at them and nowhere else.